Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!UCSCC.UCSC.EDU!stewarte
From: stewarte@UCSCC.UCSC.EDU (The Man Who Invented Himself)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: Re: Kate-echism XXIX.12.ii
Message-ID: <8912050319.AA21535@ucscc.UCSC.EDU>
Date: 5 Dec 89 03:19:28 GMT
References: <8912030003.AA17789@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>
Sender: root@athena.mit.edu (Wizard A. Root)
Reply-To: stewarte@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (breakfast surrealist)
Organization: Burst Continuous Forms -- The Magazine that Becomes Dry and Wilts
Lines: 48
Approved: love-hounds@eddie.mit.edu

For unknown reasons, Andrew (IED) Marvick felt compelled to pointificate
as follows:

>The _only_
>positive data we have about the placement of the laugh is to
>be found in the _British_ edition of the CD. It constitutes the sole
>legitimate source of information any of us has to go on. And _it_
>connects the laugh with _Love_and_Anger_. Any other supposition at
>this stage--whether it should turn out to be correct or not--is made
>without any tangible evidence at all.

As far as I can tell, IED, this belief of yours -- that the British CD
is more correct than the US version, or corresponding single -- is based
on the assumption that it was supervised by Kate.  I, for one, find it
extremely far-fetched that an artist, even one as concerned with detail
as Kate, actually oversees such a mundane part of the mastering process
as the location of index points.  Unless you have definitive inside 
information that she did supervise the indexing, I think we have to say
that any supposition, one way or the other, is made without tangible
evidence.

IED also responds to Steve Tynor's quite rational comments thusly:

>     In regard to this idiotic trend among you and your ilk to criticize
>a work of art like _The_Sensual_World_ via factually vapid, musically
>ignorant and fundamentally boorish insults of both the music and those
>who are capable of appreciating it: go right ahead. You convince no one
>but yourselves. IED for one sees no hope of elucidating you and your
>fellow fickle cynics about the myriad facets of _TSW_'s perfection.
>If your ears can't perceive them, IED's words will go unheard, as well.
>So go right ahead--continue to embarrass yourselves with your absurd
>checklists of alleged "flaws" in _TSW_: you're just whistling away
>in the dark void of your own ignorance.

This is quite a textbook example of argumentem ad hominem, IED.  You
might has well have added a "your momma" to it.  Factually vapid?
Such as "I don't like it"?  To declare that anything Kate does is
perfect by definition is the true foolishness.  I do not listen to
Kate's music searching for flaws, but if there are things I do not
like, I don't assume that it is my own ignorance or lack of taste.
Such thinking is for the truly insecure, for whom having opinions
of their own is just too intimidating.  

-- Stewart
-- 
"Playing the banjo may make you stupid, but it's worth it."
				-- Matt Brocchini
/*  uunet!sco!stewarte  -or-  stewarte@sco.COM  -or-  Stewart Evans  */