Re: Rules of evidence (longer, no less rabid)

[Jorn Barger <barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu>]

In article <9010011450.AA02710@gaffa.MIT.EDU> Jon Drukman
<jsd@gaffa.MIT.EDU> writes:

> [Barger writes:]
> >The point here is that it's disrespectful to KT to make claims one way or
> >the other without having evidence to back them up.  I wouldn't try to claim
> >she's "into him seriously" [...]
> 
> gee, I think the quote that Richard provided was pretty close to
> "evidence."  She says that her brothers are "into him seriously."
> This seems to exclude herself from serious being into-ness.

Get it straight!  Vickie offered no evidence for "not into".  NRC offered
strong evidence for "somewhat into".  I said: "I wouldn't claim she's "into
him seriously."  RTFP!!!

> ...  Richard's comments are eminently
> defensible given Kate's published remarks.

How do you get this?  The evidence for "somewhat into" is all over the
place.  The evidence for "not into" is purely conjectural!!! The digs about
superficial familiarity are insulting to Kate!

> >Vickie says "Kate is not into Gurdjieff" without any citations and you make
> >warm fuzzy jokes; I say she obviously is and cite several song-quotes, and
> >you back them up yourself with a newsletter quote, and then you accuse _me_
> >of making nebulous claims?  Gimme a break!!!
> 
> How can a newsletter quote be nebulous?  I would say that at least in
> the newsletter you have KATE speaking, whereas in her songs you have
> an undefined narrator speaking.

The emphasis on "me" is not in contrast to NRC's article, which is not
nebulous, but to Vickie's claim, which is _vaporous_.

> >...  Would you
> >really try to claim that "Strange Phenomena" is not a reflection of KT's
> >personal fascination with the 'occult'?
> 
> Yeah, I would in fact try to claim that.  Maybe her personal
> fascination with the occult (what a horribly loaded word) brought her
> to write that song but there's no reason to expect that everything in
> it happened to her.

I feel like I'm arguing with a poorly programmed automaton.  I never said
that.   RTFP.

> >>We Kate fans want so desperately to have some feeling of synergy with 
> >>Kate that we tend to grasp at even the slightest evidence that she might
> >>be 'into' some of the same things as we are.
> 
> >That "we" is pretty patronizing, I feel, considering you haven't the least
> >notion of what I'm into.
> 
> Oh, stop playing the injured party!  You know darn well that was a
> vague, editorial "we."

The editorial we it's not. ("We [here at the Times] throw our full support
behind Ken Livingstone...")  It's the moralizing hypocritical we, if you
ask me.
("Are we feeling better today, Mr Van Gogh?")

> Kate again:
> >>|       "A lot of people will think these songs are about me.
> >>|  I've always had that.
> 
> >>Come on folks, switch off the mechanicalness!
> >
> >Curiously, this is another Gurdjieff reference on KT's part: G's teachings
> >were full of descriptions of human behavior as mechanical-- that was the
> >reason you have to "Remember yourself"!!!
> 
> Except that Richard wrote the line about mechanicalness, not KT.  So
> maybe we should attempt to prove that Mr. Caldwell is actually into
> Gurdjieff?

Cute!  You deleted the line where she used the word!!!  Experiments show
that reading comprehension is greater working from paper than from the
screen.  Maybe you should insert a paper-phase into your read/flame cycle,
so as to avoid these embarrassing slip-ups.