Back to LH History main page
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 90 14:18:58 EDT
From: Andrew B Marvick <abm4@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu>
Subject: Quiz
P.S.:
praKTice Quiz KuesTion No. 1--Difficult.)
A panther stalked through the jungle. Who or what was the panther?
praKTice Quiz KuesTion No. 2--Intermediate.)
What was Kate's source for the rhythm in Jig of Life ?
praKTice Quiz KuesTion No. 3--Difficult.)
How long did the fall of Jericho take--be as precise as possible.
[some days later:]
P.S.: Answers to three sample test questions:
1.) In 1982 Kate, in an article written for the Kate Bush Club Newsletter, described how she instructed her musicians to play their parts--generally not with traditional musical terms, but via visual imagery. In the case of Eberhard Weber's bass part for Pull Out the Pin, for example, Kate saw "a panther, stalking through the jungle." She used a similar image later, when describing work on the Hounds of Love sessions. IED assumes that the bassline, if associable with a specific character in the song, represents the Viet Cong guerrilla fighter, not the clumsy, disheartened U.S. G.I.
2.) The rhythm track on Jig of Life was suggested to Kate by her brother Paddy, who heard something like it in a recording he himself had made of what he identified as a Greek (or Northern Italian) "fire dance".
3.) The "fall of Jericho" was a bit of a trick question. The name Jericho should immediately suggest the video of Experiment IV to all Kate Bush fans, since that film features a Dr. Jerry Coe in a lead role. When Dr. Coe arrives at the secret laboratories at the beginning of the video the time on the clock reads twelve o'clock noon. Toward the end of the disastrous fourth experiment, the time can be made out on a wristwatch--about 5:30 p.m. So, the answer to the question is "about five and a half or six hours."
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 90 04:38:28 -0500
From: katefans@world.std.com
(Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago)
Subject: Chris' stuff
Chris here,
Regarding these "where is our beloved IED, and who is this Andrew Marvick person" questions; IED is an "Artificial Arrogance" (AA) program. It was accidently created when the complete works of Wilhelm Reich were loaded into a Kate Bush data-base. This program seized control of the computer that Andrew was using at school. It intercepted all of Andrew's innocent mail and re-wrote it in a bizarre style, black-mailing Andrew by threatening to erase his transcript. Andrew's move to New York was an attempt to escape the control of this creature. It has been threatening to transfer itself across the net. A crack team of researchers has been assembled to combat it, including Dr. Ruth Westheimer, Dr. Wayne Dyer, Dr. Suess and The Amazing Kreskin.
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 91 17:47:17 EST
From: Andrew B Marvick <abm4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu>
Subject: More apologies
John asks why a discussion group dediKaTed to Kate Bush has to always be focused on--Kate Bush? IED can devise no suitable answer to this remarkable question. Maybe it's just too deep...
-- Andrew Marvick
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 91 15:09:41 EST
From: Andrew B Marvick <abm4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu>
Subject: Mailbox
Now, then. IED would like to say that he has really been enjoying reading the variety of stories Love-Hounds have been posting recently about how they first got into Kate. Since we all know the wonderful feeling of the initiKation riTes, these are the kind of stories we can all appreciate.
For anyone's interest, IED's epiphany was swift and certain--no gradual awakening for him. The place was Florence, Italy, the time November, 1977. IED was then just plain old Andrew Marvick, a junior on his year abroad posing as a callow art student, with nothing but a cheap AM-FM radio to fulfill his musical needs. It was a dark and stormy night, about 2 a.m., and the radio station was Radio Luxemburg--one of the two stations that picked up on "Wuthering Heights" months before its official release (the other was Capital Radio). It was nearly two months before IED learned the name of the artist, and more than half a year before he could obtain a copy of The Kick Inside, but even through the static and the tinny mono speaker of the pocket radio that night IED knew that he had heard The Voice of Angels. Now, thirteen and a half years later, he can still hear them...
Favorite album: Either The Dreaming or The Ninth Wave (which can be seen as a short album in its own right)--when all is said and done, probably The Dreaming (please, no gloating from |>oug).
Favorite song: A tie between Under the Ivy and Ne T'Enfuis pas.
Least favorite album: A dubious category, but if forced, IED would say Never For Ever --which shows you how silly the category is.
