Re: AATHP's Con Message

[gatech!chinet.chi.il.us!katefans@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Chris Williams)]

Chris here,

    Sorry for the fact that there is so much quoted in here, and at such
length, but as this was the only response from AATHP/LL I felt they should
be answered in full.

>>(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.

  Our e-mail access has been even spottier than yours, as we have to
borrow a friends computer to send and recieve. I never send _any_ surface
mail other than packages due to, 1, no printer and, 2, terrible handwriting.

>>  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.

  Thanks. I wish others in Ohio would be as understanding.

>>  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.

 Not to sound snide, but both our E-mail address and our street
address have been generally available for some time.

>> 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.

  Thank you.

>> 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 :-)) 

   I have of course know of Jackie and Robin, but never in connection
with AATHP. I have seen a couple of issues of _Still Breathing_ and
decided that I could live without a constant reminder of the death of
the best Kate fanzine ever. My opinions on the matter are a private
affair.

> 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.

  The only silence I am refering to is the notable lack of Kateological
activity. We have _nothing_ against anyone new, the more the merrier.
A good example of someone new earning respect by his works is Ron Hill.
We didn't really know him but invited him along to Kris and Peter's place.
His pictures are priceless. His work on the Garden and Cloudbusting projects
will be an invaluable asset to Kate fans for many years to come. This is
the sort of thing that I mean (not to put Ron on an uncomfortable pedestal.)

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

  He should have kept trying. Peter is one the person that I would always
check with before starting a new fanzine. Peter may have failed to respond
if the letters had _asked_ for anything. I'm sure that you can understand
how many requests he gets for copies of his videos (he once wrote to us:
"Video collection the size of a planet.....") and, unfortunatly, the easiest
route is to ignore such requests. If Peter were busy making copies for
everyone who asked, Homeground would never get published.

>> 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.

  Sorry for saying "never". What I should have said was "to my knowledge".
I still feel anything important would have been mentioned on the Net.
As mentioned above, we simply cannot afford to buy every Kate fanzine, nor
do we need them as sources of news as most news reaches us directly.
(Peter called Vickie with news of the convention directly.)

>> 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.

  Sorry again, but I cannot as long as I hear the distant sound of the PMRC
piece flapping. Your piece implied that I may be sued for it. I _cannot_
ignore that, much as I might wish to.

>> 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?

  See all of the above.

>>  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 fact that he subscribes is less important than his personality. By
the way I don't recall his being particuarly positive about it other than
to buttress his own opinions.

>> 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.

  It may have been one Sony reps suggestion, but I doubt it reflected
Sony policy. I stand by all of my statements. Note how much EMI was
involved in the London Convention. I'll loan you my magnifying glass.

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

>   Thanks. We remain wholly unoffended.

  You're welcome.

>> 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.

  I'll not trouble everyone with a logical breakdown of the above statement.

>>  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.

  Neither fact was mentioned by AATHP/LL in it's own posts about the con.
What were we to think?

>>    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.

  My lawyer will be quite relieved to hear _that_!

>> 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.

  Sorry, but your reactions remain, to all outside observers I have asked,
ridiculous. As they say "If you can't say any thing rational, try to say
it on the Net." I cannot speak for Peter, but from our conversations I
got the impression that his first awareness of the flap was the letter
from the PMRC.

>> 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.

  No. I am not a subscriber, nor, for the time being, do I plan to become
one. You are welcome to summarize this and other posts if you send me a
copy of the edited version for approval of my parts. I have said what I
have to say in the forum that I feel matters. This is, after all, where
it all started.

>> 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. 

  Knowledge of _my_ personality is absolutly unimportant as it was posted
anonymously. All it took to get the joke was a knowledge of Kate and a
compatible sense of humor. Not to presume overly much, but from what I
know of her sense of humor I think Kate would have found it a scream.

>   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.

  Then I am still baffled why such a bunch of campus cut-ups missed such
an obvious _joke_! I would have thought at least one of your merry band
would have gotten it, and explained it to the others.

>    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.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  Still sounds pretty apocryphal to me. As you know that I don't
trust record company reps as far as I can throw them (assuming that I
could pick something that slimy up without a spatula) all of this doubt
may be entirely _those things_ fault.
                            *
>>   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.

>    Which phone company would be sending Chris & Vickie international
> registered letters? I thought Chicago was served by domestic
> companies like AT&T and MCI.
  
  Note the capitalization.

>  Hope to hear from you soon.
 
  Likewise.

>                                        Jeff Tucker
>                                        AATHP


                                    Chris Williams of
                                        Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
                                            katefans@chinet.chi.il.us

P.S. Our smail address is: 1627 W. Farwell #2N
                           Chicago, Il. 60626