Re: IEDSRI Translation

[Van Smith <smithv@usafe16.ramstein.af.mil>]

DSearch@aol.com wrote:
There's a storm a-brewin' Love Hounds,

David swung back at IED:

>IEDSRI made a number of interesting points in "Excessive rabidity vs.
>excessive rapidity?", a response to my recent post.  It is unfortunate,
>however, that his post was composed in an alien tongue, making it difficult
>to take in the full extent of the communication.  As a public service to
>Lovehounds readers, a translation of IED's salient points is provided below:
>
><< If one wants to say, for example, that "Experiment IV [is] a bit
>pretentious," or that "Lionheart isn't quite as strong [as TKI]," one has a
>perfect right to do so, of course; but what value can the skeptical reader
>attach to such judgments in the total absence of substantive, substantiating
>argument?>>
>
>Here, IED asserts the following:
>1.  A person has the right to express his or her impressions of art (such as
>recorded music) or the response such art invokes in the eyes and ears of the
>beholder.  That is, except for...
>2.  All reactions to works of art must be intellectual in nature.  Emotional
>or intuitive responses are not valid.  Judgments and opinions only, if you
>please, and make damn sure you come to this court with adequate supporting
>evidence or your case will be thrown out.
>
>A "substantive, substantiating argument" to support one's gut-level response
>to music?  Any reader looking for reasons to justify subjective impressions
>of art might be well advised to first examine his own pretensions -- er,
>perspective in the matter. :)
>

Um, David, I think IED was simply saying that opinions on gut level
responses are welcome (expected?).   Just saying that one album is
stronger than another, for example, is kind of pointless in a discussion
group about KaTe.  We wanna know why you think so!  It invites further
discussion, not necessarily argumentative.  This enhances our own opinions
and insight into the Wonderful World of KaTe, insight we may not have
gleened had someone's reasons not been made known.

<snip!>

><< ..."critical" Love-Hounds postings... are, more often than not, too-hasty
>expressions of the writers' fleeting personal preferences... ...everyone has
>an equal right to a voice in the public information-stream; but that doesn't
>mean that we should... all spill our ids out into that already roiling
>current armed with a false confidence that whatever we say must be of value
>simply because we have said it... Have our customs of public discourse really
>declined to such an extent that any writer's pronouncement about any subject
>at all must be received with perfect equanimity.. no matter how flippant or
>flimsy that pronouncement might be?>>
>
>Here, IED has concluded that he either doesn't like or agree with my original
>comments.  Additionally, not only does he consider my points to be invalid,
>he is implying that they are the product of a lesser intellect because they
>are different than his own.  Or the criteria I used as the basis for my
>comments were different than and thus inferior to his own.  He does it
>charmingly, but make no mistake -- this _is_ his communication.
>
>To this I say:  
>
>F__k you. 
>
>:)
>

Sorry for editing your comment David, in advance.  But are you
intentionally including the emoticon to mimick/mock IED here?  If
you are, your attack is getting way to personal - please move it to
direct email to IED.  If not, same answer, and by the way, you've just
reduced your own reply to the level you perceived IED's response to be.

<snip!>

>You're welcome to attack me, Andy, if that's what you feel compelled to do.
> This is an open forum.  You're within your rights to be a shit here.
> However, common courtesy would dictate you be a clean and straightforward
>shit, not a sneaky one.
>

No, IED is not welcome to attack you David, not in this forum.  If he 
wishes to assault you, I'm certain he'll have the good sense to do it
privately.  And don't you kind of feel like Moses standing in the middle
of the parted Red Sea right about now saying, "Go ahead God, I *dare*
you to drop the water on me!"     

<snip!>

I'm not protecting IED here David (he can do that far better himself).
Just summing up that discussion about KaTe here is more than welcome,
not just emotional statements.  It's still wonderful to see posts
detailing emotional responses to works by KaTe, I just like to know
what made the emotion so strong - maybe I missed something in the
performance and next time I saw it I too could experience the
emotion.

Peace, peace, peace,

Van