R.M.G history month (Was: Chris, Vickie & Jorn)

[jorn@MCS.COM (Jorn Barger)]

Walter Roberson <roberson@hamer.ibd.nrc.ca> wrote:
>If the parties involved are unwilling or unable to leave their disputes
>out of this forum within a reasonable time, then I would suggest that
>this forum either be disbanded or be moderated. If moderation is
>chosen, then I suggest that the mandate given to the moderator explicity
>allow polite disagreement, but not allow for personal attacks to get
>through.

Heh!  You don't know how ironic this is!

Here's some extracts from the archives for 1992, showing how the
battlelines were drawn, back then.  It's interesting (for me) to
notice how much better Richard Caldwell looks in retrospect than 
he did at the time, when I was taking C&V's side.  And I'm not
entirely proud of my hotheadedness in here, either.  If I'm allowed
to make excuses, I was in a desperate fight at work...

Anyway, after a few side-topics, the real flamewar back then started with
Stev0 taking a swipe at Ron Hill...

(I apologise, barely, to people who think this group should be just for
discussions of Kate.  I think it should also be for building a
friendly community, with a community history that we share.  I'd
love to see an index to the archives, and an r.m.g history faq.)

=== Mail01 =========
Date:   Tue, 31 Dec 1991 04:53:00 -0800
From:   katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris n Vickie)
...
>From Jorn's monthly post:
...
---
Subject: Re: Medkeff Again
From:   caen!bsbbs!nrc@harvard.harvard.edu (N. Richard Caldwell)
Date:   Fri, 3 Jan 1992 00:24:26 -0800
...
Are Chris or Vickie any more likely to see the inequity of their
original accusation on the tenth repetition of these points than
on the fifth?  I doubt it.
...
 Unfortunately, your actions bare
a much closer resemblance to an Inquisitor than to a policeman or
prosecutor.
...
At this
stage it is more pertinent as an illustration of how Chris's zeal
to crush these "piss ants" with little or no thought toward
fairness than it is a as a significant piece of "evidence".
...

=== Mail03 ===========
From:   stev0@sti.com (Steve Berlin)
Date:   Mon, 20 Jan 1992 06:32:46 -0800
...
I think there are three stages of KaTe Fandom:
...
3)  The KaTeFanaTiK - 
...
  Types in 10-year-old KaTe interviews in R.M.G.
...
Basically is to Kate what a Trekkie is to Star Trek.
...
---
From:   jessica@athos.rutgers.edu (jessica)
Date:   Mon, 20 Jan 1992 19:26:21 -0800
...
Oh, I couldn't begin to say enough about your post, steve. How long
did you tihnk before you posted it? I truly hope it was a
spur-of-the-moment sort of thing, not well thought out.

hehehe. still giggling a bit in wonder and amazement at the things
people will say..
---
Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 1992 08:32:56 -0800
From:   barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Jorn Barger)
[quoting scott Telford]
> I hope you're not getting at Ron here. I'm sure all true KaTefans
> (whether vanilla, (tm) or FanaTiK) are very grateful to Ron for what
> he's done.
...
a big AAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNN!
---
Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 1992 10:44:19 -0800
From:   barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Jorn Barger)
[quoting Stev0]
> Geez, can you say "hypersensitive"?
...
>  Therefore, I can sincerely say to anyone who was offended
> by my previous posting - plllltttt!

so, let me get this straight.  you're bothered that we were bothered
and expressed our disapproval, so you're expressing your disapproval?

classic dweeb...
---
Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 1992 12:53:27 -0800
From:   saurav@tgevax.life.uiuc.edu (Saurav Misra)

Stev Berlin's original post on Katefans was hilarious, IMHO....

Steve Berlin's rebuttal to the humourless replies to said post was even
funnier...

Long live Steve Berlin!!! I wish he would stop spitting in his posts though,
it keeps fogging up my monitor...

-Saurav Misra (saurav@tgevax.life.uiuc.edu)
- a fellow dweeb, but hey, I can laugh at this sh*t.
---
From:   katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris n Vickie)
Date:   Tue, 21 Jan 1992 13:38:25 -0800

Steve Berlin writes:

Oh, lots of silly drivel in a couple of different posts which I won't
repeat..

Steve, by your criteria, anyone who's ever written a biography, painted a
portrait, or filmed a documentary about someone is a lifeless dweeb.

