Re: Lone Star Lionhearts

[gatech!chinet.chi.il.us!katefans@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)]

Vickie here...

>From Lone Star Lionhearts:

>REPLY TO BEN HALLER:
>  
>     When the electronic net is able to provide the level of news
>coverage, musical analysis, artwork, and serious discussion provided
>by the better Katezines, only then can their members claim to be the
>"wave of the future." 

I salute LSL, but the above is just not well-thought out. Love-Hounds
*can* and *does* provide all of the above. And much faster than a
fanzine. 

I have nothing against fanzines. BreakThrough was the greatest Katezine
ever. I love Homeground, because I love the people who run it.

> Too much of the space in the nets is taken up
>with rumors, gossip, flames and ad hominem attacks that would not be
>tolerated in the mainstream press or a serious musicological
>publication (which, by and large, _LSL_ attempts to be, behind our
>breezy facade--we do not take ourselves _that_ seriously, after all). 

It's true that a lot (too much...and yes, I've been guilty of it) of space
is taken up by gossip, flames and attacks, but in a close-to-real-time
forum, that's to be expected. This is something I don't personally like,
and have vowed to not participate in anymore. Sill, I don't see what it
has to do with anything though. Gaffa/LH is what it is, LSL is what it is.
They're entirely different types of forums and can't be compared.

I don't see why "rumors" were brought up. Rumors fly around...so what? When
the truth comes out, everyone will know. Besides, I haven't seen that many
rumors in G/LH. I don't know what you're talking about.

>     I am often disturbed by the elitist attitude exhibited by
>certain of the electronic "haves" of the world.  They are too quick to
>regard themselves as creatures apart from and superior to the majority
>of people without the resources or desire to participate.

Well, the net is a wonderful thing and it's natural to want to rave about
it. We don't consider ourselves "superior" but we do consider ourselves
very, very lucky to be part of it. I can understand "without the resources"
because we were without the resources ourselves. Anyone "without the desire"
is just someone who has no concept of the net and how great it us. :-)

IMHO, of course. I personally didn't know what I was missing until we got 
access. Now I wouldn't want to live without it!
If that sounds elitist to someone who has never been on the net, then I
can't really help that. 
	  
> Many people
>are unable (or find it unnecessary) to invest in expensive
>computer/communications equipment, and those who can have no right
>to force their lifestyles or attitudes on others.

Who's forcing a lifestyle on you? Why did you feel compelled to get a
"middle-man" anyway? Did someone force you? What a bummer!

Ok, I really understand that it's expensive to get computer equipment,
modems, telecommunications software. I don't look down on anyone who
can't afford that kind of financial outlay. We started out having an
Amiga 1000, then got a modem. We got the computer for reasons other
than just getting on the net. We got the modem *just* for getting on
the net. Our problem, because we lived in Kansas City at the time, was
that we had no Public Access site in KC. For over a year we called to
*Boston* to access the net! That was very expensive and we were thrilled
when we moved to Chicago and found a site. It still costs $75.00 a year
though, so not everyone's employer or school pays for access. We, and
Ron Hill, and Jackie(Lionheart) and Ray Russell and lots of other people
would argue with you about that. 

>     This is especially hypocritical on the part of those who do
>indeed "pirate" their computer time from their school or their place
>of work (a subject you finesse).  People who are not paying for their
>information should be careful of criticizing those who do, e.g.
>fanzine subscribers, who are very happy with the product they
>receive.

As I just said, we pay for our access. You are going to (and should be)
flamed very badly by people who do get access at school or work. The
schools and workplaces who carry the net, or provide e-mail, do so to
please their students and employees. "Pirate" is a very stupid word to
use. You really have a lot to learn about how the net works and what it's
all about.

>     I suspect the authors and publishers of the KB collector's guide
>would hold similar opinions.  People who invest their money in making
>a product available are entitled to a fair return, and disseminating
>information _gratis_ is theft from Godwin and his publishing
>company--they lose sales, and if people can't sell Kate books, we
>cannot complain if, eventually, there are none made available to us.

I have no problems with not wanting LSL articles re-printed in gaffa.
I fully understand and you have every right to object to it being done.
But a simple "I would prefer you not do it" would have sufficed. You've
gotten yourself into a bag of wasps by your haughty, ill-informed attitude
and have made yourself look very bad. Call us elitist? We never attacked
you! Someone just asked a simple question that a simple "no" would have
taken care of. Geez!

Vickie