Re: anAmosity

[hart@corona.math.vt.edu (Heath David)]

In article <9408232206.tn162784@aol.com> Mr. Marvick writes:
>IED would venture to guess that Chris Williams remembers, just as does IED,
>the last time Palmano's denials were related to Love-Hounds by Kevin.
> Chris's point was that the denial of any influence of the American cover
>design of The Kick Inside on Palmano is untenable, and dishonest.  IED agrees
>completely, and extends the accusation to Ms. Amos herself, since she was
>clearly a partner in the conception both of cover design and of her own music
>and performance style.  

And then he writes:

>IED takes no position on whether either Palmano or
>Amos is completely conscious of that influence, but he believes that they
>ought to be, because, whether conscious or not, the influence is very real.

I don't see how you can accuse someone of dishonesty, and then in the following
sentence allow the possibility that they may not be aware of the influence.  
If they're unaware that the influence exists, they're not being *dishonest*,
only mistaken, when they say that it doesn't.  The accusation of dishonesty is 
a far more damaging one than an accusation of mistakenness, and one that I 
think is unjustified by your argument.

Heath