Re: Obnoxious "fox" line

[dfleenor@nettech.com (Super Dave?)]

> 
> 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.
> 

Whoah! That wuz cool...huh huh huh