nrc@cbema.att.COM (Neal R Caldwell, Ii) (05/02/91)
In epilogue to the Homeground/Little Light discussion I should point
out, in all fairness to HG, that they did at least print two items in
their latest issue that express an alternative view of their remarks
on U.S. "censorship" efforts. This is a welcome step toward a more
broad view of these issues.
Still, while the items they've chosen to include do point out some
alternatives to HG's attitude toward these issues it's unfortunate
that they've made no effort to correct some mistaken impressions that
they've given in the past. (Ed, I'd be interested to hear whether your
letter about their "k.d. lang censorship" item garnered any response at
all.)
I hope that this means that HG will in the future be more cognizant of
their "international" moniker and realize that it entails having a
better understanding of the events in other countries and a greater
respect for the wide range of opinions represented by the citizens of
those countries. It's a shame that it took such a flurry and row to
elicit some small recognition of this.
It should also be said that (as Andy has already pointed out)
Homeground does give fair coverage of the _Army Dreamers_ "censorship"
issue in this their first issue since it occurred so Little Light owes
them a retraction on their remark about that.
I note that in this issue they point out that the supposed re-release
the _The Singles File_ [sic] by "Cello Video" may in fact be a bootleg.
I've been saying that it is definitely a bootleg for almost a year.
Why do they talk about a bootleg album and then turn around and issue
a stern warning about the illegality of a bootleg video?
Someone mentioned the feasibility of Homeground access to
Love-Hounds now that they're computerized. If the U.K. computer
market is anything like in the U.S., modems are extremely cheap and
surely one our U.K. Love-Hounds has the clout to finagle a news or
mail account. I'm sure they'd find themselves out of disk space
quite quickly given access to the Love-Hounds archives.
I wonder if they could make just the news section of HG available at
a discount?
"Don't drive too slowly." Richard Caldwell
AT&T Network Systems
att!cbnews!nrc
nrc@cbnews.att.comed@das.llnl.GOV (Edward J. Suranyi) (05/02/91)
>they've given in the past. (Ed, I'd be interested to hear whether your >letter about their "k.d. lang censorship" item garnered any response at >all.) > >"Don't drive too slowly." Richard Caldwell Well, it wasn't really an entire letter. It's just that in my last package of American clippings (sent in January), I included, as usual, a short letter. In one paragraph I questioned tentatively their comments about the k.d. lang affair, as I got the impression they did not understand the situation fully. No, they didn't comment about it, but then they rarely comment about anything I tell them. It really doesn't bother me. I don't expect everything I write them to make its way into print. Sometimes they'll have a news story or a quote that is clearly based on something I told them, and they credit me. That's good enough for me. Quite a few times I've sent them news items about radio play which they have printed, but with slight errors. I would dutifully correct the error in my next letter to them, but they've never printed a correction. In these cases I really wouldn't expect them to. Ed ed@das.llnl.gov
L-H@cup.portal.COM (05/03/91)
Neal sez: >I've been saying that it is definitely a bootleg for almost a year. >Why do they talk about a bootleg album and then turn around and issue >a stern warning about the illegality of a bootleg video? Maybe (hopefully) because it is possible to create an endless quantity of copies of video these days (with all the VCRs in existence), whereas almost all bootleg titles aren't very easily obtainable after awhile. Remember: "The only good record is a Flat Record." (tm) Flat Records Larry (l-h@cup.portal.com)