Glen Ford, don't attack Karen

["Saunders, Jonathan" <Saunders@albpig.cho.ge.com>]

In response to Karen, Glen Ford <glen@gold.interlog.com> wrote:

> I cannot believe you are a Katefan; perhaps you are not!
> Read "Cloudbusting" by Ron Hill. [....]
> If you cannot read it, have someone else read it to you.
> Can you here me?

Glen, this kind of posting is really unnecessary. Please don't attack   
Karen. She is a wonderful KateFan and a great contributor to this list.   
You can make your point without attacking her personally. You said you   
read it in there,  she asked for a specific citation. "In Cloudbusting"   
is not a specific citation; it's too big.

I don't think we need to get really fanatical about this question. Maybe   
she wants a baby, maybe she doesn't. Maybe she'll try, maybe she won't.   
One thing we can all be reasonably sure of is that in the past she has   
probably said she doesn't want children and she has probably said she   
does. If she has one, then we'll know.

BTW, in previous post in this digest, Wieland Willker  said that IED   
said: "She's, in his opinion, the best thing that's happened to Kate Bush   
fandom in AGES."

Then, in response to Vickie, Glen Ford <glen@gold.interlog.com> wrote:

> Here is an example of your logic:
> Suppose I have an argument with a neigbour. I go out and buy a gun.
> Your logic concludes that I am going to kill that neighbour.

Killing is an unreasonable, unlawful act and one that we would not expect   
to happen, so I would not conclude that you would kill that neighbor.   
Having a baby is different and one that we might reasonably expect to   
happen. There is a big difference. Besides, I don't think Vickie is   
*concluding* Kate will have a baby, she's merely *speculating* that Kate   
might want to have one. Again, big difference.

/jonathan
 --
<Jonathan.SAUNDERS@cho.ge.com> Katefan. Mi gxuas porti verdan stelon!
GE Fanuc Automation; 1 Columbia Circle; Albany, NY USA 12203-5189
(EDT=UTC-4) +1.518.464.4594 (FAX: +1.518.464.4613)