Re: An occasion for self-inventory

[vickie@pilot.njin.net (Vickie Mapes)]

jorn@MCS.COM (Jorn Barger) writes:

>If my Prodigy-parody didn't make this entirely clear, let me state that
>the reason I object to my words being used in the FAQ is that *I do not
>recommend this group to anyone*.  I more often warn people off this group.

I just don't understand. If you hate it so much, why are you still
here? Why do you still read? Don't take that as me "trying to run
you off" or anything similar, because it's not meant that way. I
just don't understand why you hang around a place that you wouldn't
recommend to anyone else. People come to gaffa looking for information
about Kate. You "warn people off this group" and yet you still read
it yourself? That doesn't make any sense! Are they going to get more
information about Kate elsewhere?

>When I wrote the FAQ (by no means an assemblage of pre-existing text),
>the situation here seemed much more promising, but I feel that those
>words now only serve to mislead newcomers... and it's newcomers that
>I'm primarily addressing now...

Information about Kate is "misleading" to newcomers? Huh?

>Despite its long (by Usenet standards) history, rec.music.gaffa has
>not yet begun to have a sense of community, although there is an
>*appearance* that can fool you, until you examine it.  When a
>newsgroup develops a sense of community, what you see is a loose group
>of longtime readers who have seen the same conflicts so many times
>that they share a deep, *indissoluble* common vision, and newcomers
>can accommodate to that, and profit from it.

Gaffa's *never* been like that, unfortunately. You know as well as
I do that one of the reasons so many gaffians are now subscribers
to Ecto (which *is* a community exactly as you describe) is because
rmg/Love-Hounds, for whatever reasons, could not be/cannot become
such a community. There are lots of wonderful people here, but
there will *always* be casual readers who have no interest in such
a "community." They just want information.

That's not to knock gaffa (though I used to) because no one can *force*
a newsgroup/mailing list to be a certain way. I still read gaffa daily,
because there are still lots of interesting posts coming through I want
to read, and because I, personally, can't *not* read it. It's part of
my life and always will be, as long as it exists.

For me personally, when I want information and Kate talk, I read gaffa.
When I need hugs and loving support, I go to Ecto. I don't expect gaffa
to put up with my multi-page personal posts, so I don't post them here.
I think that you expect *too* much from gaffa Jorn. I don't believe it can
*ever* become what *you* want it to be, and you have to accept that. I
know exactly what you want, because I used to think I felt the same way.
However, I had to accept what you so far refuse to accept.
  
>Here on r.m.g, Chris Williams *seems* to have the respect and support
>of Andy Marvick, Peter Fitzgerald-Morris, and Peter Byrne Manchester,
>and if things were as they appear, this could suffice as such a
>community base.  But I'm afraid that the real situation is that Andy
>and Peter and Peter simply aren't very interested in the problems of
>community-building, and they're simply deferring to Chris because they
>have no strong commitment at all (and he does)...

<sigh> I have no idea what you are talking about and no one else does
either. *You* started this entire Chris war, and only a select few
people know the behind-the-scenes background of the situation. Andy,
Peter and Peter have *nothing* to do with it. Why do you involve
them? "...*seems* to have..." "deferring to Chris..." ??? I can't
speak for them, but I can tell any "newcomers" who are simply 
fascinated and enthralled by all this (pffft!) that Chris, Andy and
I have been friends since *way* before rec.music.gaffa was even
begun. We "met" each other through Break-Through, the defunct
Canadian KB fanzine. We've known Peter Fitzgerald-Morris even longer.
I "met" PeterFM in 1981, before I even met Chris. We "met" Peter
Manchester when we joined gaffa, in 1989, and have had nothing but
cordial relations with him. I resent your implication (or whatever
it is) that those 3 men don't have minds of their own and are
simply sheep, respecting and supporting Chris because...(reads what
you wrote again)...of some reason that only you understand.

>I'm certainly willing to be proved wrong about this!

About what??

>  I think *any*
>community-building is welcome, and I contend that its absence here is 
>so grave that any newcomer off the street could make a real, positive
>difference, simply by exhibiting the simplest levels of rationality...

How can they do that?

Personally, I don't think newcomers give a flying f**k about old flame
wars, animosities and differences between old-timers. They want to
hear about Kate.  

>But just because it's simple doesn't mean it's *easy*.  A sense of
>community has to include an agreement about what's fair and unfair,
>what's kind and unkind, what should be allowed and what forbidden.
>And r.m.g is plagued by juveniles who define these boundaries in
>utterly arbitrary, selfish and ill-considered ways... and have no
>compunction about enforcing their whims with perfect savagery.

Nobody has been "savage" except for you, Jorn. And just because you're
trying to keep your threats and ravings to e-mail this time, doesn't
mean that you get to look more "rational." What's unfair? Your involving
people who have nothing to do with any of this. What "should be forbidden"?
Sending harrassing e-mail, *threatening* e-mail to anyone who you have
a problem with. Stop it. Leave them alone. *LEAVE THEM ALONE* I know
who you're e-mailing, and I know what you're saying. 
 
>What to do?

You could get therapy Jorn. I don't mean that in a nasty way either. I
really think you could benefit. Somehow, you have to understand that
there is *NO* conspiracy against you, no one is out to persecute you
or make your life miserable. Not me, not Chris, not Andy/Peter/Peter,
not Ecto, not *anybody*. You continue a vendetta that exists only in
your own mind.

>Start with this: as you listen to Kate tonight, broadcasting live to
>North America for the first time since 1978, ask yourself seriously
>*what r.m.g might become that would make Kate proud*...

Flame-free, but it will never happen. That's just the way it is. Not
that Kate cares, one way or the other. 

Vickie