From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V17 #84 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, March 26 2009 Volume 17 : Number 084 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: fegmaniax-digest V17 #82 [kevin studyvin ] Re: "In this perverted episode" [kevin studyvin ] Re: Fear of Music [Christopher Gross ] Re: Fear of Music [Miles Goosens ] Re: Fear of Music [kevin studyvin ] Re: Decemberists new CD review from Odds & Sods (for Who fans) [2fs ] Re: "In this perverted episode" [2fs ] Re: Fear of Music [2fs ] Re: Fear of Music [2fs ] Re: Decemberists new CD review from Odds & Sods (for Who fans) [Rex ] Magic squirrel pinpricks [Great Quail ] Re: Decemberists new CD review from Odds & Sods (for Who fans) [Jeremy Os] Re: Magic squirrel pinpricks [Stewart Russell ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V17 #82 [James Dignan ] Re: Fear of Music [James Dignan ] Re: Fear of Music [Great Quail ] An honest letter [Great Quail ] Re: An honest letter [vivien lyon ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:59:54 -0700 From: kevin studyvin Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V17 #82 > I think you may be thinking of The Who Sell Out, the album that has > pirate-radio-themed links between many of the songs. "A Quick One While > He's Away", the song, from the previous album, is Pete's first > self-described mini-opera (and also one of my most favoritest things on > Earth). > > Sell Out does include "Rael", another mini opera, but it doesn't have > anything to do with the half-baked theme of the first half of the album. > Rael is gorgeous. Just gorgeous. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:04:32 -0700 From: kevin studyvin Subject: Re: "In this perverted episode" But where can I go to register an indecency complaint about Donald Wildmon and his obscene hate crusade? When do we get to have a Federal bureaucracy in charge of saying "You kids play nice and don't fight"? On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Nectar At Any Cost! wrote: > . ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:08:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Fear of Music On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, kevin studyvin wrote: > Wittgenstein essentially took the position in the Philosophical > Investigations that you don't need to be able to elucidate all the rules of > a language in order to use it to communicate with others, or to quote R. > Crumb, "You got t' read between the lines, Jake." Indeed you do. So, to get both serious and direct for a moment here: I took Quail's post to be a rather broad parody of the "what kind of person would like this?" style of criticism. Now I'm not sure if you didn't get this, or if you got it but I failed to get you getting it, or if I just misread Quail to start with! - --Confused Chris np: fire engines on the street beneath my office window ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:24:06 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: Fear of Music On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Christopher Gross wrote: > So, to get both serious and direct for a moment here: I took Quail's post to > be a rather broad parody of the "what kind of person would like this?" style > of criticism. I thought that Quail's post in this here thread, by its lonesome, was exactly what you just said, and was an appropriate, humorous, and winning way to address his concerns. However, I read Quail's reply to the "Decemberists new CD review from Odds & Sods (for Who fans)" thread as ad hominem mudslinging. The post in this thread shows that Quail can rise above such ugliness and make his points in a much more pleasant and persuasive manner. later, Miles - -- now with blogspot retsin! http://readingpronunciation.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:25:51 -0700 From: kevin studyvin Subject: Re: Fear of Music Could be wrong, as I so often am, but I thought I was picking up on some hostility or I wouldn't have responded as I did. It does read like parody, but I wasn't laughing, ya know what I mean. On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Christopher Gross wrote: > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, kevin studyvin wrote: > > Wittgenstein essentially took the position in the Philosophical >> Investigations that you don't need to be able to elucidate all the rules >> of >> a language in order to use it to communicate with others, or to quote R. >> Crumb, "You got t' read between the lines, Jake." >> > > Indeed you do. > > So, to get both serious and direct for a moment here: I took Quail's post > to be a rather broad parody of the "what kind of person would like this?" > style of criticism. Now I'm not sure if you didn't get this, or if you got > it but I failed to get you getting it, or if I just misread Quail to start > with! > > > --Confused Chris > > np: fire engines on the street beneath my office window > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. > chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:55:52 