Gaffaweb >
Love & Anger >
1996-36 >
[ Date Index |
Thread Index ]
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
From: "Xenu's Sister" <vickie@miso.wwa.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 20:05:53 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Len Bullard's comments about Gaffaweb
To: Love-Hounds <love-hounds@gryphon.com>
Beware: of Scientology and Dianetics
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
In-Reply-To: <323710CA.47D1@HiWAAY.net>
Loves: Kate Bush/Happy Rhodes/Jane Siberry/Tori Amos/Peter Gabriel/Sarah McLachlan/Victoria Williams
Sender: owner-love-hounds
Web: http://miso.wwa.com/~vickie/
On Wed, 11 Sep 1996, Len Bullard wrote: > [Chris W.] > > >I really don't understand this bit. Gaffaweb not for > >scholarship? That is it's main purpose! A quick glance > >at the table of contents will confirm that. > > A quick glance will reveal that a scholar will be > forced to disregard a lot of LoveHounds commentary > on themselves "commentary on themselves"? Len, Would you please quit beating around the Bush and say what you mean? What *exactly* are you talking about? Give us some URLs, please. Give some examples. You're painting the entire site with a brush that only you know the shape of and with colors that only you can see. At first I thought you were talking about Wieland's "IED" section in Dreaming (which is hardly findable with any kind of "quick glance") but IED doesn't talk about *himself*, he talks about Kate, so you must be referring to something else. What?? Tell us where your eye is looking when it makes that "quick glance". >to find what they are looking for > about Kate Believe me, we know that there's much to be done, but we're very open to suggestions. Nothing's going to be *cut* from Gaffaweb because of what you say, but a lot can be added if you'd just make some actual suggestions instead of being vague. (Btw, a search engine is in the works, which will help a *lot*) > unless knowing the personalities of > LoveHounds is important to their thesis. This is needlessly sarcastic. If you *are* talking about Dreaming, I'll duke it out with you if you want to be this way. Wieland put months and months of work into it, and I spent weeks html'izing it, because I believe it is the cornerstone of the "Gaffa" part of Gaffaweb. It's an amazing accomplishment on Wieland's part, truly extraordinary work, and I'll not have you trivialize it with sarcasm. I still have *thousands* of links and images to add to Dreaming (and Moments), so it's far from finished, but Wieland's work, just as pure *text*, is an achievement that shines far and above anything else on Gaffaweb, or any of the other Kate sites, for that matter. He took 10 *years* of Love-Hounds archives and filtered it down to its most beautiful essence, Love-Hounds talking about Kate at every phase of her career. Insult Wieland's work if you wish, but I'd like to see *you* take on such a project and make it as fascinating, interesting and comprehensive. If a few (easily skippable) chapters about some of the people who have populated LH/rmg over the years bother you, that's cool, but there's no need to be sarcastic, no need to hurt Wieland's feelings (or, if he's not hurt, then mine, because it hurts me too.). But then, you're so vague, and Gaffaweb is so big, that I don't even know if you *are* talking about Dreaming. > However, as you say, > > > It is intended to reflect the personalities of the people > > who make up Love-Hounds... > > As I think others should have final say on the construction > of their websites, you should have final say on the content > of yours. It doesn't belong to Chris, or me, or Wieland, or anyone else on the team. It really beongs to Bill, but it's *for* Love-Hounds, for rec.music.gaffians. Join up and work on something that isn't there that you think should be there. You're more than welcome. It's a *volunteer* effort. Volunteer! > But criticism comes so easily to one with a cause to > promote, doesn't it? Huh? > > open and viewable to all browsers... > > Love and Anger... and a little piece of rope... Huh? > >Vickie mistakenly apologized for Gaffaweb not being finished. It > >will never be "finished" as long as LoveHounds exists. > > It is an incredible resource Thanks on behalf of the group, but you contradict yourself. Scholars need resources, as many and varied as possible. How can it be a resource yet not for scholars of "Kateology"? > but when I want a *personal view* of Kate Bush, I > listen to her music. Her feelings are there for > everyone to share. Of course, but what does this have to do with the site? Vickie