Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: rabin@dorsai.COM (Robert Marks)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: Get a life...
Message-ID: <JeRgy2w163w@dorsai.com>
Date: 8 Mar 91 00:04:42 GMT
Sender: Love-Hounds-request@ims.alaska.edu
Organization: The Dorsai Diplomatic Mission
Lines: 22
Approved: love-hounds@eddie.mit.edu


Not long ago, there was a brief debate in this newsgroup over
Kate's height. With disbelief, I read through the postings, each
of which hotly contested the claims of the others.
                "5'4"!"
                "No! She's 4'10" I tell you!"
And so on. Well, yesterday as I reached page 90 (roughly the end)
of "Kate Bush - A Visual Documentary" there was a reproduction of
a questionnaire KaTe (note: approved spelling that time) Herself
had filled out years before. In is, She Herself gave Her height
as 5' 3-1/2". That's a reliable enough source for me.
        But the larger question is this: WHO CARES? Look, I'm
a majo, big, huge Kate Bush fan; like I said, I just read a
book on her. But even I have limits. Does it really make a rat's
ass worth of difference exactly how tall she is? If She knew that
Her fans were wasting time out of their short lives debating about
this, how do you think She'd react?
        Undoubtedly, as a result of this posting, I will be
flamed - no, scorched - into the next century. Perhaps I'll be
banned from the newsgroup. I just felt that the voice of reason
(no pretentious inferences intended) is sometimes needed to counter
the fanatical devotion that some readers of this group exhibit.