Re: Chris and Sam Friends Forever...

[SamiT007@aol.com]

>SamiT007@aol.com (Samantha) will probably regret saying:

No, I rarely *regret* anything I say (type), but that doesn't mean I can't
admit I was mistaken, arrogant, hurt, pissed off, etc...

>   Uh...my posting was about the *facts* about Kate's stated religious 
>beliefs. You are perfectly welcome to check them. They are available
>in the archives. 

I never said I didn't believe you.  I really do appreciate the facts you
shared with me.

>   No, I'm a JERK. Always have been when the idiotic subject of religion
>comes up, that vast stone weighing us down, that stinking albatross 
>hung from the neck of mankind. Against *that* I'm quite happy to be called
>a JERK.

Good thing you can be honest with yourself (and me/us) and admit it!  Some of
us would strongly disagree with you, however, on the "stinking albatross"
comment.

>   I'm glad to hear that. But it's one of those that has been floating
>around for *so* long, that it is a very sore point. Asking about
>rumors perpetuates them, and breathes life into them. They only 
>have continued existance when people keep them alive.

Pardon me (again), but when there *are* references to particular subjects in
Kate's work, how am I to know if a rumor is false or not unless I ASK?!?!?!  

>   If you had heard that Kate was deeply involved in sado-maschoism,
>and that the delays between albums were due to being a personal
>slave to HRH Prince Charles...would you ask here if it were true?

If there was any evidence in her lyrics/music and if I had heard it from
enough people, yes, I would, even at the *risk* of annoying you again!

>than the rumor I just made up. Inane rumors repeated often have this 
>way of annoying otherwise nice people to distraction. (Remember
>last week when you were thanking me? Same person.) 

Are you saying "otherwise nice people" referring to yourself or to me, or
both?  Perhaps we are both "otherwise nice people" who were distracted--I
know I am, and I hope you are, too (except for when you are being a jerk.)  I
remember thanking you last week, and I still appreciate the assistance you
gave me.  Just because I thank someone one week doesn't mean I can't be
pissed off at them the next.  It's just part of life.  It doesn't mean I'm
always pissed at you and will never thank you again, or appreciate your
input, it just means I'm pissed NOW (or at least was pissed Yesterday!)

>   What pedestal? I stay here answering questions from a love of Kate's
>music. This one time I give you an answer you don't like. I enjoy sharing
>knowledge about my favorite subject. Yes, a lot of people consider me
>an expert. There are several more knowledgable people...IED, Peter
>Fitzgerald-Morris and |>oug /\lan (at his peak), and a large number
>of equally knowledgable people like Uli, Weiland and others.

Actually, I prefer your answer to most of the others, as I think paganism is
ridiculous, too.  (Don't flame me, guys--I'm not trying to start another
flame war or discussion of paganism vs. every other world religion!)  What I
*didn't* like was your attitude and language you used.  If you are an expert
on Kate, good for you.  You have achieved a goal I have set that I have not
yet reached.  "I want to be just like you when I grow up." :-)

>  If you cannot see that I was flaming the *question* rather than the
>questioner...well, that's your problem. 

When you say it's an "idiotic" question, it's obviously implying that the
person asking the question is an idiot, too.  Would you not agree?  Only
people can make questions "idiotic" or not, since the question wouldn't exist
without the mind that created it.  Perhaps you meant to flame the question,
but you could not help but flame the questioner at the same time.

>   "Other" in this case was directed at the inevitable "witches"
>popping up to defend the inane proposition. I did *not* intend
>to accuse *you* of being a "witch", and very humbly apologize.
>
>   Note that, true to form, they have popped up (usually a first
>post.) Can you forgive me for anticipating the inevitable? Of 
>*course* they (again true to form) offer no proof just as I said.

You are certainly correct about the "witches" popping up all over the place.
 And I did think you intended to accuse me of being a witch, or at least a
"witch-sympathizer", but as you explained it, I see now you didn't mean to.
 That's quite alright.  When I read this I was probably already bent out of
shape just enough to skew my perspective a bit.

>   Yes, I'm a crappy speller. And I'm writing on a borrowed computer with
>a newsreader without a spell-checker. But a bit of advice...if you are
>reduced to attacking the form rather than the content...

I wasn't attacking the form (although it was wrong), I was attacking the
"creator" of the form, just as you (whether you meant to or not) attacked the
questioner of the question.

>  Do you really want to piss me off? I may be an asshole, but I am a
>very valuable resource. I could bore you with my "Kate Resume", but
>suffice to say that I have done things for Love-Hounds far beyond the
>call of duty, and despite the possibility of being flamed by the clueless
>will continue to do so in the future. You will have questions, and I will
>continue to supply answers.

Do I really want to piss you off?  What kind of question is that?  You seemed
to want to piss me off--I was just fighting back!  I don't want to make
enemies or "piss people off", but if they do it first, I have no problem
dishing out what they served first!  Let's make sure we just don't piss each
other off again, okay?  As for being a valuable resource, I'm never meant to
imply that you aren't.  There's a difference between a valuable resource, and
a valuable resource with an attitude, however, and if I had my choice, I
would choose the former, but I may have no choice and have to settle for the
latter. (Hey, are you insinuating again that I am one of the "clueless"?)

>  I suggest that you consider apologizing for that last remark and 
>consider just getting used to me. I'm staying.

Actually, I considered apologizing for that last remark long before I read
your response to me, because it was quite out-of-character for me--I really
am a sweet, nice, quiet, unassuming person.  On the other hand, I had such
fun coming up with that "last remark" that while I may not still feel the
same way ( now that I've vented) I still can't quite apologize just yet--that
would be admitted defeat, yes?  And it would be nullifying my remark and it
was IMO such a *good* one!  On the other hand, you apologized for the
misunderstanding that occurred from your "implication" that I was in fact a
witch.  So, maybe I should.  What the heck, I can swallow my pride:   "Chris,
will you please forgive me?  I sincerely apologize and I don't want you to be
mad at me.  Can we make up?  Friends...?"

Anyway, let's not discuss it further...I'm sure we've succeeded in pissing
off and boring the other love-hounds with this "discussion." 

>P.S. You will like the upcoming Love-Hounds Collection.

What upcoming L-H collection, oh Great One?  I don't think I've heard about
it!