I'm shocked at your seeming willful ignorance of how history is
documented and the type of people who research such things. History
includes music, as well as art, literature, politics and so many other
things. I don't know why documenting articles and collecting items
concerned with Kate Bush is any less important than someone doing the
same for Cleopatra, Sarah Bernhardt, Mata Hari, Adm. Grace Hopper or any
other woman (or man) who has done something that actually affected other
people in some way, big or small.

One person's "obsession" might be another person's "research papers"
50-100+ years from now. . There are people studying Mozart, Bach and
Beethoven today who probably wish there had been Peter Fitzgerald-Morris,
Ron Hill and Andy Marvick-types running around back when their idols were
still alive.

Anyway, saying you're a Kate fan too doesn't excuse your rudeness toward
people who do things within the "fandom" that *you* don't agree with.

> P.S. - I'm not accusing Scott (the person who wrote the posting the
> artical that inspired me) of being a lifeless dweeb - I'm accusing
> "Hannah".

<ANGRY> <DIATRIBE> <DELETED!> It's not worth it, it's not worth it.
Btw, I think it would be halarious if Hannah did turn out to be Kate's mum.
---
Date:   Wed, 22 Jan 1992 09:07:01 -0800
From:   barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Jorn Barger)

> Stev Berlin's original post on Katefans was hilarious, IMHO....
>
> Steve Berlin's rebuttal to the humourless replies to said post was even
> funnier...

so obviously, our ranks are split between those who think it's hilarious
to insult one another, and those who don't see the humor in this.

i guess i think i know whose side kate would be on...

=== Mail04 ===========
From:   caen!bsbbs!mdc@harvard.harvard.edu (Melissa D. Caldwell)
Date:   Thu, 23 Jan 1992 17:45:23 -0800

barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.EDU (Jorn Barger) writes:
> so obviously, our ranks are split between those who think it's hilarious
> to insult one another, and those who don't see the humor in this.

C'mon Jorn... it was just a joke.  And people think that us Ohioans
are humorless. :-)

> i guess i think i know whose side kate would be on...

As much as you'd like to think you know which side Kate would be
on you are no more likely to know than anyone else in this group,
IMHO.
---
From:   caen!bsbbs!cynthia@harvard.harvard.edu (Cynthia Rosas)
Date:   Thu, 23 Jan 1992 18:21:56 -0800

barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.EDU (Jorn Barger) writes:
> so, let me get this straight.  you're bothered that we were bothered
> and expressed our disapproval, so you're expressing your disapproval?
>
> classic dweeb...

The fact that you had such vehement "disapproval" shows that
you do indeed need to Get A Life, as Steve Berlin suggested.
As far as your "classic dweeb" comeback, let me say it was
utterly brilliant (not), and the final, overwhelming proof to
the old adage... "It takes one to know one..."

I think Steve Berlin's and Neil Calton's musings were amusing
and probably hit a bit uncomfortably close to home for some
people.  I don't have time to dig down and grab up Vickie's
quotes, but Vickie, as I alluded to in my email to you,
feminists, and Katefans as well, need to  _lighten up_.

That Steve's post should bring on such flotsam and jetsam is
really crazy.

And while there are many people who are vastly
Kate-knowledgable, putting together a massive opus of Kate's
quotes doesn't make you any authority.  It makes you a good
organizer.  It's not your "work", as in an author's work, it's
the works of another essentially, that you have organized.
Often proving to be most helpful, other times proving to be
somewhat cumbersome, outdated and repetitive.  This _may_ have
been what Steve was getting at about the 10 year old
interviews.  Just a guess, I don't really like to interpret
too much of another person's intent.

By the way, I think Saurav Misra looked at it the right way.
Like, it's a joke.  SOme people have so much trouble laughing
at themselves.  Geez.
...
---
From:   caen!bsbbs!cynthia@harvard.harvard.edu (Cynthia Rosas)
Date:   Thu, 23 Jan 1992 21:45:53 -0800

jessica@athos.rutgers.EDU (jessica) writes:
> Oh, I couldn't begin to say enough about your post, steve. How long
> did you tihnk before you posted it? I truly hope it was a
> spur-of-the-moment sort of thing, not well thought out.
>
> hehehe. still giggling a bit in wonder and amazement at the things
> people will say..

Yeah, you should be, starting with your own post.
---
From:   brownfld@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth R Brownfield)
Date:   Fri, 24 Jan 1992 13:38:03 -0800

The following was created and performed by Cynthia Rosas:
|Yeah, you should be, starting with your own post.

