Lots of stuff about Emotion and Cynicism

[The Man With The Vole In His Trousers <jondr@sco.COM>]

Vickie sez:
>OK, here it is. We just got the new Prince album and the....sound...omygod!
>Crisp and clear and a delight to the ear.
>I haven't even listened to TSW and I *know* now what other people have been
>saying. I haven't even listened to it and a vague muddy/muddled/hissy sound
>leaps to the forefront of my memory.

Quoth the Tamarian:
Vickie, her eyes opened!  (apologies to non-startrek-watching lovehounds)

>Yeah Jorn, I know what you mean. I have decided to quit writing about
>how much I love Kate. Why pour your heart out when it will just get
>dumped on? Stick to facts and figures (though those have been attacked
>recently too) questions and comments, news and information. It's very
>fashionable to be cynical and anti-hero nowadays I guess. How sad.
>Some people mistake genuine affection and admiration for "slobbering."

You really miss the point, Vickie.  I remember when you and your other half
first appeared, Chris decried my venomous tone as hurting Katefans who were
really all gentle, shy and retiring types.  I think the forces of sweetness
and light have actually been doing more harm in causing shy and retiring
types with critical thoughts to shrink away from posting.  While I still
have an ounce of strength in my fingers, I will fight to allow the most
unpopular and nasty messages to be posted!  A mutual admiration society is
the most boring thing in the world.  We all know Kate is great and swell.
There's no need to constantly reiterate it.  The dark side is what never
gets probed (hence it being the DARK side... no light shines upon it).
Someone has to dare to question, to criticize.  You don't have to, but leave
the rest of us to say what we want.  Unless we're factually erroneous or
just plain offensive without saying anything, we deserve our airtime.  I
still get plenty of email saying things like, "thanks for saying what I
didn't have the guts to."

>The last time *I* posted something from
>the heart I got scalded by Larry Spence. The last few times I posted
>something from the heart I got scalded from other people. Why? If I make
>a factual error, by all means, flame away. But if it concerns *my* emotions,
>what business is it of *anyone* to tell me I'm wrong? If no one wants to
>hear my emotions speaking, they can skip over what I say.

First, this is a public forum, and anything you say is displayed for the
entire world to do with as they like.  You have to accept this basic fact.
If you don't like it, you are free to start your own mailing list and
moderate it according to your own lights.  This is the ultimate form of
democracy - one person, one voice.  If you don't want to hear other people
ripping you to shreds, you can skip over what they say.  Sound familiar?

>Gaffa is supposed to be a place
>where all points of views can be heard and lots of different subjects
>covered. Aren't emotional writings part of that? I guess not. Cynthia,
>Richard Caldwell, Jon Drukman, Larry Spence and others don't think so.

Gotta watch your fingers, Vick - to say a demon's name is to summon it!  I
dunno what you're talking about.  Gaffa *is* populated by differing points
of views and different subjects.  What's the problem?  Nobody has told you
to stop posting your "emotional writings."  You just have to expect that
we're going to continue to pick them apart and ridicule you for being
incapable of critical thought, led around by your heart rather than your
brain.  If you don't want that happening, don't post.  Or don't read the
follow-ups.

>Why do these people feel the *need* to discourage emotion? Why can't I
>complain about their lack of sensitivity? Without emotions, without
>people who can express their emotions, the world would be an uninteresting,
>dry and very mechanical place to live. Whenever someone dumps on someone
>else for expressing an emotional opinion, that automatically discourages
>emotional expression. And we're all Kate Bush fans here?

I personally feel no need to discourage emotion.  I don't even know what you
mean by that phrase, actually, because all my favorite states of being (hate,
fear, depression, despair and misery) are classified as "emotions."  At
least, they were last time I checked.  I think you mean Sweetness And Light
emotions.

>No, I'll most likely never write another emotion-laden article for this
>newsgroup, so the emotion-stompers won't have anything to tear apart. 

Well, that would certainly solve the problem.  Or you could just post it and
say at the bottom, "this is a purely personal viewpoint.  all followups will
be cheerfully ignored."  Maybe your skin isn't thick enough.  I know better
than to take anything that anyone says about me seriously.  (Unless it is
fulsome in praise, of course).

>God knows, Jorn will probably never write anything like that again either.
>Too bad, because there are other people like me who enjoyed that article.
>Minor disagreements can be dealt with via e-mail, there was no reason
>for Cynthia to tear into him like she did.

I dunno, I am going to take a chance and say that I had pretty much the same
reaction Cynthia did when I read his initial article.  I just decided that
it wouldn't be worth publicly expressing my disdain - and it appears that I
am vindicated, because poor old Cynthia has been trounced.  Yes, she was a
bit rude and inconsiderate, but we all have our off days.  I remember the
glory days of love-hounds when rudeness was the order of the day.  I
strongly urge you to go read the old archives - files 0005 through 0020, I
think, are particularly telling.  I can never hope to match the spitefulness
or pure evil tone achieved by Messrs Wicinski, Hoffman and Earle.  Even IED
was a vicious person in those days.  I often miss those heady days.  One
slip and you were dead meat.

>Richard Caldwell
>wrote a fascinating and thought-provoking article about his own reactions
>to TSW. He ruined it by coming off sounding very cynical and bitchy and he
>even made it a point to refer to Jorn's article.

As I have already said, I give Richard the vaunted and coveted Drukman
Posting Of The Year Award for that article.  I wanted to stand up and
applaud but I thought my office-mates might have considered that a bit daft.

>No reason for it, he'd
>made his point. He just wanted to show us all what his steel-hardened
>heart looked like, I guess. It was fascinating too.

What, his heart or the article?  Richard's a nice guy.  He gets ticked off
at the same things I do, and he's even less forgiving than myself, some
times.  I wouldn't ask him to change the way he acts.  If you can't take his
punishing style, put him in your kill file.

>So Meredith, why don't *you* look a little closer at what's going on here,
>before you call us a bunch of junior high school kids. This goes far
>deeper than "ranking" (never heard that expression before) or flaming.
>This concerns the death of emotional writings in rec.music.gaffa, thanks
>to those who prefer to scorn rather than skip. Would Kate be proud?

I feel like one of those old cigarette ads - I'd rather fight than switch.
Gaffa is a rough and tumble forum for those with strong stomachs.  Kate's
music is deserving of serious attention, and decrying those with critical
opinions is nothing but harmful.

Jon Drukman (now an explosive new movie)        uunet!sco!jondr   jondr@sco.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With hungered flesh obscurely, he mutely craved to adore.