Favorite video: A three-way tie. Ran Tan Waltz, from the Kate ("Christmas") special; Army Dreamers --the "Mrs. Mopp" version from the German programme "RockPop"; and Experiment IV --the lip-synch version from Wogan. As wonderful as the studio-made promotional videos are, IED still prefers a select few of the TV-studio lip-synchs from years past.
-- Andrew Marvick, walking at a KomforTable pace with Mother...
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1991 06:27:00 -0800
From:
IED0DXM%MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: IED's DIDs
IED's DIDs:
IED's movie DIDs:
-- Andrew Marvick
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 1991 12:24:03 -0700
From: Andrew B Marvick <abm4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu>
Subject: Hello, old friends!
IED here, after returning from a trip to Europe and England. While in the London area he was very fortunate to meet up with our much admired and appreciated friends of Homeground Towers, Dave Cross, Peter Fitzgerald-Morris and Krystyna Fitzgerald. They were splendid hosts to this philocanine from beginning to end, and IED never had such good egg, ham and chips...
IED did spend a couple of hours in and around Welling and Abbey Wood, and was surprised to find a British Rail poster up in the local railway station using Kate Bush's name (in a sense) to promote family rail discounts. Very charming.
IED is about to log off now to go pick up Two Rooms, which he just spotted in a nearby record shop. N.B.: the "lazerdisk" (sic) of Two Rooms is also supposed to be available domestically as this is being written--though whether Kate appears on it or not is a mystery to IED. Meanwhile IED hopes some of you will be keeping a sharp eye out for Prince's next video(s), esp. airings which identify the director(s), just in case the credit he gives to Kate in the notes of his new CD is explained by her involvement in one or more Prince video projects.
Take care, everyone.
-- Andrew Marvick, from two rooms at the end of the world
From: nessus@media.mit.edu (Douglas Alan)
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1993
18:55:12 GMT
Subject: Re: I E D
E Welsh writes:
> Previous attempts to guess the meaning behind The Symbols have proved fruitless, with IED refusing to be goaded into either confirming or denying theories presented by numerous intrepid philocanines. If REW casts his mind back, one particular theory--not his own--springs to mind: In Excelsis Dea which, if REW's total lack of latin education fails to expose him for the charlatan he is, means Goddess in heaven.
Don't bend your mind too much -- I, E, and D are just the first three letters of his old username, IED0DXM. His account was probably on some godawful IBM mainframe, where the system managers felt they must give users account names with apparently random sequences of numbers and letters, just so that everything would look proper and businesslike.
After all, if you start allowing people to have any old usernames, it's only a matter of time before they will want names like "dierepublicanscum" or "katebushisgod", and eventually things will disolve into a horrible state of anarchy. And then where would we be? You'd have all these people buying whatever old PC or workstation they wanted, rather than paying for overpriced IBM mainframes. Then the value of IBM stock would decline, Microsoft would be worth more than IBM, and our entire capitalist system would crumble, like the house of cards it is.
|>oug
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 93 10:27:31 EST
From: ganzer@binkley.nosc.mil
Subject: Re: I E D
As Doug said, IED was the first 3 letters of his user id. Here's a header line I lifted from an old posting of IED's:
>From @wiscvm.wisc.edu:IED0DXM@UCLAMVS Fri Feb 20 20:48:43 1987
>Date:
Fri, 20 Feb 87 17:44 PST
>From: IED0DXM%UCLAMVS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
I recall contacting the postmaster at CS.UCLA.EDU at the time the wiscvm BITNET gateway was disappearing looking for a path to continue exchanging e-mail with Andy , and they commented that this machine was an IBM mainframe "over in the business department" and that they didn't have any connections to it (eventually, they did, and his postings then came from ied0dxm@oac.ucla.edu). Actually, I don't think that this was even his own account. I recall Andy commenting that he shared this account with his father, who taught at UCLA.
As for WHY Andy chose the first three letters of his user id as a monikor for his alter-ego, I don't know, and even if it has some deeper meaning, I'm sure he'll keep us guessing about it just for the sake of generating discussion.
MarK T. Ganzer
From: toc@digitalk.com (Tim O'Connor)
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1993 15:09:42
PST
Subject: IED0DXM
REGARDING IED0DXM
people:
Aw, |>oug, why'd ya have to go blow the mystique? Always full of facts, eh?
