Re: Be Kind to IED's. . . Gaffas?!

[chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (Chris Williams)]

IED writes:
>About Gaffa: IED is embarrassed. He used to be a student of 
>Chris Williams's dictum on this issue, believing
>that the word had some specific but unshared meaning 
>other than its ostensible one: "gaffer's tape". IED 
>believed this primarily because -- well, he now 
>(after how many years now, |>oug?) concedes, just because!
>
>The argument which Chris has just put forward to defend
>the protestant theory has, however (and to IED's regret), revealed its
>essential weaknesses, and is, moreover, offensive 
>to this fan.  It is based on assumptions, not evidence. And one 
>of those assumptions, apparently, is that Kate is some kind 
>of pathological liar whose own statements can be discounted
>whenever they don't suit a fan's theory. 

   No, Kate has *specifically* stated that she is a human, in the
_Kate Bush-On Tour_ interview. Perhaps IED can reconcile his doctrine
of Kate's divinity with Kate's own self-professed humanity.

   I feel very confident of the following:

    Kate is human
    Humans lie
    Kate lies

  Sad, but true. 

>Although IED takes due note of Chris's citations of the incidence of 
>untruths in the Word of Kate Bush, he cannot see in them any real 
>foundation for Chris's conclusion that her statement about "Gaffa" (or 
>"gaffa") should be included among those untruths.

   It's just a theory. My theory, my thesis if you will. I have plenty
of them.

>(Questions of relative stickiness, etc., do not bear discussion.)  
>The reason we know that Kate has -- rarely -- spoken untruthfully is 
>because we can produce indisputable evidence contradicting her 
>statements in those cases. (We should remember also that journalists 
>have been known to misquote her.) Unless we can do the same in this 
>case, we have no business (in IED's present opinion) *assuming* that she 
>has lied about "G/gaffa" -- particularly when her explanation makes good 
>sense. 

   Her "gaffa" tape explanation is only one of the explanations she has
offered. To my knowledge, she has *never* offered both the "gaffer's 
tape"
explanation and the "struggling with her own errors and limitations" one
in the same interview.

   Where's Ron Hill when we need him.

>So: we are to believe that Kate simply "couldn't" have used the word so
>cavalierly in a song of such seriousness, and that therefore -- she 
>didn't; and: we are to explain away her statement that the word means 
>"gaffer's tape" -- because "Kate lies".  Given both the weakness and the 
>unsavoriness of this argument, coupled with an extremely convincing 
>recent posting by |>oug /\lan on the subject, IED must, at least 
>conditionally, reverse his position and seek re-admission to the 
>literalist camp. Frankly, he is a bit ashamed to have played hooky from 
>so sensible, humble and honorable a school of thought for so long.

   When I pull up the contexts of the various explanations of _Suspended
In Gaffa_ and relate her choice of explanation to the quality and
thoroughness of the interview, I will be happy to welcome you back to
my camp.

>He would, however, greatly appreciate it if someone could
>follow up on this business of the use of the word "Gaffa"
>in the Tree of Life, or whatever it is.

   I, for one, would like to have a phonetic pronunciation of the
Hebrew word.

                          Chris Williams of
                             Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
                               chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (his)
                                 vickie@njin.rutgers.edu      (hers)