     Whew, I would never have thought of that, myself.
     Your attitude is fun until the fact that you're serious about it leaks
out.
     I'll just tiptoe back into the background now.  I think the whole arteest
thing was overstated and rude given the evidence, but it's own truth and the
very negative response are both weak.
     Are we all that touchy before albums?
---
From:   andre@rurutu.wri.com (Andre Kuzniarek)
Date:   Fri, 24 Jan 1992 16:19:46 -0800

Applause to Steve and Cynthia from this corner. Really enjoyed your rich
comments. Almost wish you folks would get flamed more often, but will
instead archive your postings for an occasional chuckle.
---
From:   barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Jorn Barger)
Subject: Miss Manners kicks ass
Date:   Sun, 26 Jan 1992 05:39:33 -0800

Sheee-it.  Look at the mess this place has gotten into!  Me'n'Ron Hill
are about to start a long, dweeb'n'girly-boy thread about the songs,
starting with the demo-tapes.

But I think before I start we need to get a sense of how people feel
about this outspoken sub-group that enjoys seeing people's feelings
hurt.

Which of these would people prefer?

1) Put them in a kill file on Spies when they be rude, so they can read
but not post... at least until they acknowledge that rudeness is not
acceptable.  (They can have their own newsgroup: rec.music.gaffa.badvibes,
or mailing list: HellHounds!)

2) Have two versions of Love-Hounds (the mailing list), one with assholes,
one, via a kill file, without.  Let people choose, but post all messages,
even the vulnerable ones, for the assholes to sputter over.

3) Start a private mailinglist for the tenderfolk, the girlyboys and
boylygirls, and crosspost or not, as we fucking well choose, you sorryass
unenlightened parasitic *dicks*. (With a kiss kiss cross cross kiss ;^)
(That's from Finnegans Wake).

We went and let the weirdness in, naively, idealistically, hopefully, but
we still have the key, we can change our minds and *lock them out* in
any number of ways.

Shall we debate for a week and then count heads?
---
Date:   Sun, 26 Jan 1992 13:15:09 -0800
From:   stevev@greylady.uoregon.edu (Steve VanDevender)
To:     love-hounds@wiretap.spies.com
Subject: Re: Miss Manners kicks ass

Jorn Barger outrageously opines:
>Sheee-it.  Look at the mess this place has gotten into!  Me'n'Ron Hill
>are about to start a long, dweeb'n'girly-boy thread about the songs,
>starting with the demo-tapes.

>But I think before I start we need to get a sense of how people feel
>about this outspoken sub-group that enjoys seeing people's feelings
>hurt.

I think I know who you're talking about, but I don't think we're
all going to agree on their intentions, especially not them.

However, they do seem to love the sort of attention that will
come to them as a result of your proposals below, so now they'll
be wound up for *weeks*.

>Which of these would people prefer?

>1) Put them in a kill file on Spies when they be rude, so they can read
>but not post... at least until they acknowledge that rudeness is not
>acceptable.  (They can have their own newsgroup: rec.music.gaffa.badvibes,
>or mailing list: HellHounds!)

I am completely against having someone censor my mail for me, so
I'm completely against proposal #1.  Besides, how do you want
these people to acknowledge that rudeness is unacceptable?
Grovel at your feet?

>2) Have two versions of Love-Hounds (the mailing list), one with assholes,
>one, via a kill file, without.  Let people choose, but post all messages,
>even the vulnerable ones, for the assholes to sputter over.

I object to this proposal almost as much, just because it tries
to do the same thing as #1.  I betcha most everyone would
subscribe to the uncensored version anyway.  If so, you'll be
better off making your own kill file rather than forcing a global
one upon everyone.

>3) Start a private mailinglist for the tenderfolk, the girlyboys and
>boylygirls, and crosspost or not, as we fucking well choose, you sorryass
>unenlightened parasitic *dicks*. (With a kiss kiss cross cross kiss ;^)
>(That's from Finnegans Wake).

If you want to start your own mailing list that's fine with me.
If a membership condition is passing a test to prove that I'm not
an asshole, I doubt I'd want to join.  You might find that people
who pass the test one day could turn into assholes later.

>We went and let the weirdness in, naively, idealistically, hopefully, but
>we still have the key, we can change our minds and *lock them out* in
>any number of ways.

