AATHP's Con Message

[Jeff Tucker <R3JMT%AKRONVM@vm1.cc.UAKRON.EDU>]

>   IED wanted to know if I had received an answer to the question of
>whether or not AATHP "borrowed" Kate's message to Dale Sommerville's
>_Bush-Con_ '84.
> I replied that I had not, in a manner best described as careful and
>diplomatic.

  A friend of ours on Love-Hounds notified us of this inquiry recently
and we thought we'd comment to keep this from becoming something
personal between Richard Caldwell and Chris Williams. Sorry it has
taken so long (apparently Chris' question has been long standing), we
just failed to notice the imbroglio until recently.

>(stuff deleted) I would have liked some sort of answer.

  Not to sound snide, but both our E-mail address and our post
office box have been generally available for some time. Couldn't
Chris have contacted us directly to insure we knew about his question?
(I am a little too busy to thoroughly read every digest that comes
my way, and even though some AATHP'ers catch the occasional
digest our coverage is not comprehensive- we miss stuff sometimes).

> I posted the _Bush-Con_ transcription because the parts quoted
>from this convention's message seemed to have a similarity. In fact, the
>one phrase quoted appeared _verbatim_ in the _Bush-Con_ message.

   Actually, the two word phrase was transposed in our message,
so it wasn't quite "verbatim". But we understand how this mistake
could easily have been made.

>  The issue will be closed when the entire document is produced. If
>you can remember any more of the message it will help, but nowhere
>in your post do you offer.

   Perhaps the entire message will be reproduced sometime when
Little Light goes to press with its first issue after the con.

> But in the interest of fairness
>it should be pointed out that these people seem to want to set themselves
>up as a unified voice of "American Kate Bush Fandom".

   We apologize for seeming to want to do that. For the record, we
don't.

>I think it is reasonable to ask why we have never heard of most of the
>fans involved in this project.

   Chris has never heard of Jackie Bain, who used to do Blowaway? Or
T. R. Somerville? (This last is bizzare because he's certainly
heard of Dale :-)) Or is the allegation that because we haven't had
name recognition in the past, we don't deserve a voice now? In
that case, is it only the members of the skull & bones, old boy
network that are allowed to say anything? Which begs the question,
shall any previously unheard from fans be forbidden from writing
anything? Perhaps the reason Chris hasn't heard of many of
us has to do with our previous silence.

> Peter had not heard of this fanzine before the PMRC incident
>and was unfamiliar with the people involved.

   Our founder (somebody known as Bill) actually went to the trouble
of attempting to contact Homeground several times before finally
launching Little Light.

> LL/AATHP
>haven't yet produced anything up to the usual Love-Hounds standards,
>writing analysis of Kate's work, finding out interesting info, etc.

  We find this comment odd, as it's clear to us that Chris has never
read a Little Light, just heard about it from other Love-Hounds.

> I'd
>have no problem if someone who I respect were trying to organize this sort
>of movement, but the actions of LL/AATHP have not done anything to gain
>_my_ respect.

   We find this fact comforting, but might suggest that if Chris has
no respect for us he just ignore us. Perhaps Love-Hounders are secure
in the system they have, and would find Little Light heavily redundant.
If this is the case, we have no reason to require them to subscribe
or participate in any way. But we will continue to operate until
our subscribers and participants have no further use for us.

> These people have yet to offer anything worthwhile
>that I see.

   Again, perhaps he doesn't see anything worthwhile.
It is clear that others do. We don't have a problem with this.
Perhaps Chris Williams' position is such that he can't see anything
worthwhile (and since he hasn't looked....), but so what?

>  If
>a freshman who had just discovered rec.music.gaffa announced his intention
>to organize the entire Kate-speaking world under his banner, Richard, you
>would be the first to reach for your flamethrower.

   Though having several students on the LL staff, none are freshmen :-).
Perhaps the reason Richard hasn't reached for the flamethrower has
to do with the fact that Richard has had contact with us, and even
subscribes to Little Light, and knows what he's talking about.

> The Sony/CBS connection is of no importance at all. None.