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Decemberists new CD review from Odds & Sods (for Who fans) On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Christopher Gross wrote: > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, kevin studyvin wrote: > > Why must you insult people by interrogating and assigning the reasons they >>> like things that you do not? >>> >> >> Seems more like a species of playfulness to me. Possibly your sense of >> humor's on a different wavelength. >> > > So, are there any common textual clues that would allow us to distinguish > those who say "I don't understand how real music fans can like this" > playfully from those who say it seriously? My own clue was the string of five or six exclamation marks intermixed with lower-case numeral 1s. Typography: Your Very Own Tone Detecting Device. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:56:39 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Decemberists new CD review from Odds & Sods (for Who fans) On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:45 PM, kevin studyvin wrote: > In Rex's case, he's just a funny guy generally. And anybody who's both a > bluegrass fan and a big Fall supporter has to have a working sense of humor > to navigate the incongruities therein. Especially when there's suddenly a bluegrass banjo break on an actual Fall album. (Note: this really exists and is not a made-up joke for the convenience of it.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:33:53 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Decemberists new CD review from Odds & Sods (for Who fans) On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Great Quail wrote: > Rex writes, > > > I've never made it through "The Wall" in any form, I don't think. But I > > think I'm starting to understand who's behind the Decemberists' rise to > > fame: it's the faction who believe it is Vitally Important That Rock and > > Roll Be Important!!!!11! I forget about those guys sometimes. > > Or -- maybe some people out there simply have different tastes than you? > Maybe they....hang on! -- actually *like* the Decemberists? Whether or not > they are singing about Grace Cathedral Hill or magic squirrels? The problem is that you can't sing about magic squirrels unless you have a big beard, and as far as I know, Colin Meloy lacks such facial hair. As for _The Wall_: yeah, it's overwrought, a bit self-obsessed, and a trifle obvious...but you know, Waters was committed to the idea and the band was pretty powerful, so as long as you don't think too hard, it actually works pretty well. Of course, nearly every idea Waters wants to address was handled much more gracefully, and with a much less heavy-handed metaphor, by David Gilmour in the six minutes of "Comfortably Numb" (and probably two minutes of that is guitar solo - a couple of good guitar solos, granted, but not bringing the lyrical theme). As for the "concept album"/"rock opera" distinction: I would say that something is a "rock opera" when it's more narrative and even character-based. A concept album is about, duh, a concept - and it needn't have a narrative or characters etc. It's kinda funny though: since songwriters tend to be in whatever particular state of mind at whatever time, nearly any album turns out to be kind of a concept album if you stretch hard enough. I read a review once of John Cale's *Paris 1919* that claimed it was a "concept album." Actually the reviewer less "claimed" it than asserted it parenthetically, as if it was self-evident. It's not. (Self-evident, that is.) I think the first Psychedelic Furs album is a concept about stupidity, uselessness, and blue cars. And PIL's Metal Box/Second Edition is a concept album about how the hell did Jah Wobble get that bass so huge. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:36:27 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V17 #82 On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Brian Huddell wrote: > > > Sell Out does include "Rael", another mini opera, but it doesn't have > anything to do with the half-baked theme of the first half of the album. Half-baked beans? - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:38:15 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: "In this perverted episode" On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Nectar At Any Cost! wrote: > . > Thank god someone's doing something about the terrifying scourge of babies eating sperm. I mean, that's like proto-cannibalism or something. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:43:40 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Fear of Music On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 1:25 PM, kevin studyvin wrote: > Could be wrong, as I so often am, but I thought I was picking up on some > hostility or I wouldn't have responded as I did. It does read like parody, > but I wasn't laughing, ya know what I mean. Quail's post was the liner notes to a double-disc concept album. Duh. (The album itself is a postmodern prog opus based on the punctuation in one of Andrew Sullivan's Tweets.) - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:47:38 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Fear of Music On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 12:37 PM, kevin studyvin wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Great Quail >wrote: > > > streaked by a naked couple which caused Anderson to laugh so hard he > dropped > his mike) and had loads of fun. If it weren't for the line in "Going for the One" about his "cosmic mind' (the line is a joke, for those who don't know it), that would have been the sole item in favor of the theory that Jon Anderson has a sense of humor... > It's all right if you admit that you have a soft spot for > those giant crazy hats the bad Jews wore in "Jesus Christ Superstar." > > > But Superstar blows chunks, and Sir Andrew's an annoying hack Right on the second point - but not on the first. JSC (the original album) is simply a fine, double-disc prog-rock concept album - a bit on the overwrought side, even for prog, but nowhere near so top-pop Broadway crapola as most of the rest of his hacky career. Really. Or maybe it's just my childhood, come back to bite my sense of taste in the ass. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.wordpress.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:14:29 -0700 From: Rex Subject: Re: Decemberists new CD review from Odds & Sods (for Who fans) Quail fighting services still unavailable due to economic hardship. Please try your troll again later! > As for the "concept album"/"rock opera" distinction: I would say that > something is a "rock opera" when it's more narrative and even > character-based. That's the distinction that exists in my mind, alongside all the prawns therein. I read a review once of John Cale's *Paris 1919* that claimed it was a "concept album." Actually the reviewer less "claimed" it than asserted it parenthetically, as if it was self-evident. It's not. (Self-evident, that is.) Huh. Can't say as I get that. I like that album well enough to select it out of pulldown menu on some FaceBook application as one my five favorites, but no, I don't see it as very concept-y. No way in hell is it a rock opera-- most of the songs are explicity located at wildly divergent geographical locations. Now, "The Academy in Peril"... - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:17:06 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: Fear of Music 2fs: > > streaked by a naked couple which caused Anderson to laugh so hard he > > dropped his mike) and had loads of fun. > > > If it weren't for the line in "Going for the One" about his "cosmic > mind' (the line is a joke, for those who don't know it), that would have been > the sole item in favor of the theory that Jon Anderson has a sense of > humor... Naw, I've seen Jon Anderson be funny in interviews, even raunchy funny on a tour bus in one of the more recent tour DVDs. > JCS (the original album) > is simply a fine, double-disc prog-rock concept album - a bit on the > overwrought side, even for prog, but nowhere near so top-pop Broadway > crapola as most of the rest of his hacky career. Really. Now *that* is some high-grade opinionating. To this day, some of the most stirring music of my life is contained on that album, including several bits that thoroughly rawk! > Or maybe it's just my childhood, come back to bite my sense of taste in > the ass. I would listen to my dad's reel-to-reel copy alone sometimes and get all intense -- I was around 8 years old at the time but already my opinions were way better than any of y'all's. +brian ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:18:08 -0400 From: Great Quail Subject: Magic squirrel pinpricks Jeff writes, > The problem is that you can't sing about magic squirrels unless you have a > big beard, and as far as I know, Colin Meloy lacks such facial hair. That's...wow, that's a really good point. Though I would think a really skinny twee Englishman who lives in his mother's basement and collects Silver Jubilee memorabilia might also be allowed to write songs about magic squirrels. But of course, Colin Meloy is neither. > As for _The Wall_: yeah, it's overwrought, a bit self-obsessed, and a trifle > obvious... And makes a great soundtrack album to adolescent self-pity! (I mean, in a different way than Morrissey...) And you are *so* right about Comfortable Numb... - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:32:09 -0400 From: Jeremy Osner Subject: Re: Decemberists new CD review from Odds & Sods (for Who fans) The first several times I heard the term "concept album" as a lad, it was always as part of a statement to the effect that "Pink Floyd invented the concept album with their seminal Dark Side of the Moon". So I think of Dark Side and The Wall and Animals (briefly my favorite Floyd record, to my lasting embarrassment) when I hear the term. I don't really know what it means. I can't see how "Blonde on Blonde" and "Bringin it All Back Home" would not be considered concept albums but again, I don't really know what it means. I just lov[ed] Alan Parker's movie of "The Wall", maybe more than I ever liked the record by itself. (I think I watched the movie more times than I listened to the complete albums.) Haven't seen it in a long time so I can't guarantee I would still like it; but I don't see any reason I wouldn't. J If we do not say all words, however absurd, we will never say the essential words. -- J Saramago http://www.readin.