More AATHP/LL Flapping (long)

[nrc@cbema.att.com]

>  Message-ID: <m0jnare-0000ecC@chinet.chi.il.us>
 
> Chris here,
>   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.

Evidently "diplomatic" means something different to you than it does
to me.  You can layer your accusation with all the duplicitous laments 
you like and it won't make it diplomatic.

>  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.

Parts quoted?  What partssssss, Chris?  I have asked you this repeatedly
and I have yet to hear any answers.  You keep implying that there
are multiple similarities, yet you have failed to show that you have
one scrap of information about this message beyond my own casual remark.
That casual remark - complete with caveat that it was from memory -
contains the one, two word phrase that you seem to be building this
entire accusation on.  

> :> In the mean time, if anyone would care to post a copy of the Winnipeg
> :> message I can tell you whether it sounds at all similar to what 
> :> I remember from the Cleveland show.
> 
>   I did. You asked me to. Richard, the reason IED asked, and the reason
> that I responded is that you never responded to my posting of the
> transcription of Kate's message to the Winnipeg Bush-Con. If you had,
> IED would never have had to ask.

Yes, but I learned a lot between the time I made that offer and the
time you made your post.   My initial offer was made on the mind
bogglingly naive premise that this was purely a matter of curiousity on
your part and that any response would close the matter.  

Since then it has become obvious that nothing will satisfy you.  You 
have judged that the people of LL and AATHP are simply not worthy of 
having received such a message and nothing will convince you
otherwise.  You're even prepared to fall back on the position that 
it was done under "duress" should the message be proven authentic. 

>  And I haven't offered. 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". Why? I think it
> is only reasonable to wonder if they have any ulterior motive. 

And you were calling me paranoid?  Even if AATHP wanted to become a
national fan club what's the big deal?  Many fans could benefit from
a national fan club.  Perhaps you have forgotten that not all Kate
Bush fans have ready access to all the resources that we do.  Even
Andy recently lamented that the American Kate Bush community was so
widely splintered and suggested that more might be done by consolidating
into one organized entity.

> Love-Hounds is unique. Other than the Pseudo-Moderator, no one is in charge,
> creating a cross between anarchy and a meritocracy - anyone can say what
> they want, but to avoid being flamed it had better be worth saying. The
> only important criteria is the validity of the poster's idea. 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. 

What are you basing this statement on?  I have only one issue of
Little Light but it contains two items that seem to me to be up to 
the standards of Love-Hounds.  Their comparison between Bach, Beethoven,
Mozart and Bush is in depth and very interesting.  Aside from the
"Homeground" flames, their "Censorship Defined" article is a thorough
discussion of recent censorship issues.   Some people wouldn't like 
it but then it's based on a view of the issues that goes beyond sound
bites from MTV and CNN Headline News.

> These people have yet to offer anything worthwhile
> that I see. They haven't earned the defense you are offering them. 

You still don't understand my point.  I am not offering a defense for
them.  If you ever obtain some real proof of your charge that merits
a defense that will be up to AATHP.  I am saying that you don't 
have sufficient grounds to make the kind of accusation that you're 
making.  Considering that it was my remark that you based this 
charge on I'd say that I have a personal interest in the matter.  

> 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.

You would do better not to attempt to speak for others.  Any Kate fan 
in the world can try to form a Kate Bush fan club of any scope they 
please and I wish them luck.  Fan clubs are judged on their merit just 
like anything else.  If they don't have anything to offer they won't 
survive.  

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

Coming from a person who called _This Woman's Work_ "a Goddamn
rip-off" to one of Kate's close associates and lamented that Andy's
letter to EMI was ignored, this is more than a little amusing.  Various
Love-Hounds have been writing to record companies with suggestions
for a long time.  For the most part their efforts have gone unnoticed.
If a contact within the company can get a letter read by one more
person then it's worthwhile.

I've already said that I don't think this is an earth shaking 
development.  But even if this so called "connection" offers 
nothing more than a proper address to write to and a few freebies 
for those ambitious enough to set up Katemas parties it will surpass 
the value that you attribute to it.

> 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. 

You evidently have me mistaken for somebody else.  I have no sense of
humor.  

> > When you're done perhaps you would like to explain to us why you would
> > expect two messages delivered under such similar circumstances _not_
> > to be similar.  In the absence of any clear justification for your
> > accusations I can only conclude that they are the product of pure spite.
> 
>   The circumstances _were not_ similar. There are a number of important
> distinctions between Bush-Con '84 and AATHP's con. Dale wasn't running
> Bush-Con to make a profit. AATHP was. Dale lost his shirt. The attendees
> took up a collection to help with the losses. Dale spent _huge_ amounts
> of money promoting Kate, and had been sending the magazine to Dr. and Mrs.
> Bush. When Dale went to England before the convention he visited Kate's
> parent's house. Kate was there but when he asked to interview her she
> said no, as was her right. Given Kate's reluctance to talk to a man
> who had paid for full page ads in national Canadian publications, I don't
> see any reason to think that she would send a message to people that she
> hardly knew unless she were harassed into doing so. Kate only sent the
> message to Dale _after_ it was obvious that it was a labor of love, and
> not an attempt to make, and I quote AATHP "...a small profit". All of the
> events that Vickie and I have put on have raised money for charity, the
> expenses were less than $40. EMI (and, by her writing to us based on
> hearing about our video shows, Kate) approved our events because they
> were "not for profit".

