Vickie Caldwell? I don't think so.

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

Vickie here. Here I go, standing up for the emotionals (& IED) again.

(N. Richard Caldwell) writes:

> _Rocket Man_ and _Candle in the Wind_ seem to have already
>  fallen by the wayside as a topic of conversation here on
>  Love-Hounds.  Since I seem to be chronically behind in
>  responses these days I'll sum up my thoughts one final time and
>  set these songs aside for the time being.  Maybe someday I'll
>  come back to them and hear them in a new light, but I'm not
>  going to hold my breath.                            ^^^^^^^
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh, please do. Have you seen _Regarding Henry_?

> Hopefully this post will get through before the Love-Hounds
> Thought Police make any progress toward squelching the free
> exchange of ideas here in Gaffa.

Soc.women has a thread that I haven't been keeping up with, but I love
the title of the thread. It's called "Clue Time Child" and now, when-
ever I see asinine statements like the one above, it automatically pops
into my brain. It's clue time, child (not that I think for a moment you'll
understand what I'm talking about, children are hard to reason with).

It's not about censorship, it's about simple, human, courtesy.

You (and your compatriots) have every right to be assholes. You have
every right to be unthinkingly rude to fellow human beings. You have
every right to be thinkingly rude to fellow Kate fans. You live your life
any way you choose. I could care less.

I HAVE A RIGHT TO WANT TO TALK ABOUT KATE WITHOUT YOU ASSHOLES BUTTING
IN AND THROWING UP ON EVERYONE!!!!

It's not censorship to want to throw a party and not invite all the
abusive boors. 

This might seem contradictory to what I said in my other post, I agree.
But I am *tired* *tired* *tired* of seeing you all dump on others and
see it as your *right* to be jerks. Yes, it most certainly is your right,
but I'm tired of it. I need a rest from it, and kill files aren't the
answer, and biting _my_ tongue while you all go on your rude merry way 
isn't the answer. Flames beget flames, and this post is proof of that.
I'm a very easy-going person. I don't like flames any more than anyone
else. But I always seem to be in the middle of these things, because I
also don't like supressing *my* disaproval of the rudeness that goes on 
here. 

"Free exchange of ideas" ?? Everytime someone complains about rudeness
here, your kind *always* bring up "censorship" and "thought-police" 
bullshit. You just don't have a clue do you? Not a fraction of one. Not
a sliver. We're complaining about being *rude*, not your difference of 
opinion.

You didn't learn a thing as you were rifling through the Ecto archives,
did you? You were trying to prove me a liar when I said that Ecto is
friendly and flame-free. You didn't figure out *why* it was friendly and
flame free, did you? I guess you were too busy picking out things to send
to Jon Drukman, or latching onto vague, passing, half-formed "why don't 
we put a Kate section in the fanzine?" ideas, which were discussed
(rationally, I might add) and discarded. I guess you failed to notice 
that Ecto is a large group of diverse people, with diverse opinions and 
that Ectophiles just seem to lack the childish need to be rude and 
interject sarcastic and cutting comments whenever someone says something 
they disagree with. I'm only being rude myself now because your kind seem 
to think it *is* acceptable and since "niceness" is lost on you, it's the 
only way I know how to get my point across.

Btw, the "exchange of ideas" on Ecto is free and easy, and everyone knows
that they can have different opinions and express those opinions, without
fear that someone will come along and (figuratively) call them a shithead.
<sigh> It's impossible for you to understand, I know.

Your kind have this "no one can hurt me psychologically if I don't allow
them to" which, turned around, makes it perfectly ok for you to be as rude
as you happen to feel like being that day. If the other person gets hurt,
it's totally their problem because they are "weak" and not able to handle
it. I would agree with the statement "no one can hurt me psychologically
if I don't allow them to" but the difference is that I realize that most
people are not robots and feelings can get hurt and that I should try not 
to hurt anyone's feelings on purpose, and, if I am in any way responsible 
for hurting someone's feelings, the least I can do is apoligise for it,
*especially* after it's brought to my attention.

Richard, if anything I said above hurts your feelings, I will apoligise.


About Andy/IED:

> A wise decision since that's not what I was saying to begin
> with.  I was saying that Andy is so dedicated to the
> proposition that all of Kate's works are perfect that we can
> only wonder whether it is even possible that he could find
> _Rocket Man_ to be any less than perfect.

How long have you been here? Surely long enough to know that Andy
(almost) always posts as "IED." You refuse to believe in IED, so
you keep saying "Andy." Andy and IED do not always agree. Yes, _IED_
would feel that all of Kate's works are perfect, and _IED_ would
indeed argue his points. IED is a net-persona, and he's been around
for years. Even Jon Drukman and Doug Alan knows the difference between
IED and Andy Marvick. You think net personas are silly, fine. But
IED *IS* a net-persona, who has opinions and thoughts sometimes
very different from Andy. I know this because Andy is a close friend.

Think (it's real easy) about actors in a movie. Andy "plays" IED 
on Love-Hounds. Your refusal to accept that (doesn't matter if you 
like it or not, I can see you don't) makes me think that you're a
real downer at the movies. I can hear it now "grumble grumble why is
Anthony Hopkins walking around free? He ought to be locked up for
going out and eating people, but Jodie Foster sure is a good FBI agent." 

Very few people on the net use a persona, Andy is one of a few. He's
done it successfully for many years. He's as much an "actor" as
someone playing Hamlet night after night on stage, or Harrison Ford
reprising his "Indiana Jones" character multiple times. 

Andy has no net access at the moment, so neither he nor IED can speak
for themselves. I just wanted to try and get you to understand what
the deal is here. Andy's an actor, IED's a character. Get them straight.
Obviously, you claims to the contrary, you haven't a clue about Andy.

>              "Yes, but you know that we're in a conservative
>               town.  And that is another reason to not want to
>               live in Chicago, aside from the fact that Oprah
>               Winfrey lives here."

>                         - Madonna, "Truth or Dare"
<sarcasm mode on>
Richard! Hey RICHARD!! Knock-Knock! Anyone _in_ there! What are you
drooling on about? I have serious doubts that Ms. Ciccione's opinions
in re Chi-Town (_My_ kinda town) are having much effect on property
values, but now that I know, I'll start packing my bags immediately!
Where should I move? O-"Kent State"-hio?
<sarcasm mode 405 off>

Lastly, I very much enjoyed your long post "rationalizing" why you
don't like "Rocket Man."

I happen to like "Rocket Man" and "Candle in the Wind" because I like
the *emotions* she's expressing. I feel them. You don't. Good for me,
good for you. End of story.

Well, Richard, I've decided I don't want to marry you after all. 
Melissa can have you. 

Vickie
katefans@chinet.chi.il.us