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:50:18 -0400 From: Stewart Russell Subject: Re: Magic squirrel pinpricks 2009/3/26 Great Quail : > > That's...wow, that's a really good point. Though I would think a really > skinny twee Englishman who lives in his mother's basement and collects > Silver Jubilee memorabilia might also be allowed to write songs about magic > squirrels. But they'd have to be red squirrels; we weren't supposed to like the usurping grey incomers. Which might explain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KY8MR0ssk7c > But of course, Colin Meloy is neither. But of course, he wishes he were. Stewart - -- http://scruss.com/blog/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:12:04 +1300 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V17 #82 >Sell Out does include "Rael", another mini opera, but it doesn't have >anything to do with the half-baked theme of the first half of the album. Shouldn't that read "half-baked-beaned theme"? James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:14:41 +1300 From: James Dignan Subject: Re: Fear of Music >Wittgenstein essentially took the position in the Philosophical >Investigations that you don't need to be able to elucidate all the rules of >a language in order to use it to communicate with others, or to quote R. >Crumb, "You got t' read between the lines, Jake." Ten points and half an hour with an over-friendly sasquatch to Kevin for managing to coherently and logically mention Wittgenstein and Crumb in the same paragraph. James - -- James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- =-.-=-.-=-.- You talk to me as if from a distance .-=-.-=-.-=-. -=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time .-=- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:24:07 -0400 From: Great Quail Subject: Re: Fear of Music Kevin writes, > But dude, I'm a big TFTO fan. Still have the original vinyl from 1973. Saw > them play it live in Long Beach (where thy had some prop troubles, AND got > streaked by a naked couple which caused Anderson to laugh so hard he dropped > his mike) I would have loved to see that. Did Rick Wakeman avert his eyes by throwing his silver cape over his head? > And the Goddess be > praised, nobody had ever even heard of D&D in those days - the geeks I knew > mostly played chess and talked about Asimov and classical music. But...no D&D? How did you take revenge out on your enemies, if not casting them as bugbears and hitting them with a delayed blast fireball? > But Superstar blows chunks, and Sir Andrew's an annoying hack - everybody > knows that. Ha ha ha! He really is, god bless him. But I really honestly love Jesus Christ Superstar. I know it all by heart. Every word. I know for a fact I am not the only one on the List who can make this claim, too. - --Q ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:19:58 -0400 From: Great Quail Subject: An honest letter This is the thing. I have a love/hate relationship with this List. On the positive side, there's some great people on here who express opinions well, and there's still plenty of music, artistic, and cultural insights to be discovered. On the negative side, over the last decade -- and I have been here for what, almost two decades now? -- I feel that my list persona has changed, and not always for the better. I feel that I am a passionate person, and I tend to express my opinions strongly. I feel I am also a humorous person, and I am perfectly fine with people who disagree with me in the pub-like spirit of "it's all good fun." But a lot of my friends are gone, or have been more silent lately. So lately, I feel less of a "fellow feg," and more a stranger with a loud voice. That's fine, things change. But... It's no secret that I cannot stand Rex, and that he does not like me. But that does not excuse some of the things that transpired today. If you care at all, I invite you to keep reading. If you don't give a rat's ass about Quail, Rex, or a problem I have with the tone and tenor of the List, feel free to delete. I've been posting about the Decemberists for over a month now, and not everyone agrees with me. Jill, Stewart, and others have disagreed with me, and there's been no bad blood. But Rex has to post something that I find personally provocative: > I think I'm starting to understand who's behind the Decemberists' rise to > fame: it's the faction who believe it is Vitally Important That Rock and > Roll Be Important!!!!11! I forget about those guys sometimes. Now, you can think this wasn't in part aimed at me, and people like me -- but it was. And that's fine. Rex has every right to say so. But I reply, and I say, "Why must you insult people by interrogating and assigning the reasons