Maliciousness in Love-Hounds

[aj796@freenet.carleton.ca (Tippi Chai)]

> If there really are people with malicious hearts here, shouldn't we do 
> something? 
1) I don't think flame wars are happening because people are malicious;
   rather it's because some people have high opinions of themselves, and
   others send off email or posts in the heat of the moment, so petty
   disagreements can lead to malicious words being flung across the net and
   trampled feelings.
2) Even if people are malicious, there is nothing we should/can do - if we
   bar people from posting (as if we can) it will be CENSORSHIP.  

> Are they not everything that's opposed to Kate?

Well, KateFandom ain't a religion (although some regard Her as Godhead)
and she has never said "Thou shalt do this" or "My fans should never do that".
While she herself is the embodiment of politeness, her fans are not required
to possess that particular characteristic.

As for those who say LH is dominated by a close-kit family, I disagree.
The names that were cited are those who post a lot and/or possess a
huge amount of Kate lore, and that is the only "kinship" that is apparent.
It is true that newbies (Kate-wise or Net-wise) can be intimated by the
tone of some of their postings.  But I am sure their intent is not to
exclude newcomers.  Unfortunately personalities are as different as snow 
flakes, and some people tend to stir up friction a lot; in the case
of LoveHounds there just seems to be a larger than normal proportion
of them!

--
Tippi Chai, Toronto, ON, Canada             aj796@freenet.carleton.ca
"The whims that we're weeping for/Our patents would be beaten for" Kate Bush
"I remembered the tears for the jellyfish drowned in the sand" Happy Rhodes