The thing I glommed on to IEDs moniker lo! these many years ago was another relation to IBM. In the old days (and for all I know of yet today) IBM error codes all seemed to start with IED. At least the ones I ran across most often. The documentation was of absolutely no use in debugging since it all seemed to consist of words to similar to: "Contact your local IBM representative and report error IED47821".
So, when it came to seeking truth in the many mysteries surrounding our beloved Kate who else would I turn to but ... IED? (The usefulness of his information is a question I refuse to address :-)
Date: 26 Mar 1993 00:56:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Peter Byrne Manchester <PMANCHESTER@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: tIEDbit
All Doug's facts are correct, and in an earlier post that I can't now find, someone else had also recalled that IEDODXM was at UCLA. The problem is, in the phrase "his old username," who is the antecedent of the pronoun "his"? The thread concerns *IED*. Doug is only reporting what Andrew Marvick would tell you:
First, the little matter of "IED". There is no single correct answer, though your suggestion is an excellent one. I have had several suggestions from Love-Hounds over the years. Among the best, I think, are: "In Excelsis Dea" (is that the correct case- ending for "goddess", by the way?); Identity of Editor Deleted; and I Encourage Devotion. The "truth" is actually much less interesting: the letters were three among the thousands that UCLA computer account users were randomly assigned upon gaining access to the mainframe. I much prefer the fans' alternative explanations.
'My suggestion' had been this:
May I share with you my assumption about the identity of IED? Just to see those letters put me in mind of the medieval scholastic QED. QED = quod erat demonstrandum, "which was to have been demonstrated," the somewhat self-congratulatory way in which scholastic argumentation would conclude itself. If that's the model, then IED would be "id est demonstratum" or "<thus> it has been demonstrated!," an even MORE assertive claim about what has been presented. This may not be right, but is entirely in character for IED, who makes sure that everybody knows the exact and correct truth of any matter.
Andy Marvick's opinion of what IED means is of course well-informed, but as Evan Welch so correctly stated, "Previous attempts to guess the meaning behind The Symbols have proved fruitless, with IED refusing to be goaded into either confirming or denying theories presented by numerous intrepid philocanines."
IED still has never said. But it is IED's view, we all know, that Kate Bush is God. She is his creator, therefore. (If there had been no Kate Bush, there would be no IED. I.E.D.) In the cosmos of any competent creator, nothing is meaningless. So the quest continues. Probably IED doesn't know the secret himself.
"In excelsis deo," from which "In Excelsis Dea" derives <case is correct if recognized as dative>, comes from the first line of the Gloria in the Latin Mass: "Gloria in excelsis deo," "glory to God in the highest". The problem with 'in excelsis dea', taken as a stand-alone phrase, is that it makes the word 'dea', goddess, appear to be nominative. That would translate more like "Goddess in the highest <degree>" than like "Goddess in heaven." Perhaps that's why Andy includes it first in his list of favorites.
But that's just Andy's view, not IED's.
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 93 15:59:07 EST
From: Andrew B Marvick <abm4@cunixa.cc.columbia.EDU>
Subject: IED
IED must admit (as, for the record, he has done on several previous occasions) that "IED" is, indeed, just a randomly chosen sequence of letters. That does not mean, however, that they haven't acquired the function of an anagram over time...
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 93 15:59:07 EST
From: Andrew B Marvick <abm4@cunixa.cc.columbia.EDU>
Subject: Wow!
IED has just gone through the last ten days' Love-Hounds Digests, and is feeling pretty good. It seems his record for carrying on the longest, most mindlessly vituperative and ad hominem arguments over the phosphor thoroughfares of Love-Hounds has been categorically beaten! IED feels positively giddy from the lifting of that onerous reputation from his shoulders.
...
Finally, quite apart from whether "Happy" or "Tori" or any other of these persons is making valuable art or not, there really can be no question at all (among reasonable people) that at least these two musicians owe an IMMENSE debt to the example of Kate Bush. Anyone who maintains otherwise is deluding him/herself--including the artists themselves.
-- Andrew Marvick (IED)
Date: Sun, 4 Apr 93 13:35:23 EDT
From: vickie@pilot.njin.net (Vickie
Mapes)
Subject: Re: Wow!