they like things that you do not?" I think that is a very reasonable reply, and gets to the point behind Rex's post. It also remains firmly fixed in the discussion of music and fandom. I also sent out a second post, one in response to the anti-prog and anti-rock opera ragging that's been going on. It was meant as a satirical broadside, written by -- well, let's see! An aging punk failed garage band rocker who played a lot of D&D in his parent's basement. It was meant to be satirical, aimed a bit at all of us music fans and our pointless divisions. Fine, it was hardly Jonathan Swift, and some of you got it, some did not, some were offended, some were perplexed, whatever. But two things upset me. The first is Brian's post, where he claims that I am "shitting" on the List. The second is Rex's reply where he indicates "Quail fighting services still unavailable due to economic hardship. Please try your troll again later!" This is what really has me upset -- and I am so upset right now, I mean, I am really actually distraught. I have had it with this kind of double-standard crap. This is the second time that Rex has posted something provocative, I've replied, then he turns around in a false attempt at humor with a comment that both indicates he cannot respond, as well as indicating I am trolling -- which of course, is a response it itself. It's typical Rex disingenuousness, I know -- it's part of the overall infuriating mechanism by which he bullies people into silence or even leaving the List -- I get that. I know my best course of action would be to do what others have done, which is to ignore him completely -- even when he posts about a subject I've been discussing. But what upsets me is that on top of this, I now have Brian telling me I'm "shitting" on the List. Oh, he's polite enough to pretend it's a reaction to me and Rex, but of course, but *I* am the one who is the target of the post, *I* am the one who is "shitting" on the List. It's this simple lack of fairness that upsets me the most. It upsets me that people here are free to gore whatever cows I may hold sacred, and it's all in good fun, whatever -- but if I fire back, I get the Rex contingency in an uproar, and I am made out to be the bad guy. I'm sick of it. If you look through my last few dozen posts, you will find only one or two sharp comments about Rex. Most are statements about music, albums, etc. But look -- Rex wants to make a statement about Decemberists fans, I have a right to reply. And if he wants to be an ass while doing it, I have a right to call him out and ask for an explanation. And if he wants to retreat behind that stupid, "Quail fighting services still unavailable due to economic hardship. Please try your troll again later!" rather than offer an explanation or address my concerns, that's fine, too. But it is not me who is shitting on the List, and it is not me who is trolling. Those charges are unfair. There, I got that off my chest. I have no desire to start another flame war with Rex -- neither of us plan to do that. But this whole "shitting on the list" thing is complete bullshit, no matter who many fake smileys Brian wants to include. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:53:24 -0700 From: vivien lyon Subject: Re: An honest letter Here's my thing: I continue to read this list, even though I never post anymore, because it's a huge part of my personal history. I met someone on this list who I later up and moved across country for, and while we're no longer together, we're still friends and I do not for a minute regret my decision to make Portland my home. I also met Natalie here, who I helped to move to Portland, and who passed away tragically last year. She also had a love/hate relationship with the list, and eventually stopped posting, but the list reminds me of her, and so does Quail. So I keep reading, and now I find myself moved to say something. Now, Quail, don't pretend you don't love to cause controversy here. Or at least joyfully fan its flames, and willfully insult and counter-insult and keep stirring shit up and make ridiculous accusations against people. Jeme was the recipient of your irrational ire (for pointing out that America's foreign policy _might_ have had something to do with 9/11), as was I (for supporting Nader way back when). And you were an ardent supporter of the list's most notorious shit-stirrer, who shall remain nameless at this time. There are still "fellow fegs" on this list who remember your antics; the list hasn't developed collective amnesia. So I would just like to say that your outraged innocence reads a little rich at the moment. If you were less focused on protecting your image of yourself as a beneficent arbiter of good taste and good intentions, people would be less inclined to a) poke fun at you and b) take issue with you. Sincerely, Vivien On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Great Quail wrote: > This is the thing. > > I have a love/hate relationship with this List. On the positive side, > there's some great people on here who express opinions well, and there's > still