Who's "we"?  The nature of rec.music.gaffa/Love-Hounds is such
that anyone on the net can read it and post to it.  I have no
interest in changing that, especially because of ethical concerns
I have about freedom of communication and freedom of access to
information.

It's naive to think that you can lock out the opinions of people
you don't like.  It's arrogant of you to think that you know
exactly which people should be locked out for everyone.  Even if
we could somehow convince Bill to implement a global kill file
for Love-Hounds, the people who you want to put in the kill file
are clever and opinionated enough to find any of the easy ways
around such a scheme and use them.

If we were to decide who to put in the Love-Hounds global kill
file by majority opinion, it would never happen, because if we
all can't agree on simpler and more objective matters, we'll
never all agree on which people are assholes and which aren't.

You want to exclude people that you feel are insensitive to the
opinions of others.  You're proposing to show the ultimate
insensitivity towards those people and their opinions by
excluding them.

>Shall we debate for a week and then count heads?

Oh, we'll be debating for *weeks* about this, I'm sure.  But I
can say right now that I don't support any of your proposals,
even before the deluge begins.
---
From:   brownfld@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth R Brownfield)
Date:   Sun, 26 Jan 1992 13:30:14 -0800

The following was created and performed by news@fstop.csc.ti.com:
                                           ^^^^read as Vishal

|Harry, I wasn't referring to your flatulation!  I was referring to these
|idiots who keep posting long, winding articles with absolutely no KATE
|CONTENT!!  Its the same old shit has been flying around for months now!!
|Why do you people post so frequently and so much ?  Get off those key boards
|and get a life!!!

     That's true to a point, but several people have brought up interesting
topics for discussion concerning Kate, all/most of which have been ignored,
by most of the list, including me.  It's not only the flatulence, IMHO, but
the fact that there's not much else going on.
     In other words, let's start talking about the interesting Kate stuff,
not the other garbage.  Now, it _is_ fun to talk to folks that we've come to
know over the list, but love-hounds aren't garbage disposal engineers, and
damaging the list we've all come to know and love is probably not on the top
of everyones' chore list.

|And Cynthia, you can repeat "I can bitch, I can bitch,..." all you like, but
|you really don't have a clue about bitching.  Lame assed pseudo-bitching is
|more like it!!

     True, but the idea is that being a bitch gets her attention.  We all
would like to force a rancid sock down her throat (well, not all) but then
again we're too nice, so we just try to ask her to stick to the discussions.
If you do that in the group, she flames back with increasingly abusive and
childish posts, claiming to be unstuckup, and generally a more open person.
     The crock that this may be, giving her the attention is what she seems
to be driving for.  You can't argue with a child's reasoning, and for that
reason, it's probably best to start ignoring the stupid parts that leak into
gaffa.  Stupidity can burn on any fuel, including other stupidity, and
Cynthia is on a fuel conversion binge.  There's some intelligence in the
stupidity, considering she is an adult, and probably a nice one at that.
But that's all that we should pay attention to, IMHO, and that's what IMHO
would rightly flatter her more than being a DemiGoddess of Bitchdom.
     Of course there's always talking via personal mail, but Cynthia doesn't
respond to that.  I'm not enough of an audience, apparently, for which I may
be significantly fortunate given what the odds would say I'd be an audience
to.
     What it all boils down to is this:  It's not one person's fault, it's
most of our faults (this does indeed include me, for those looking for a
phrase to flame,) and we need to respond and consider Kate, and ignore the
exploding S/N ratio.  There are notable exceptions of hounds who have stayed
out of the crap pockets of gaffa, and remain clean of the mess.  Ed (the other
one ;-), Doug, Andy & IED, etc.  Just ignore it.  It took me too long to
think it out.  Has anyone considered rec.music.gaffa reaching the S/N of
rec.music.misc?  Not a pretty thought, is it?  8-O  :-)

The following was created and performed by Jorn Barger:

>Sheee-it.  Look at the mess this place has gotten into!  Me'n'Ron Hill
>are about to start a long, dweeb'n'girly-boy thread about the songs,
>starting with the demo-tapes.

     :-)

>But I think before I start we need to get a sense of how people feel
>about this outspoken sub-group that enjoys seeing people's feelings
>hurt.

>Which of these would people prefer?

>1) Put them in a kill file on Spies when they be rude, so they can read
>but not post... at least until they acknowledge that rudeness is not
>acceptable.  (They can have their own newsgroup: rec.music.gaffa.badvibes,
>or mailing list: HellHounds!)