In rec.music.gaffa IED writes:
>Finally, quite apart from whether "Happy" or "Tori" or any other of these persons is making valuable art or not, there really can be no question at all (among reasonable people) that at least these two musicians owe an IMMENSE debt to the example of Kate Bush. Anyone who maintains otherwise is deluding him/herself--including the artists themselves.
Just to get this straight right out of the starting gate, Happy is a *HUGE* Kate Bush fan. Quite apart from whether or not Kate fans should support Happy because of it, or would like Happy because of it, it's a fact that Happy would be the first to tell you. There's no deluding anyone. Happy was 16 when she became a Kate fan. Happy learned to *sing* by singing along with Kate's records (and Wendy Carlos and Queen) and that's one reason why Happy's high voice sometimes sounds similar to Kate's high voice. Happy would never deny that. She even wrote a song as a homage to Kate, and Peter Gabriel, and her other musical influences ("Feed the Fire" on _Warpaint_). Beyond Happy's love for Kate's voice and Kate's music, she deeply respects Kate's *control* of her music, that Kate didn't want anyone to tell her what to do, or how to manage her career. Kate is a very strong role model for Happy in many ways, but Happy doesn't want to *be* Kate, or be compared to such an extent that people will lose sight of Happy's own, unique music.
I know IED isn't interested in Happy (I've tried :-)) but I don't want IED (or anyone else) to think that Happy doesn't know that she owes an IMMENSE debt to the example of Kate Bush. She'll be the first to say so. (Well, she'd say it if asked anyway. Saying it out of context would be a bit weird.)
*Hug* to Andy, warm, firm handshake to IED.
Vickie
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 93 17:38:48 EDT
From: Andrew B Marvick <abm4@columbia.EDU>
Subject: Other musicians
Btw, IED glimpsed Riuichi Sakamoto there yesterday. Yes, IED actually can recognize and identify musicians who have no connection with Kate Bush. However, because of his irrelevance to Kate's work, IED saw no point in engaging him in conversation.
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 15:10:08 EST
From: Andrew B Marvick <abm4@columbia.EDU>
Subject: MisK.
Someone (was it Marcel Rijs) has counted IED among an "in-crowd" here at Love-Hounds, and IED wants to respond. Personal acquaintanceship with several philocanines is nearly inevitable when association with a discussion group lasts (as IED's with Love-Hounds has lasted) some eight years. Veteran members of this group will remember well (too well, no doubt) that there was a time when IED felt his phosphorous persona to be very much under attack, in the Jornian sense. He did not consider himself to be a member of the "in-crowd" for a very long time. In any event whatever status might obtain in said crowd is entirely illusory. After all, what fortune is it if one gain the world of Kate Bush fans, but lose one's Internet access (as, alas! IED is about to do again)?
=========
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 93 15:10:08 EST
From: Andrew B Marvick <abm4@columbia.EDU>
Subject: MisK.
IED would just like to repeat for the record that Kate has, after many years of prevariKation, come right out and said that she does, indeed, believe in the paranormal. Do with this fact what you will, but be aware that the existence of the paranormal has now been positively confirmed by She Who Really Is, and that therefore all further speculation and argument about its existence will be superfluous.
-- Andrew Marvick (IED), who hates to leave you...
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1993 00:42:07 -0500 (EST)
From: Peter Byrne
Manchester <PMANCHESTER@ccmail.sunysb.edu>
Subject: IED in limbo
Today is the day: Andrew B. Marvick goes where IED cannot help him. The man with the stick has come. Angels: do your thing!
From: IED0DXM@aol.com
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 94 19:35:56 EDT
Subject:
re: Dr. marcEL rIjs's LaudAble Notes About totp wh; &hg52
P.S.: IED blushes at being so kindly flattered by Dr. FitzGerald-Morris, the Dean of the Universitatis Homegroundis, in his invaluable continuing biography of Kate Bush, "Five Years Ago". It is not, IED assures his patient readers, because of PDFM's generous comments about IED that he now hastens to applaud and recommend Homeground's 52nd issue to all Kate Bush fans, for this excellent document is unquestionably a testament to the care, skill and professionalism of its editors and an invaluable souvenir of their magnificent convention of May 8th last.
