Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (06/22/89)
Really-From: jeffh@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Hlavaty)
Go with, Todd. Who do you think is an
exception artist (worthy of a rabid cult
following)? Debbie Gibson? Tiffany??Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (06/23/89)
Really-From: Stuart Troutman <stuart@apollo.com> "...a fucking wimp" ??!! What the hell is your problem? Your whole response to that person sounded like drunken rambling to me. You had nothing to say, and you said it in the language of a narrow-minded little high school twat. Spare the whole newsgroup your verbal masturbations and send email directly to the poster rather than everyone in the group. And grow up.
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (06/23/89)
Really-From: Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu> > From: Stuart Troutman <stuart@apollo.com> > "...a fucking wimp" ??!! What the hell is your problem? People like you. > Your whole response to that person sounded like drunken rambling to > me. You had nothing to say, and you said it in the language of a > narrow-minded little high school twat. (1) I had plenty to say. I addressed the bozo's lame criticisms point by point, and if I used a few perfectly good Anglo Saxon words, so what? Does that change the validity of what I said? Are you a racist? Do you think that arguments expressed with Latin words are in any true sense superior to those with Anglo Saxon words? If you do, it's your problem -- not mine! (2) I find it awfully strange that you would insult me for my use of words that come from my dear ancestral heritage, yet you would call me a "twat". Not only is this vulgar, but it is damn sexist. Shame on you! > Spare the whole newsgroup your verbal masturbations and send email > directly to the poster rather than everyone in the group. And grow > up. (1) You're the one that needs to grow up! You're the one that can't distiguish the form of an argument from its content. This is the oh so typical mistake of many mental midgets. (2) If you don't like my verbal masterbations you can go jerk off! What have you ever contributed to this discussion group? Nothing. |>oug
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (06/23/89)
Really-From: rbt@genrad.com (Robert B. Tufts) In article <8906220059.AA01679@GAFFA.MIT.EDU> Love-Hounds@GAFFA.MIT.EDU writes: >Really-From: Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu> > > >If you are turned off by an "annoying" voice then you miss the whole >purpose of Kate's music and are a fucking wimp. Supposidly this is a moderated newsgroup. I'd like to know what purpose the "moderation" serves, especially when the moderator sets such a fine example. I kind of expected that the original poster was "asking for it" by treading on "sacred ground" (of some devotee's), but the original poster phrased it as a "what's so special?" opinion/inquiry, not "you're all idiots!". This looks like the Rushdie issue. "He doesn't like Kate! Death to the infidel!" Grow up Doug! Kate Bush is not your "run-of-the-mill" artist. I'd say most people either like, or can't stand her music. I would not waste time trying to defend your (fanatical) tastes, but just tell the person that Kate is not "eveyone's cup of tea", and suggest they look elsewhere for critical opinions, and leave it at that. I would also offer that it would be better that this group become "unmoderated" . Then at least people could use the "R" key and reply (or flame) privately without being sent out for everyone to see (in the heat of the moment). It's a royal pain to manually type in a path, and I would rather see "R" work, for all the current benefits we are supposidly receiving by being a "moderated" group. And now some real blasphemy: I like Kate Bush, BUT SHE's HUMAN! :-) -Bob T.
