Twitting twits

[gatech!chinet.chi.il.us!katefans@eddie (Chris n Vickie)]

Chris here,

I posted in response to a ill-thought-out flame of Jorn:
>> All Love-Hounds can be said to have a personal relationship
>> with Kate at least as valid as those who claim to have a "personal
>> relationship" with the Lord. I've met Kate in person, shaken her hand
>> and have been close enough to smell her perfume (nice) which is a _little_
>> more than most Christians claim. ;-)
                                   ^^^ <---smiley for the humor-impaired...
       oops, sorry - not Politicaly Correct...I meant "Risiblity Challenged"

And said flamer (Robert McMillin) replied:
> Oh, for God's sake!  (And I don't mean Kate, either!)  Kate Bush is an
> excellent musician, and she's no slacker as a lyricist -- in fact, I
> rather prefer her literary talents.  But a "personal relationship"?
> Nonsense. So you've met her once. I extend my congratulations to you.
> In my book, meeting someone once makes them an acquaintance, not a friend.
> Adulation of this order is just another strain of that old virus,
> infatuation.

   To avoid appearing ostentatious, I avoid mentioning the following more
than once every few months....in addition to meeting Kate at JFK airport
in 1984, I made a video (with help from friends) to "The Infant Kiss" and
sent it to her. She liked it so much that she called me, and we talked for
a bit about the video, video editing etc. So, I have a _little_ more than
a chance encounter to base my opinion of her on. But what I was really
trying to (sardonically) say was, if I viewed her as a goddess (which I
don't), I'd have a bit more "proof" for the basis of my belief than those
well-accepted loonies ( :-) dammit! ) who insist that a guy who's been
dead for 2000 years has a daily influence on their lives, and that they
consult him on every decision. 

>> I would like to hear some other theories about Kate's musical development,
>> not just the "automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person 
>> makes." (MP).

> If you're referring to my earlier post, perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
> I am not commenting on Jorn's analysis; that mostly makes sense.  What
> I object to is the silly, hero-worshipful tone of the piece.

  Boy, will _you_ have a miserable time _here_! Ed is on vacation, and 
IED has spotty net access. Just wait, and I'm sure that you see _real_
hero(ine) worship. I can't speak for Jorn, but he structured the piece
along the lines of an critical essay with it's attendent formalities
for an added, slighty tounge-in-cheek quality.

  My point is, what is wrong with heros? And do you have anything
constructive to add? 

Sounds like you better get those grapes mashed before thay sour any further.

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

P.S. It is possible to be an adoring fan of someone that you know very
 well, and talk to on an almost daily basis. Just ask Vickie about Ha**y
 Rh**es.