Re: Suspended In Goats & Siouxsie Question

[nstar!bluemoon!bsbbs!cynthia@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (Cynthia Rosas)]

jeffy@lewhoosh.umd.EDU (Jeffrey C. Burka) writes:

> Cynthia writes:
> 
> >> Steve wrote:
> >> > Short on goats, Richard?  Looks like you're trying to get someone's
> >> > goat here.  Perhaps Vickie will give you hers.
>  
> >If I were a raving bitch (Hey!  I AM!), I might say:
> >Looks like both you guys are going ba-a-a-a-a-a-a.
> 
> Okay, call me stupid...how are Vickie and Steve acting like sheep?  Most
> sheep metaphors refer to the sheep as being blind followers who have no 
> lives or brains of their own.  I fail to see how either Vickie or Steve
> can be said to fit into this theme based on their reactions to Richard's
> post.
 
Okay, you're Stupid.  Check the context.  Obviously I was
going for a _goat_ sound, not a _sheep_ sound.  Nobody called
anybody blind followers.  It was GOATS, man, GOATS!

> You seem to have been too busy raving (you *are* Love-Hounds occassionally-
> friendly neighborhood raving bitch, aren't you?) to actually read Steve's
> post.
 
Yes, I believe I am.  No, I read it, it was definitely Steve's
post.  I remember, cause I noticed a certain clamminess on my
terminal as I queued it up.

> He did not say that Richard was wrong to rag on either Jane Siberry or Happy
> Rhodes.  He merely said that it seemed as if Richard was not making that
> post to be witty but rather to annoy specific people--get their goats, as
> Steve put it.
 
Yeah, so?  Maybe Richard made the post to be witty and annoy
people.  SO?   I read Steve's post, why are re-explaining it
in pedantic detail?  And, I see, you FINALLY undersatnd the
"goat" concept.  So why the utter airheadedeness at the start of
your post?  Or were you just trying to get my goat? Heeeee

> Yes, many artists have been made fun of.  Most of the 'jokes' were witty
> and/or clever.  I didn't find either of Richard's comments to fall into
> this category.  And it's not just because they both happen to be artists I
> really like; I loved Angelos' comment about Madonna, and I love her stuff.
> There have been a few funny comments about Sting and the rainforests.
> I think Sting is a great musician, but I still enjoyed the jokes about
> him.  There was a subtle dig at Sinead O'Connor that I thought was funny.
 
I found those, AND Richard's entries to be witty and/or
clever.  So?

> Try reading for content instead of material you can rave about.
 
Try having something worthwhile to say.
I mean, really, you people love to read something into nothing
and then blindly accuse.  For example, I forget who now, but
some guy wrote some long diatribe against censorship.  Nicely
done.  But because Richard wrote something about voluntary
labeling not being so bad, the guy assumed that Richard is
like totally for censorship.  I mean, do YOU people read
posts, or just the first sentence, and then start vomiting up
whatever comes to your "mind"s???


----
Cynthia Rosas <cynthia@bsbbs.UUCP> <{n8emr|nstar}!bluemoon!bsbbs!cynthia>
The Big Sky BBS (+1 614 864 1198)