Re: Attitude and Respect

[nstar!bluemoon!bsbbs!nrc@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (N. Richard Caldwell)]

From: vickie@chinet.chi.il.us (Vickie Ann Mapes)
> Vickie here. OK, so I can't shut up.
> 
> Mr Caldwell writes:
> 
> > Oh please.  You people are every bit as cynical as anyone
> > else here.  Yeah, you talk sweetness and light and pour out your
> > hearts for all of the horrible cynics to smirk at.  But underneath 
> > all the sugar frosting you're just as prone to questioning people's 
> > motives, intentions or nature as anyone here.   
> 
> Oh yeah, you bet. You've given me just as much fodder as I've given you.
> Why are our emotions "sweetness, light and sugar frosting" to you? It would
> almost seem that adults aren't supposed to have emotions nowadays.

You miss the point.  Any and all persons are welcome and
encouraged to enjoy their Recommended Daily Allowance of
sweetness and light.  The point is that in my experience you and
some others who like to portray themselves as "sweetness and light" 
or emotionally sensitive people seem to be just as cynical towards 
those outside of your camp as any of the people that you claim are 
cynics or "emotion stompers".

> _Attitude_ is what I was referring to. Attutude and respect toward other
> people, what they do, how they feel, who they are and how they react.

Sorry, but you're trying to create a sanctuary here where you can
say what you please and indict anyone who disagrees for having 
a bad attitude or lack of respect.  That's nonsense.  See, when I
tell someone that their idea or position is nonsense, as I've
just done here, they should be able to distinguish between my 
opinion of the idea that I am talking about and my opinion of
them as a person.  Anyone who can't make that distinction is
going to have a very difficult time coping in the real world and
they may as well learn that up front.

Of course, that is not to say that I feel that I must respect everyone
in all instances.  There are those who I do not respect and I will
not pretend otherwise.

> And I do think that in this era it's fashionable to be an anti-hero
> cynic. It's everywhere and I'm constantly running into it. 

But that has nothing to do with me.  Put all my hero's into a
room, genuine old fashioned type heros, and you wouldn't have enough
room to swing a cat.  I'm not sure why you'd want to do that but
it would be difficult and probably unpleasant considering how
many dead people would be in the room.  
 
> I don't think that Kate needs us kissing her feet either. Pointing out
> mistakes, faults and foibles is one thing, but why do you (and others)
> feel the need to talk about them in such a cynical, hateful manner? 

Now you are waaaaaay out off base here Vickie.  Hateful?  What did
I say that was hateful, let alone toward Kate?  In fact, I don't 
think the cynicism in that post was even aimed at Kate.  Rather,
it was aimed at a readership that I believed would be unreceptive 
and perhaps  even hostile to these ideas.  That wasn't an idle assump-
tion,  it was  based on past experience expressing these same basic 
ideas.   Given the many positive reactions I've received, I can now
afford to wonder whether I misjudged my audience.  Perhaps with another 
year gone by, Kate fans are a little more prepared to entertain these 
ideas.

> You
> can say what you like, any way you like, simply because Kate is not a
> reader of this newsgroup. Would/Do you speak to people you know like
> that? Face to face? 

Given the same kind of audience?  No question about it.  From the
general reactions here I don't think many people would be offended
(if I'm misreading some of the kind, if understandably reserved, 
responses I've seen here you folks may feel free to correct me).  
Indeed, the addition of genuine voice inflections  would probably 
take some of the edge off the more blasphemous remarks.  There was
certainly no scorn or hate intended in my post.  I can only imagine
that you're own attitude right now is causing you to read them in where
they do not belong and were not intended.  In fact, if you had actually
read such things in my post I can't imagine that your initial response
would not have been much more negative than it was.

It seems to me that you've let your view of my post become tainted
by your anger since things blew up over Tracy's tour post and Cynthia's
remarks about Jorn's post.

> Would you rattle off your "The Sensual Suspension
> of Gaffa" theories if Kate were standing right in front of you? It *would*
> probably make for a fascinating conversation, since you did bring up a
> lot of interesting points that could very well be true. BUT, my whole post
> concerned respect for other people's feelings and emotions. Would you, if
> you were talking to Kate about your theory, speak in the same cynical,
> scorning manner that you used in your post? Would you? 

I'd be very interested to talk to Kate about some of these
things.  In fact, I will be very surprised if we do not hear
about some of these very things during Kate's next promotional
swing.  As I pointed out in the post,  some of these ideas are 
directly reflected in things that Kate has said herself.  I think
it would be fascinating to speak with her in more depth about 
them.  But then, I also think it would be fascinating to talk to 
Kate in more depth about what brand of kitty litter she uses.

