Re: Obnoxious "fox" line

[P.R.Houghton@newcastle.ac.uk (P.R. Houghton)]

In article <1994Apr25.144912.10874@k12.ucs.umass.edu>, asteg@k12.ucs.umass.edu (Albert Steg (Winsor School) writes:
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> As a newcomer to this group (and to the net) I don't know any of the 
> political history of this group.  To an outsider, it looks to me like
> a weird struggle for some sort of "ownership" of Kate Bush knowledge
> as a surrogate for an actual connection with an artist who is highly
> inaccesible.  
> 
> At any rate, I'd like to second the comment that the "Yes, she is a 
> fox" line in the FAQ is objectionable.  Sexist, probably; juvenile
> certainly.  It's the kind of thing that will alienate a lot of people.
> And does it really tell us anything useful?  Why keep it?

Oh, get a life.  If someone described Michael Hutchence as a hunk, you wouldn't
go off it then would you?  The fact that people find Kate to be highly attractive
is an essential part of her appeal.  To the individual, Kate's sexuality is part
of her music and without it she would be a far less intriguing artist.  Calling
someone a "fox" does not constitute sexism, it's just pathetic politically
correct brigaders like yourself who choose to iron out the charm of the English
language with such extraneous semantic construction.  You are a word-fascist
attempting to exterminate all the non-conformist nuances of our rich language and
as such can viewed with the same contempt reserved for all those right-wing
preachers like Tipper Gore.  Please leave our language alone, it is just about
the only thing stopping us from dissolving into a satellite-controlled oblivion
of cloning.