     This should never be a possibility.  If the person is being rude and
damaging enough, their sysadms will punch out their accounts.  No one on
the list is near that extreme a situation.  Voting for membership is
totally contrary to the charter, if you will, of the group, and all of
USENET for that matter.  #1 is simply not an option.

>2) Have two versions of Love-Hounds (the mailing list), one with assholes,
>one, via a kill file, without.  Let people choose, but post all messages,
>even the vulnerable ones, for the assholes to sputter over.

     This is basically a mailing list, with a de-"asshole"d digest.  I'd
probably still subscribe to both, but that would be a decent event.  Changing
the current digest into a de-"asshole"d digest would mean 1) Bill would be a
moderator, not a list administrator, and 2) folks without news access, only
mail, would _not_ get the whole picture.
     In reality, they're not really "asshole"s, they just have a very
different, and to some offensive input to the group.
     Make your own kill file if you're a rec.music.gaffa reader.  If you're
a mailing list person, we'll have to consider #2.  ;-)

>3) Start a private mailinglist for the tenderfolk, the girlyboys and
>boylygirls, and crosspost or not, as we fucking well choose, you sorryass
>unenlightened parasitic *dicks*. (With a kiss kiss cross cross kiss ;^)
>(That's from Finnegans Wake).

     :-)  The humor impaired can flame me directly instead of the group or
Jorn.  That's funny folks.  If it isn't to you, reread it until you laugh.
"That's what it's all a bout."

>We went and let the weirdness in, naively, idealistically, hopefully, but
>we still have the key, we can change our minds and *lock them out* in
>any number of ways.

     Yes, but they key locks the wierdness out, too.  That key should be at
the bottom of Baikal.

>Shall we debate for a week and then count heads?

     The ones rolling on the ground, too?  ;-)
---
Date:   Sun, 26 Jan 1992 15:40:00 -0800
From:   katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris n Vickie)

Vickie here. Jorn's pissed and doesn't want to take it anymore:

> Sheee-it.  Look at the mess this place has gotten into!  Me'n'Ron Hill
> are about to start a long, dweeb'n'girly-boy thread about the songs,
> starting with the demo-tapes.

I think that sort of project is a fine idea.

> But I think before I start we need to get a sense of how people feel
> about this outspoken sub-group that enjoys seeing people's feelings
> hurt.

I think we all know who you're referring to here. I've been honest and
stated my feelings before. There are always going to be people who
piss on other people under the guise of "trying to keep perspective"
and the more they rationalize their "right" to be rude and thoughtless,
the more I realize that I don't particularly want to be part of this
forum. I still keep on reading gaffa because I love Kate and I love all the
truly wonderful people I have met here. The BSB+ arena haven't driven me away
yet, but they have driven lots of others away. No, I can't let myself
off the hook either, I've done my share to drive people away and I
truly regret it, but I have tried to keep my mouth shut recently. I even
flamed Cynthia via e-mail about her "fat-assed" remark to keep it out of
the newsgroup, but it still ended up in gaffa. Not through me though.

> Which of these would people prefer?
>
> 1) Put them in a kill file on Spies when they be rude, so they can read
> but not post... at least until they acknowledge that rudeness is not
> acceptable.  (They can have their own newsgroup: rec.music.gaffa.badvibes,
> or mailing list: HellHounds!)

HeeHa! Wish I'd thought of those for my splinter list.

> 2) Have two versions of Love-Hounds (the mailing list), one with assholes,
> one, via a kill file, without.  Let people choose, but post all messages,
> even the vulnerable ones, for the assholes to sputter over.

Hmmm, interesting idea. What about a "nice" person who occasionally goes
into kamakazie mode? I've done my share of flaming and just because I
was fighting for the "emotionals" doesn't excuse the times I've been rude
myself. If I stooped to their level, that makes me just as bad and I would
go into the kill file too.

> 3) Start a private mailinglist for the tenderfolk, the girlyboys and
> boylygirls, and crosspost or not, as we fucking well choose, you sorryass
> unenlightened parasitic *dicks*. (With a kiss kiss cross cross kiss ;^)
> (That's from Finnegans Wake).

Wow, when Jorn gets mad, it's serious business. Jorn is one of the
sweetest-tempered people I've ever met. Folks, though this has the
makings of a humongous flame war, I think these things should be
discussed. It can't possibly be a rational discussion, unfortunately.
Cynics on their rude high-horses and emotionals with their hearts
bared will never get along. It's unsolvable, I fear.

