Does it really have to be Happy vs. Kate?

[stevev@greylady.uoregon.edu (Steve VanDevender)]

Ultimately what I find so disturbing about a certain recent
thread of discussion is that at least a couple people, who claim
to represent many more, are showing a seemingly one-sided lack of
tolerance for fannish behavior.

It's OK for people to gush about Kate Bush.  It's OK for Ed
Suranyi to post about when he heard Kate Bush on the radio.  It's
OK for IED to assert that Kate Bush is the greatest musician of
the 20th century.  It's OK for Ron Hill to post long Kate Bush
interview transcripts.

But it's not OK for someone who discovers that they really like
Happy Rhodes to get a little overenthusiastic in their
recommendations.  It's not OK for Rhodes fans to talk about radio
stations that would play her music.  It's not OK for Happy Rhodes
discussions to briefly occupy, oh, maybe one-third to one-half of
the volume of Love-Hounds/rec.music.gaffa.  It's not OK for
Vickie to make what will probably be a one-time-only post of
Happy Rhodes lyrics and an interview.

So you may say that this is rec.music.gaffa and not
rec.music.happy, but I thought it was clear that the group
charter isn't exclusive.

I suspect that the people who have been overzealous in their
recommendations of Happy Rhodes will tone them down knowing that
some people are put off by arguments that bludgeon instead of
sway.

I will join Ron Hill in saying that I don't mind people
discussing other artists here, and would even encourage it,
although I can't represent the side of the population that has
no Happy Rhodes tapes.