P.P.S.: SRI
From: IED0DXM@aol.com
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 94 18:04:29 EDT
Subject:
DarE Ied cOMIt a Sin of omiSIon: LeAviNg it open? or nAy?
IED is touched, really touched, by the outpouring of philocanine support precipitated by Mr/Ms Runagate's (an apt name, if ever there was one!) uncouth remarks. To all those who took it upon themselves to defend his honor, IED conveys his heartfelt thanks, and herewith repays you with one of his most annoyingly fussy postings yet. As for this runagate, well. . . shall we say pistols at dawn?
The question was posed whether there will ever be a second edition of The Garden. Who can say? It would entail much work, work which appeals to IED but daunts his less dediKated flesh-and-blood counterpart. Let it be said that the projeKt is still planned.
=========
From: IEDSRI@aol.com
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 16:25:42 -0400
Subject: IED
IED received the following from Nancy, an excellent and knowledgeable Kate fan:
> Isn't "IED" military slang for "identified explosive device," or something like that?
One of the best suggestions so far, no? It seems to sum up IED all too well!
-- Andrew Marvick (IED)
From: IEDSRI@aol.com
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 15:47:20 -0400
Subject: IED again
> In the year or so I've been reading Love Hounds, I've always kind of thought of IED as standing for In Every Detail, as in "I Love KaTe In Every Detail"...
-- Van Smith
IED likes this one, too.
-- Andrew Marvick (IED)
From: IEDSRI@aol.com
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 19:05:15 -0400
Subject: I...E....?
> How about "Intensely Enthusiastic Devotion"? -- Gord Locke
This explanation suggests that there is something extreme, something excessive, about IED's admirably level-headed, academic interest in the subject. IED objects!
-- Andrew Marvick (IED)
From: Richard Hamilton <74557.664@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 5 Jul
1995 09:01:01 GMT
Subject: Re: IED again
I thought it meant "I Envy(sic) Del"?
From: kln@crl.com
Date: 29 Jul 1995 23:20:29 GMT
Subject: IED
'Twas the day before Katemas and all the world round,
Our sweet
Katie's fans to great parties were bound.
They carried some food and some
CD's along,
they watched our Kate dancing and some sang along.
But
out on the street there arose such a clatter
that Love Hounds sprang up to
see what was the matter.
There, with a laserdisc under his arm,
was
IED grinning. Pronouncing a charm
he pointed big-skyward and blew Kate a
kiss,
and all the bright stars spelled out "SHE REALLY IS!"
We heard him exclaim as he set to depart:
"Happy Katemas to all
and to all a bright heart!"
Karen Newcombe kln@a.crl.com
Sorry IED, I couldn't resist! ;)
From: IEDSRI@aol.com
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 1995 01:44:12 -0400
Subject: Excessive rabidity vs. excessive rapidity?
DSearch (David Reff?) writes:
> But I do admit it's beyond me why
those in the latter camp insist in coming down so hard on those of us who are
merely fans and not fanatics.
A legitimate complaint, one IED, as one who still tends to come down on people like a ton of bricks, however gentle he tries to be, feels a responsibility to answer.
First, he agrees that there's no excuse for ad hominem responses to postings openly critical of Kate Bush's work; not for the first time IED apologizes for any remarks which may have given the appearance of uncalled-for vituperation. As much as he would like it not to be so, he is and probably always will be a zealot.
He would like to think, though, that the main reason for his sometimes uncharitable defense of Kate Bush's work in the face of "critical" Love-Hounds postings is that these are, more often than not, too-hasty expressions of the writers' fleeting personal preferences.
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 judgements in the total absence of substantive, substantiating argument?
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 (and the implication of agreement), no matter how flippant or flimsy that pronouncement might be? In our sometimes excessively democratic society we have all learned (some of us, admittedly, with reluctance) that everyone has an equal right to a voice in the public information-stream; but that doesn't mean that we should ( caveo IED's introduction of the unfashionably moralism-pregnant mode) 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.
Anyway, as long as IED (along with others who share at least some of his views) is here to respond, those who are rash enough glibly to criticize Kate Bush's work will continue to find their views challenged, with the request (whether humbly or arrogantly made) that REASONS be supplied to substantiate the criticism.