> We went and let the weirdness in, naively, idealistically, hopefully, but
> we still have the key, we can change our minds and *lock them out* in
> any number of ways.

A few bad apples spoil the whole batch....such a shame.

> Shall we debate for a week and then count heads?

Count me in as a hopeless, unrepentant "emotional" (and damn proud of it!)
---
From:   nv89-pyl@dront.nada.kth.se (Patrik Yle'n)
Date:   Mon, 27 Jan 1992 15:37:46 -0800

I agree with Vickie 100%, I haven't been able to follow Gaffa for the last two
years, and I was shocked by all the flaming going on when I got my net access
back two months ago. Gaffa has sunken(almost!) to a level where it becomes
boring to read...
---
From:   Desi The Three-Armed Wonder Comic <jondr@sco.COM>
Date:   Mon, 27 Jan 1992 16:08:20 -0800

I am not barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.EDU (Jorn Barger).  I didn't say:
>so, let me get this straight.  you're bothered that we were bothered
>and expressed our disapproval, so you're expressing your disapproval?

I know Stev0 pretty well - trust me, he is NOT bothered that you are
bothered.  I think you utterly misread the tone in his "Geez, can you say
`hypersensitive'" statement.

>classic dweeb...

well, you said it, not me.
---
Date:   Mon, 27 Jan 1992 17:36:00 -0800
From:   judi@coyote.datalog.com (Judi McKernan)
...
   Also- here it is, IMHO of course. I'm sick of all the incessant bitching
going on. Flaming is one thing, and at times I really enjoy it. But lately,
it's been nothing but a bunch of juvenile, immature, petty, inane, childish,
ignorant, un-thought-out and whiny BULLSHIT. I, for one, wish we could get
back to discussing Kate and related artists/issues rather than having to listen
to a few snot-nosed brats go overboard at taking their tattling and name-calling
to excessive and EXTREMELY BORING lengths in this digest. GROW UP, PEOPLE!
---
From:   stev0@sti.com (Steve Berlin)
Date:   Tue, 28 Jan 1992 06:41:19 -0800
...
P.S. I'm just as tired as everyone else of this flame war I seem to have
started (I'm sorry I started it - While I don't mind reading other folks'
flames, I give bonus points if they know when to shut up.  Of course, if
The Powers That Be decide TO censor me, they would also have to censor
Jorn, 'cause he's been flaming as much - if not more - than I.  Funny how
it works both ways, isn't it?  That's my final word on this dreary topic,
I promise.
---
From:   caen!bsbbs!mdc@harvard.harvard.edu (Melissa D. Caldwell)
Date:   Tue, 28 Jan 1992 18:35:40 -0800

barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.EDU (Jorn Barger) writes:
> We went and let the weirdness in, naively, idealistically, hopefully, but
> we still have the key, we can change our minds and *lock them out* in
> any number of ways.

Who exactly is "we"?  As long as we have this "us versus them"
mentality, flaming will continue.  I really do understand why
you made the proposals you did, Jorn.  Most people do not like conflict
and disagreement.  I do not- but I will not allow anyone to bad mouth
me publicly without a response.  If that makes you uncomfortable, I'm
sorry. There is nothing I can do about that, other than suppress
_my_ opinions and feelings, which is something I refuse to do.

Unless I am mistaken, this is an open forum, and as such, it is my
right to speak freely.  You (or anyone else for that matter) do not
have to agree with me, you don't have to like what I have to say, but
you cannot deny my right to speak.  Doing so constitutes censorship,
and we've already been through that discussion...
---
From:   Ben Siemerink <bjhs@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Jan 1992 02:16:22 -0800

What's gone in your heads?
Are you all conservatives?
Or don't you know cabaret in the US?

If someone wants to make a point which is different from what is
generally accepted (which is often with cabaret), one has to exaggerate,
go into extremes. Cabaret may sound 'rude', as Vickie says [*], but is
only meant to make the point. If you're feeling offended by criticism,
than that criticism might be too true. There is always a discussion
going on on cabaret performers if they're offending people or if they
are just humourous. The best performers in the Netherlands (we've got
some v-e-r-y good ones!) are very impopular by some groups of people,
especially the religious, conservatives (they - generally - can't stand
criticism very well, IMHO).

