KBC Newsletter 18 - reply

[Mike Holmes <mike@mc-h.demon.co.uk>]

Originally composed 12th Oct in response to:
In article <01bcd53d$f2d68e40$028ae595@default>, Beate & Thilo
Meiswinkel <meiswinkel@msn.com> writes
>I am very annoyed. What do you think about the KBC's work? I think other
>fanclubs
>do a much better job than they do. Why don't we discuss this here?
>
Oh dear, I can't resist rising to the bait on this one-

In a letter I received from Lisa 1996, she explained in essence that the
KBC ceased to be a "fanclub" in the proper sense in '95, and is now
"more of an information service". Hence there's no longer any membership
fee either. The way it now works is that you supply an SASE, and WHEN
there's any information, it's returned in same. This is what indeed
happens and in that context I don't think it would contravene our trade
descriptions act.

I object to the suggestion that the KBC newsletter should not be allowed
to mention anything about Kate's beloved brother, and I think she would
too. If what he's doing is important to her, which of course it is, then
it belongs. I don't mind reading about what some of the other family
members are up to occasionally, as it helps to broaden the background.

>By the way, Kate's warm words did not touch me this time - a very
>poor "Thankyou" for all the fans. 

Speaking for myself, her precious words have been carefully put away
with all her other precious words - they are, after all, nearly as rare
as flecks of gold dust in a desert. I will agree though that it was not
as verbose as say the 1996 issue, also it was extremely late. To my way
of thinking these two aspects seem to point to some other main
preoccupation - it's not like she can find nothing better to do other
than doss around the house all day trying to compose a suitable reply to
fan letters. I.e. there's something else going on that's demanding most
of her time and energy. Make what you want out of that.

-- 
Mike H