Re: anAmosity persisting

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

>In <CMM-RU.1.4.777865848.vickie@pilot.njin.net> vickie@pilot.njin.net (WretchAwry) writes:
>
>> Good Lord, IED is truly beyond help on this matter.
>
>YES!! You get it now!
>
>IED's posts are wonderful fun to read!  Goddess help me, and please
>know that I mean no offense or disrespect, but the responses he
>evokes are always funnier.
>
>IED will *always* take the Kate-100% viewpoint.  It's up to us to
>find the logical middle ground in our own hearts and minds.  IED
>helps us do that. 
>
>YAY FOR IED!!

Nope, there's a big difference here.  One can adopt the 'Kate-100%
viewpoint' without bad-mouthing other artists.  Andrew sometimes
crosses the line between fanaticism and maliciousness.  And I think
he crossed that line this time.  
 
I'd have had no objections if he had claimed that Kate's influence
on Tori was so sublime and subtle that even someone as acutely
perceptive as Tori couldn't detect it.  In fact, I'd quite probably
agree with that statement.

Instead, he's claimed that Tori is being _dishonest_ when she describes
the influences on her work.  I don't think he's substantiated that 
claim, I don't think he *can* substantiate that claim, and frankly
it bothers me that his idea of Showing A Little Devotion includes
spiting other musicians.  I suspect he'll next accuse Emily Bronte 
of stealing Kate's ideas without giving her credit.

Heath