I had to leave that whole quote.  I'm sure that anyone who has heard
the strange saga of the decline and fall of Dale Sommerville will find
your depiction of him as some kind of icon to be ironic, funny and more 
than a little bizarre.  I sincerely hope that you don't find too many
of Dale's personality traits to be as admirable as you seem to imply.

It seems strange that you would assume that a fan club that mentions 
making "a small profit" on a club function would intend that profit
to be anything other than a nest egg for future club events.  I don't
find anything particularly sinister about that.  Perhaps you feel that
a zero balance keeps one spiritually free of the odorous evil that is
"profit" but it is not the way to run an organization.

You claim that Dale's con was a labor of love and that he lost his 
shirt.  Others might say that it was a labor of obsession and that
Dale had plenty of shirts to change into.  Many Kate fans have incurred 
more financial hardship attending the various Kate Bush functions than 
Dale ever encountered through his efforts.  "Lost his shirt" doesn't  
seem to be a fair representation of the facts.

Your account of Dale's "visit" and Kate's "reluctance" is the most 
charitable account I've ever heard of this event.  It surpasses even 
Doug's truly diplomatic comment of long ago that Dale could be quite 
pushy and that Kate's family didn't appreciate this.  Strangely, you 
seem to feel that AATHP's alleged pushiness means that their convention 
message was obtained under "duress" while Dale seems to maintain his 
sainted status with you.

I fully grant that I remained woefully ignorant of Kate Bush during
this time and therefore my entire knowledge of this subject is based on
hearsay.   I would be interested to hear your reasoning here.  Why do
you feel a person for whom a "visit" with Kate seemed to be the start 
of a slide into the belief that Kate was the anti-christ deserves the 
place on the pedestal you've given him?  

It seems clear now what this is all about.  You don't consider the people 
at AATHP or LL to be worthy of the station that you feel they're aspiring 
to.  So you're using whatever opportunity presents itself to beat them 
down.  You have a right to discourage others from signing up for their 
effort if you like.  As I said, fan clubs survive on their own merit and 
you are welcome to try to convince others that they are lacking.  Sadly,
in this case you've chosen to attack them for something of which you have 
no proof and precious little reason for suspicion.  Then you stand back 
and pretend like the burden of disproving your accusation is on them.

If "petty and vindictive" was too strong then your attitude is at 
best utter nonsense.  If you really think you have a case against 
these people, why not go after some real evidence?  Write the parties
concerned and ask whether any such message was sent.  If you can 
produce real evidence of your accusation then I will join you in
flaming the people responsible and will spread word of their deceit
far and wide.  If you cannot produce real evidence of your accusation
then you should apologize.

For those who are still reading at this point and who are willing to
consider this matter with an open mind I present my opinion of "the
message".  I request that you not reproduce, repeat or report in any 
way any portion of the following paragraph without reproducing it in 
it's entirety.

For the record, there are clear similarities between the Winnipeg
message and the message read at the Cleveland Con.  They are much
alike in their subject and tone.  To me the likeness of the two events
- Chris's objections notwithstanding - makes this perfectly logical.
The wording itself does not seem to me to have been at all the same 
as the Winnipeg message.  I also seem to recall that the message 
contained references to her current status that would not have been
appropriate back in '83.  I am sure this is not just a simple copy
 of the Winnipeg message. 

I apologize to those with an honest curiousity about this message 
that I cannot offer further detail.  Missy and I went to the Cleveland
event and enjoyed a day of camaraderie with a group of 70 Kate fans
much like the ones you chat, laugh and occasionally even argue with 
in this forum every day.  They seem to be a bit more earnest in their 
attitude toward Kate Bush fandom than some you will find here but they 
are no less quick to laugh and have a good time. I doubt that you'll 
catch them chanting "Kate Bush is God" but they seemed to me just as 
sincere in their fandom.  

We enjoyed that day in much the same way that many of us will enjoy 
the upcoming Katemas festivities; enjoying the moment with no thought 
that we might be called on to defend it's legitimacy at some point 
in the future.  Imagine how you would feel if you posted a casual
account of the points of interest of an event and someone used your
words to attack your hosts because he felt they were a bit too 
ambitious.  


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          att!cbema!nrc
                                          nrc@cbema.att.com