No, there is no question that my approach to talking to Kate
about these things would be fundamentally different from the way
I approached it for this group.  Unlike this group, I think Kate
would be completely rational about the suggestion that she may
have been running into some artistic difficulties lately.  Here I
was vigorously advancing a point of view that I felt would not be
well received.  With Kate, I would be asking whether these things
were indeed problems or factors, and accepting her answers, not 
pushing my own theory that they were.

> Would you tell her to "Sniff your boxed set and smell the answer, 
> Kate". 

Believe me, if I had been talking to Kate as long as I've been talking 
on this forum I would be saying things a lot more bizarre than that.  
I'm not sure how you took that but it was really just the sort 
of non sequitor, it didn't mean anything.  It was a joke...sortof. 
Sometimes I'll be going along and come out with the wrong fusebox.  
And the thing about saying the wrong word is, a) I don't notice it 
and, b) sometimes orange water given bucket of plaster.

> If, as you say, you 
> really do have respect for Kate, why not treat her that way. Not as a god,
> not as a hero, but as a human being with feelings and emotions, just trying
> to continue her art at a time when there were many, many personal problems
> vying for her attentions. Have respect for her, in the same way you would
> any other human being, be they a family member or the grocer down the street.

I simply do not see the lack of respect in my post that you are
proposing exists.  I think you're fishing for things to complain
about.  I do not think that constructive criticism reflects a
lack of respect.   It seems to be a fundamental point in your 
complaint that it does and I disagree completely.

> obligation to please me, and my tastes in music. You and others seem to
> think that, just because you weren't happy with TSW, she's offended you
> in some way. So you treat her with scorn and say "blah blah blah _That_ is
> the Kate that I am looking forward to hearing from on the next album." Who
> are *you* to tell her what to do or how to run her life or her art? 

You're still fishing and you'd be well advised to cut bait right 
here.  If you would bother to read the relevant portion of my post
again you will find that what I am talking about there is based not
on what I would like but upon things Kate herself has said.  Kate said
that she felt she had lost the simplicity of her work.  Kate said she 
wanted to come to terms with herself as a performer and establish more
discipline in her work.  I am saying that this is the Kate that I'm
looking forward to hearing from.  I am not insisting that she take
any particular direction.

But even if Kate weren't working toward these goals there is absolutely
no reason why I cannot talk about the direction that I would like to
see Kate go.  That is nothing more than an opinion and I've never 
pretended otherwise. 
 
 
> You have the same sort of problems with people like Jorn and I who are
> emotional beings and tend to write that way sometimes. You can't just
> accept the fact that, though we may well be wrong or misguided sometimes,
> it's how we feel. It's easier for you to put us into the category of "Kate
> can do no wrongoids" and blast us, than to just skip over our posts.

Your views are opinions just like mine.  Their basis in emotion rather
than rationale is your perogative.  But I have every right to disagree
with your opinion whether I chose to base that disagreement on emotion
or rationale.  Yes, I do have some views that are based on emotion
rather than reason.  I don't have any fear of talking about them here
and I don't have any fear of these "emotion stompers" that you're 
attempting to conjure up.
 
> You see it as a given that TWS is a "bad" album, so first you tell Jorn
> he's "rationalizing" with his Catherine post, then *you* rationalize 
> yourself with your own post. 

First, you have either a short or selective memory.   I have said many, 
many times that I do not consider _The Sensual World_ a bad  album.  I 
love the album. I simply consider it to be, on the whole, well  beneath 
Kate's  capabilites.   

Second, I was not rationalizing.  My comments were intended to support
a view that I've held for some time and which is consistent with recent
comments by Kate.  Jorn's seemed to be a revelation with which he could 
ease his admitted discomfort with _The Sensual World_ and requires
that you assume that Kate means "mature" when she says feminine.   That 
is not to say that Jorn did not make some good points.  I acknowleged
that in my post.

Everything Kate has said about making a fresh start, starting a new era 
or changing the way she does things has come after _This Woman's Work_.  
So if _The Sensual World_ represents the birth of this new person that 
we might be so presumptious as to rename "Catherine" then this "Catherine" 
has had an incredibly short lifespan.

> In the meantime, we should treat her like the human being she is. Not as
> a god (which you wrongly think Jorn and I do) or as an unfeeling non-entity
> (which you come off doing) to be treated with scorn when she doesn't
> please you. 

I do not believe that anything in my post represents scorn for Kate.
I cannot imagine feeling scorn for someone I respect and admire so
deeply and it certainly was not intended.    I have yet to hear anyone
else say that they felt my post was scornful.  I think you're just angry 
and you're beginning to swing little a wildly.  



"Don't drive too slowly."         Richard Caldwell
                                  The Big Sky BBS (+1 614 864 1198)
                                  {n8emr|nstar}!bluemoon!bsbbs!nrc
                                  nrc@bsbbs.UUCP