Re: To Jenn, Jon, and Richard, from Vickie

[nrc@cbema.att.com (Neal R Caldwell, Ii)]

In article <9106071715.AA14997@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu>, barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.EDU (Jorn Barger) writes:
> 
> Vickie here:
> I understand your problem with Happy taking up so much space in gaffa.  If
> I weren't familiar with an artist, I'd probably be upset, too, if they were
> taking up so much space in a Kate Bush forum.  However, Happy is truly,
> truly special.  In our lifetimes, she's the closest we'll ever come to
> having an American "Kate Bush".

This is a quite a statement considering that we are equipped with neither
clairvoyance nor omniscience.  I would suggest that an adverb is in order
here.  

> The fact that she's a Kate Bush fan herself makes it even more appropriate
> that she be talked about here, by other Kate Bush fans.  I will make this
> offer for you three only: email to Jorn your home addresses, and I will
> send you free of charge a sampling of Happy's music, so you can at least
> get a feeling for what we're talking about.
 
This is a kind offer but, unfortunately, it misses the point.  First 
of all, none of my complaints really has anything to do with whether I 
like the artist in question.  I would feel the same way if posts about 
one of my favorite artists were disrupting the group.  Second, it's now 
obvious that those of us who spoke up first were by no means the only 
ones who felt this way so making special offers to those who spoke first 
seems hardly fair.

I appreciate the offer but you would do better for Happy and everyone
here in Columbus to send a copy of the CD to Kelly Gates at:

WWCD (101.1 FM)
1721 S. High St.
Columbus, OH 43207

> If after you've heard Happy's music, you still feel the same way, then so
> be it.  Happy is very very special to me, and seeing a Happy "backlash"
> hurts as much as it would to see an anti-Kate backlash.  So it's important
> to me that you at least hear what she sounds like before this goes any
> further.

You misunderstand.  This "backlash" is in no way directed at Happy.
This is simply a group of people expressing their views about what is
and is not appropriate material for this group.  Yes, some discussion
of other artists is welcome here.  But this is not rec.music.misc and
as long as it isn't there will always be things that are and are not
appropriate to this group.  As long as that line exists _everyone_ has
a right to express there opinion on where that line lies in terms of
both subject matter and volume.

I still think the key to this whole issue is _discussion_.  I never
had any objection to the discussion of Happy's music on this group
when it wasn't being disruptive.   Unfortunately, discussion was for
the most part replaced by a flood of "I got Happy," "Send Happy to 
this station," "This station now has Happy," "Happy lyrics," "Happy
interviews" and four month old Happy reposts.  Folks, none of that
qualifies as discussion and the connection to Kate at that point
becomes incredibly tenuous.

I'll repeat this once more since many of you choose to ignore it and
pretend that I'm trying to "run Happy out of the newsgroup".  I don't
mind a _reasonable_ amount of Happy _discussion_.  Discussion is
appropriate.  Endless streams of data of interest only to those who are
already Happy Rhodes fans or are bent on become one belong in a mailing
list.


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com