I, myself, think it's perfectly healthy to read complete different
point of views, even if I don't agree with it after reading. It keeps
me broadminded. I like it most of the times, because there's good
humour in it.

So, the point I want to make is: I like the Stev0 stuff on this news
group. It's just an-other fan, an-other human, with an-other point of
view, with other things to contribute to this news group. Keep on doing
your good work! You're certainly NOT 'fogging up my monitor' [Saurav
Misra (saurav@tgevax.life.uiuc.edu)]
...
[*   Vickie (katefans@chinet.chi.il.us)]
Anyway, saying you're a Kate fan too doesn't excuse your rudeness toward
people who do things within the "fandom" that *you* don't agree with.
---
Date:   Wed, 29 Jan 1992 07:40:42 -0800
From:   barger@ils.nwu.edu
Subject: Free and Cruel and Proud

What I'm hearing, so far, is that people think rudeness is relative and
nobody can ever draw any line, anywhere (on the Net, anyway).

If I woke up one morning and discovered I could no longer tell honesty from
rudeness, I swear I'd shoot myself.  I don't believe this is really that
kind of world.  I think really what's going on is everybody's afraid to act
the grownup anymore, for fear someone will 'turn grownup' against *them*.

I don't claim I've never hurt anyone's feelings, nor that I never will
again, but I have no qualms about standing up and saying I find rudeness
unacceptable, maybe because I also have no problem apologizing for my
misjudgments in that area when I'm told about them.

I can easily imagine that Stev0 didn't really think what he was saying,
that Ron is just a name on a CRT to him, that Ron's feelings are difficult
for Stev0 even to *imagine*, but I can't rationalize half a dozen people
saying they think that shit is *funny*, calling our outrage
"humorlessness".

Ten-year-old interviews???  "Geez, dude, that's even before *Megadeth*...
how could there be anything worth reading in *that*?  Fans, man, they're so
*infantile*, they think artists have something to *teach* them, but
everybody who's cool knows life is just a sewer of shit and all you can
ever do is dig your boots in a little harder on the other guy's face in
hopes of getting another inch above it."

(There's no way in hell Kate would have written "Up yours, ugly!" is there?
 That picture disc, was it official?)

I think the London Konvention in 1990 was a turning point for many of us,
meeting face to face and finding this huge band of friends who were utterly
trustworthy and true.  And we carried that back with us, and managed to
keep it going for most of a year before the locusts hit.

It's miraculous how much *heart* you can transmit over a digital line.  You
get a bubble going and everybody feels it and rushes to work just to get
another fix off it.  When Kate talks about her music feeling to her like a
mission.... **what else do you think she's referring to????**

Nobody doubts, right, that mailing lists have the right to kick out
assholes?  So why are moderated newsgroups any different?

I'd like to see an agreement where if someone is rude, everybody notices,
nobody clogs the airwaves arguing that they have a right to do that,
somebody (anybody!) clues them in and if they keep it up, you figure
they're emotionally retarded and leave them high and dry to work it out
with the folks who can eyeball them face to face... YOU DON'T KISS YOUR
COMMUNITY GOODBYE AND HIDE OUT FOR THE REST OF FOREVER.

You kick em off.  *Until they come clean*, is all.

If people are hoplessly uncomfortable with that, I guess I want to hear
from people who'd subscribe to a new private Kate mailing list (I'd like to
call it Homeground, if Krys and Peter and Dave don't mind), along the lines
of Ecto-- warm and fuzzy-- but with the upfront agreement that we won't
suffer fools, if any should try to subscribe.

I guess I wouldn't even mind digesting it to r.m.g./lh, so as to keep the
doors open for newcomers, but I won't be sticking around to read the
reactions there.  Ron, would that be agreeable to you?  Jessica, how much
work is maintaining a digest?  Can't it just run on automatic, usually?  I
will see if I can take it on here, but if anyone else is willing to
administer it, tell me too.

If you send me a 'yes', please make the subject line "Yes" or "Yes and
also..." or "Yes but...", so I can keep them sorted out.
---
Date:   Thu, 23 Jan 1992 10:12:55 -0800
From:   vishal@ra.csc.ti.com (Vishal Markandey)

Jorn suggests setting up a new private Kate mailing list.
I say YES, and can I get it in the daily digest form like
Ecto ?  I haven't heard a peep from the malignants in the
past few days.  Perhaps they are gone for good, I sure
hope so!!
---

[shall I go on?]

jorn