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (06/23/89)
Really-From: John Precedo <jp@doc.imperial.ac.uk> Well, I think _The Hounds Of Love_ video to be pretty damn good, especially since some of it is 10 years old. I mean, what can you expect from 1978 vintage videos - state of the art, all singing all dancing extravaganzas? Alright, I admit it, I didn't love all of it, just MOST of it. And as for the idea that KaTe isn't attractive...sheesh! What I don't understand is why Todd bothered with his posting....or why he even bothers reading rec.music.gaffa. -John =============================================================================== Dept. of Computing, Imperial College KaTe Bush _IS_ God! Huxley Building London SW7 ===============================================================================
nessus@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Alan) (06/23/89)
> From: rbt@genrad.com (Robert B. Tufts) > Supposidly this is a moderated newsgroup. I'd like to know what > purpose the "moderation" serves, especially when the moderator sets > such a fine example. Well, in actuality, this is NOT a moderated newsgroup at all. It is a mailing list that through the eternal goodness of my heart I provide to Usenet through a moderated newsgroup. The mailing list was NOT created to prevent profanity nor flaming nor to make a nice, safe, sheltered place for the over-sensitive. It was created because people in "net.music" were sick and tired of hearing me flame on endlessly about Kate Bush and I was sick and tired of listening to them say "I don't see what's so great about Kate Bush anyway." > I kind of expected that the original poster was "asking for it" by > treading on "sacred ground" (of some devotee's), but the original > poster phrased it as a "what's so special?" opinion/inquiry, not > "you're all idiots!". No, you are wrong. The original posting was highly derogatory insulting. It insinuated that we are all "blind worshippers" -- which I certainly am not. It said that material we like is "ridiculous". It hinted that the real reason we like Kate Bush is because of her looks, and that even in this regard we lack taste. I'm sorry if I object to having my taste, intelligence, and sanity questioned so flippantly, but it is to avoid this very crap that this mailing list was formed. > This looks like the Rushdie issue. "He doesn't like Kate! Death to > the infidel!" Grow up Doug! It's not a Rushdie issue at all. The bozo can go defame us all and Kate Bush all he wants to somewhere else. But not here. If someone went into Khomenie's temple and screamed "Death to Allah", he'd deserve whatever abuse and torture he received. > I would also offer that it would be better that this group become > "unmoderated" . Then at least people could use the "R" key and reply > (or flame) privately without being sent out for everyone to see (in > the heat of the moment). It's a royal pain to manually type in a > path, and I would rather see "R" work, for all the current benefits > we are supposidly receiving by being a "moderated" group. I feel truly sorry for you. It must be oh so much work to do all that typing! In any case, I have a software fix for this problem that I will probably implement sometime soon. Regarding unmoderating rec.music.gaffa, I'd much sooner just pull my mailing list off of Usenet, than give the the unwashed masses of Usenet free reign over my mailing list. > And now some real blasphemy: > I like Kate Bush, BUT SHE's HUMAN! :-) And what's so DAMN blasphemous about that? Yes, it's quite true. Even God is human. |>oug
mp1u+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Michael Portuesi) (06/24/89)
> Excerpts from ext.in.love-hounds: 23-Jun-89 Re: Kate Bush's "THE WHOLE > .. Love-Hounds-request@GAFF (1564) > This looks like the Rushdie issue. "He doesn't like Kate! Death to > the infidel!" In this case, the issue is not that someone does not like Kate's work, but that instead of offering genuine criticism and reasons for dislike, statments like "She's not even good looking" are offered. I like Kate Bush a lot, but I know people who can't stand her and have valid reasons for doing so. I don't take it personally when people disagree with my tastes and opinions, but I do get upset when they offer worthless statements without any thought behind them. --M -- Michael Portuesi * Carnegie Mellon University INTERNET: mp1u+@andrew.cmu.edu * BITNET: mp1u+@andrew UUCP: ...harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!mp1u+ MAIL: Carnegie Mellon University, P.O. Box 259, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
daemon@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (Mr Background) (06/24/89)
So what if Kate Bush is human? It doesn't stop me enjoying her music! WE are human, so it appeals to us. If it doesn't, we're human anyway - just a different type of human. Anyone know how many INDIVIDUAL types of human there are? No? Well, until then, I will worship a Ms. K. Bush!!!! (:-}? ) -John ============================================================================== John Precedo - say no more! ==============================================================================
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (06/24/89)
Really-From: pwoodruf@ORION.CF.UCI.EDU really really from Ken Woodruff, femto@ucscb.ucsc.edu If you have taken time to consider Tiffany is perhaps a much more likely candidate ffor a cult following than Kate is. As far as I know Kate is not involved in legal battles over her adulthood, caught in a fight between a psychopathic domineering mother and a twice as psychopathic domineering Manager/Producer/Engineer/Songwriter (G***** T****). Anyway Tiffany's artistic future may be so glum that only a cult following *will* buy her next album. Kate may be God, but Tiffany is a far better Christ figure. Has anyone ever compared the Whole Story poster (B&W, head shot) to Tiffany's first albim cover? Striking resemblance in the morose doe syes, I think.