   It has been suggested that this is unimportant to Chris Williams
because of his past experience with Kate's record companies. But to the
subject at hand, it _is_ important, because it was Sony's suggestion
to have a message from Kate to save any embarrassment that may have
been caused by the other messages to the convention from others
associated with Kate.

>   My spine still hurts from bending over backwards to avoid offending
>these people.

   Thanks. We remain wholly unoffended.

> For you to read pettiness and vindictiveness into my simple
>response to a question makes you seem fairly paranoid. You seem to have
>mastered Jon Drukman's hostility, without the saving grace of his wit
>and sarcastic humor.

   Since Richard has gone to bat for us.... It seems more than a bit
petty and vindictive for Chris Williams to call Richard petty and
vindictive just because Richard said something seemed petty and
vindictive. Isn't all this name calling something that Chris
objected to in Little Light? Then why is he such a venemous
participant now? Richard Caldwell deserves better.

> Dale wasn't running
>Bush-Con to make a profit. AATHP was.

   AATHP made $16.56 on the convention and donated it to Amnesty
International, which is as you all know a KaTe approved charity.
Scott's company, who sponsored the convention, has gone out
of business. He might have lost his shirt after all.

>    I can see how folks may think that there is some bad blood here because
>of the Tipper Gore "incident". Nonsense. I don't get angry simply because
>somebody either doesn't get one of my jokes or doesn't think it's funny.

   There's no bad blood here, either, at least between Chris and us.

>I _do_ think that they set themselves up as objects of ridicule by
>responding to a fairly obvious piece of parody/satire by _writing_ to
>the organization being parodied complaining _before_ writing to the place
>where the parody appeared!

   Yes, we wrote what we wrote with full knowlege that some people
might ridicule us (as we have stated to Ed Suranyi and others before).
However, the assumption that we didn't contact Homeground before
going to press with "Homegroundless" is incorrect. As previously
stated, Bill wrote Homeground on several occasions; and when Jeff
Medkeff was asked to edit the newsletter, he wrote to Homeground
twice regarding their Sinful Music article. These letters went
unanswered, so he went to press with the article. Jeff has even
made efforts to contact Homeground through mutual friends (Kevin
Hendryx of Austin, Texas and Lone Star Lionhearts). To date, AATHP
has still not had contact with Homeground.

> And to react to the
>gentle reproof given in _HomeGround_ in the manner that could best be
>described as childish(sic) is, in a word, stupid.

   Would Chris please write a letter to the editor about this? After
all, one of the proper forums _would_ be Little Light.

> Come on, would anyone but a
>rabid Kate Fan have made all of those in-jokes? These folks must be _loads_
>of fun around the first of April!

   Jeff Medkeff admits to being unfamiliar with the personalities
involved in the joke, and supposes that had his inquiries been
answered the reaction in Little Light eight months ago would have
been far less strong, or nonexistent. In the latest Little
Light, the interim editor (Jeff had taken the issue off and was
replaced by Bill) was seemingly annoyed by certain things
Homeground had written concerning the Little Light reaction. Most
of what occurred seems to have been caused by a lack of communicaton.
   For April Fools Day, we made a staff member's room go away. He
was away for a few days, so we put up dry wall in the doorway, removed
the light fixture from in front of the door, and painted the door
frame. When he returned, he walked all the way to the end of the hall
before realizing the disappearance.

>    I am still unclear if the message was transcribed from a phone
>conversation or if a letter appeared from Kate herself.

   All the messages to the convention, except the ones from other
fan clubs, were transcribed from phone conversations with representatives
within the artists' managements or licensing or record companies.
We have never made any other claims, and it seems that a bit too
much apocryphal information has been attributed to the issue.
If there are further questions, we'd be happy to answer, but
please ask _us_ so we know you are asking :-).

>   Come on, they sent her international Registered Letters! We owe the
>telephone company a lot of money, and _they_ haven't sent us any of those
>yet.

    We sent one (1) registered letter to Novercia Inc concerning
copyright matters. This letter was not received, as the return
reciept has never made it back to us. The copyright matters
were, in the end, resolved by Sony.
    Which phone company would be sending Chris & Vickie international
registered letters? I thought Chicago was served by domestic
companies like AT&T and MCI.
    Hope to hear from you soon.

                                        Jeff Tucker
                                        AATHP