Lone Star Lionhearts

[caen!bsbbs!ken@harvard.harvard.edu (Ken Saint-John)]

Pat if you can please see that this post is somehow forwarded to
Kevin, Thanks...
 
 
Hi Kevin, one of your early subscribers Ken SaintJohn here....
 
I'm not real sure what to say Kevin, not that it should mean anything
to you or anyone else but I am to say the least disappointed by the
following quoits that have been attributed to you...
 
 
>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).
 
The more I read this quoit Kevin the wackier it gets.  LSL attempts to
be "A serious musicological publication"?  Lets take a quick look at
issue #3 summer 1991 (last issue I received by the way).  In this
issue we have:
 
                    The answer man (a joke)
                    Kates Kloset
                    Big fat lies
                    Nancy cartoons
 
Right Kevin these surely are "serious musicological" topics.  You then
go on to say "We do not take ourselves _that_ seriously, after all".
Really?  Reread your quoits here Kevin, if they are not examples of
someone taking themselves 'that' seriously I've no idea what they are.
Make up your mine guy:)
 
 
>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).
 
Where in the world did ya come up with this one?  You are being very
misinformed by someone, it's obvious know nothing of net access, thus
talking out of your back side.  By the way speaking of "pirate" what
is the deal on the Nancy cartoons?  Any copyright problems there?
 
 
>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.  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.
 
Now just who is the one demonstrating an "elitist attitude"?  FLASH!
It's you Kevin.  The above is one of the most paranoid diatribes I
have ever read.  No one is trying to force computer communications on
anyone here Kevin.
 
>Unfortunately, it is the "give me something for nothing" attitude
>exhibited by those on the Love-Hounds network (subsidized by their
>employers, for the most part), who would rather pirate information and
>circulate it privately rather than actively support the fanzines (i.e.
>subscribe themselves) that makes it so difficult >for the established
>Katezines to remain economically viable.
 
This is an out and out unfounded accusation and attack, in other words
it's bullshit pure and simple.  If there is anything unfortunate here
it's _your_ totally distorted view of this news group and the people
who participate in it.  If a fanzine has a problem staying
economically viable I suggest it has a hell of a lot more to do with
the content (or lack of) of the fanzine and NOT some computer news
group!
 
Oh one last thing.  Cancel my subscription.  Keep the money and put it
towards a computer and modem :)

    .........................  // .........................
    .                         //                          .
    .                  Saint\X/ohn (Ken)                  .
    . <ken@bsbbs.UUCP><{n8emr|nstar}!bluemoon!bsbbs!ken>  .
    .         The Big Sky BBS (+1 614 864 1198)           .
    ."I think quotes are very dangerous things!" KaTe Bush.
    .......................................................