plenty of music, artistic, and cultural insights to be discovered. > > On the negative side, over the last decade -- and I have been here for > what, > almost two decades now? -- I feel that my list persona has changed, and not > always for the better. I feel that I am a passionate person, and I tend to > express my opinions strongly. I feel I am also a humorous person, and I am > perfectly fine with people who disagree with me in the pub-like spirit of > "it's all good fun." But a lot of my friends are gone, or have been more > silent lately. So lately, I feel less of a "fellow feg," and more a > stranger > with a loud voice. That's fine, things change. But... > > It's no secret that I cannot stand Rex, and that he does not like me. But > that does not excuse some of the things that transpired today. If you care > at all, I invite you to keep reading. If you don't give a rat's ass about > Quail, Rex, or a problem I have with the tone and tenor of the List, feel > free to delete. > > I've been posting about the Decemberists for over a month now, and not > everyone agrees with me. Jill, Stewart, and others have disagreed with me, > and there's been no bad blood. > > But Rex has to post something that I find personally provocative: > > > I think I'm starting to understand who's behind the Decemberists' rise to > > fame: it's the faction who believe it is Vitally Important That Rock and > > Roll Be Important!!!!11! I forget about those guys sometimes. > > Now, you can think this wasn't in part aimed at me, and people like me -- > but it was. And that's fine. Rex has every right to say so. But I reply, > and > I say, "Why must you insult people by interrogating and assigning the > reasons they like things that you do not?" > > I think that is a very reasonable reply, and gets to the point behind Rex's > post. It also remains firmly fixed in the discussion of music and fandom. > > I also sent out a second post, one in response to the anti-prog and > anti-rock opera ragging that's been going on. It was meant as a satirical > broadside, written by -- well, let's see! An aging punk failed garage band > rocker who played a lot of D&D in his parent's basement. It was meant to be > satirical, aimed a bit at all of us music fans and our pointless divisions. > Fine, it was hardly Jonathan Swift, and some of you got it, some did not, > some were offended, some were perplexed, whatever. > > But two things upset me. The first is Brian's post, where he claims that I > am "shitting" on the List. The second is Rex's reply where he indicates > "Quail fighting services still unavailable due to economic hardship. > Please > try your troll again later!" > > This is what really has me upset -- and I am so upset right now, I mean, I > am really actually distraught. > > I have had it with this kind of double-standard crap. This is the second > time that Rex has posted something provocative, I've replied, then he turns > around in a false attempt at humor with a comment that both indicates he > cannot respond, as well as indicating I am trolling -- which of course, is > a > response it itself. > > It's typical Rex disingenuousness, I know -- it's part of the overall > infuriating mechanism by which he bullies people into silence or even > leaving the List -- I get that. I know my best course of action would be to > do what others have done, which is to ignore him completely -- even when he > posts about a subject I've been discussing. > > But what upsets me is that on top of this, I now have Brian telling me I'm > "shitting" on the List. Oh, he's polite enough to pretend it's a reaction > to > me and Rex, but of course, but *I* am the one who is the target of the > post, > *I* am the one who is "shitting" on the List. > > It's this simple lack of fairness that upsets me the most. It upsets me > that > people here are free to gore whatever cows I may hold sacred, and it's all > in good fun, whatever -- but if I fire back, I get the Rex contingency in > an > uproar, and I am made out to be the bad guy. > > I'm sick of it. If you look through my last few dozen posts, you will find > only one or two sharp comments about Rex. Most are statements about music, > albums, etc. But look -- Rex wants to make a statement about Decemberists > fans, I have a right to reply. And if he wants to be an ass while doing it, > I have a right to call him out and ask for an explanation. And if he wants > to retreat behind that stupid, "Quail fighting services still unavailable > due to economic hardship. Please try your troll again later!" rather than > offer an explanation or address my concerns, that's fine, too. > > But it is not me who is shitting on the List, and it is not me who is > trolling. Those charges are unfair. > > There, I got that off my chest. I have no desire to start another flame war > with Rex -- neither of us plan to do that. But this whole "shitting on the > list" thing is complete bullshit, no matter who many fake smileys Brian > wants to include. > > --Quail ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V17 #84 *******************************