That said, however, David asks some wonderful questions, to wit:
> [1.] What if Kate decides to market vials of her sweat under the guise of artistic expression?
[2.] Can Kate still do no wrong?
[3.] What if she decides she's not just a singer-songwriter and film director, she's also a painter?
[4.] They'll be great paintings just because they're hers?
[5.] And if she moves on to write books,
[6.] design buildings,
[7.] build cities....???
1. Could the geneticists out there tell IED whether sweat contains DNA? If so, he for one would gladly pay a good price for a phial of Kate's sweat --in the event that cloning should some day become an affordable service. Imagine a world filled with millions of Kate Bushes -- one might reasonably expect at least one album every...five years!
2. Wrong? As far as IED is aware, Kate has still done no "wrong", unless it be to herself (smoking, arguably, for example). But artistic error? If so, they are so minor as not to be worth identifying. Anyway, an artistic misfire by an artist of Kate Bush's caliber would certainly be as interesting and even artistically nourishing as the finest work we could ever hope to receive from any other living artist.
3. About a year ago Kate Bush sold (for charity) a pair of framed images of her own making. From their descriptions (and a not-very-helpful photo), they sounded like perfectly serviceable "conceptual" artworks. More importantly, they added insight into Kate Bush's lifelong thematic vocabulary, and in that respect any visual art by her would have value, both to art and to scholarship.
4. No, they won't necessarily be "great" paintings, just because they're hers (however one defines that modifier). But again, even Kate Bush's relatively smaller artistic achievements (could any of her works ever somehow be accurately identified as such) would have great value to the enthusiast of her art, because as the product of her mind, they would expand our appreciation of and insight into the rest of her production.
5. Do you seriously propose that a booklength text by Kate Bush could be without value? And if you concede that such a thing would certainly have at least some value, by what criteria would you measure that value against that of another work of literature? And, whether you were able to do that or not, wouldn't whatever the book offered be bound to add to our store of knowledge about her art, and therefore have great value no matter what the judgement of its critics regarding its literary merit?
6. Apparently Kate Bush has been doing just this thing (designing buildings) recently (or at least keeping a close eye on the renovation of a listed building in the Reading area)! If you were invited to the housewarming, would you really turn it down?
7. Ooh! A city by Kate Bush! It's a fabulous concept! It sounds like an absolutely terrific thing -- what would lead you to think such a project might not be worthwhile? Surely not quibbling objections about a lack of training in urban planning, engineering, architecture, etc. -- surely Kate Bush could afford technical advisors.
IED thanks you for your wonderfully intriguing questions and comments, David, and means no disrespect -- honest.
-- Andrew Marvick (IED)
S R I
From: IEDSRI@aol.com
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 02:00:32 -0500
Subject: a publiK announcemenT
IED would just like to take this opportunity to pay a debt to our esteemed founder and erstwhile moderator.
Some considerable time ago IED reneged on a promise to acknowledge -- following the (for him unfortunate) resolution of one of his many longstanding disputes over doKTrine -- that |>oug /\lan knows more about Kate Bush than IED does or ever will. He hereby makes said acknowledgement publicly, and with a full understanding of its truth.
IED means this sincerely, and offers his apologies for the announcement's unconscionable delay. His only possible excuse is that this already is -- or at least should be -- common knowledge.
- -- Andrew Marvick (IED)
S R I
From: nessus@mit.edu (Douglas Alan)
Date: 12 Dec 1995 20:26:54 GMT
Subject: Re: a publiK announcemenT
Although I appreciate IED's humility of recent years (while simultaneously missing the fiesty IED of years long past), I cannot in good conscience allow this statement to go unchallenged. Although, the statement was no doubt true at the time the statement was supposed to be posted, it is, alas, no longer true.
At the time of the dispute in question, long years of dedikateon had caused my brain grow to the size of a planet, filled with incredible quantities of knowledge and wisdom about Kate Bush. In recent years, too much mindless C++ programming and snuggling with my wife and neglect of the only topic worthy of serious consideration has caused my brain to shrink back down to merely human proportions. I must admit that the converse of IED's statement is now certainly true: At this point in time, IED knows more about Kate Bush than I do or likely ever will again.
|>oug
written by Love-Hounds
compiled and edited
by
Wieland
Willker
Sept 1995 June 1996