From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V5 #167 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Monday, July 4 2005 Volume 05 : Number 167 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Mid-year Top Tens? [Dave Walker ] [loud-fans] a few thoughts [Jenny Grover ] [loud-fans] reunion bells? ["Bradley Skaught" ] Re: [loud-fans] reunion bells? [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] a few thoughts [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] a few thoughts [Jenny Grover ] Re: [loud-fans] a few thoughts [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] MY few thoughts [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] MY few thoughts ["Joseph M. Mallon" ] Re: [loud-fans] MY few thoughts ["Stewart Mason" ] Re: [loud-fans] reunion bells? ["Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mid-year Top Tens? On Jun 25, 2005, at 12:57 AM, Bradley Skaught wrote: > The new Missy Elliot single is fantastic. And I like that Ashlee > Simpson > song, LaLa, too. The other great thing about that Missy Elliot single is that Juan Atkins is getting paid, in a big way (the main riff is a massive sample of Cybotron's "Clear"...) -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 14:30:39 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: [loud-fans] a few thoughts Ya know, I've been thinking hard on some of what was said on this list yesterday and there are a few things I want to comment on. This post will probably piss somebody off, but that's life. First off- regarding that creepy, stalkerish pie chart and complaints of Mark or anyone else posting "too much". It's an open topic mailing list. If you don't want to receive and make posts, why are you here? Volume a problem? This is not a particularly high traffic list, really. I think most people here have a delete key and the ability to empty their mailboxes frequently enough, or to filter incoming mail, or whatever you need to do to keep your inbox from overflowing beyond its limitations. If not, then maybe you shouldn't be on mailing lists where people actually, you know, post. Who cares who posts more or less? For the most part the posts on here have some fresh comment or commentary, something that will be of interest to someone on the list, even if it's not *you*. It's not like we have a lot of posts that consist of "yeah" or "I agree" or "no way, dude" or "you suck." I moderated a very big, active list for years and I know what annoying posting is. And that's another thing. This list appears to be hands off in the moderator dept., so learn to live without policing and police yourself instead. And that includes the smug, self-righteous people who just assume this applies to someone else. If all you want is Scott news and none of the rest, join the announcement list. Have a friend on this list forward you the stuff you'd be interested in. "Love does not keep a record of wrongs." I have never seen a list where such records, and long-standing ones, were kept and published. When I was new to this list I was apalled to see people scouring the archives from previous years to find just that right quote to condemn someone anew. Is this list's motto "Forgive and forget is for wusses"? Cuz I thought it was "Munge the Smoes." Is this list heavily populated by uptight, anal, repressed geeks who have too much freakin' time on their hands and not enough fun and love and life in their hearts? Because it sure sounds that way at times. You sound like a buncha parents who are "no fun." Hell, I remember when people were sniping at others on here for typos! I got reprimanded for calling tattoos "tats," for cripe sakes. You give lip service to diveristy and inclusion, but then the crap rises to the surface. Yeah, I've slammed the list before for not being as much of a community as it thinks it is (or maybe the community is a cold, small town with Elmira Gulch at the head of the city council), and I've heard the "back in the good old days" references. But you know what? This is now. The time to be nice and have fun and gush over pop music together is now. To quote a best friend, on an entirely different, but still music related subject, "This is supposed to be fun, not stressful." Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 12:30:44 -0700 From: "Bradley Skaught" Subject: [loud-fans] reunion bells? Anyone see, hear or read reports about the Pink Floyd reunion on Saturday? I was out all day and didn't catch a single Live 8 related performace. I did, however, descend into the depths of nostalgia with a $1 record purchase of Eddit Rabbit's "#1"s. "Drivin' My Life Away", "I Love A Rainy Night"...it's what my pal Marty calls "comfort tunes". I'm also working on my case that Robyn Hitchcock's "Queen Elvis" album is a lost classic. Even amongst die hard Hitchcock _fans_ it's a lost classic... B ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 15:55:49 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] reunion bells? Bradley Skaught wrote: >Anyone see, hear or read reports about the Pink Floyd reunion on Saturday? I >was out all day and didn't catch a single Live 8 related performace. > > > This review got posted to another list I'm on. I don't know the source. >Pink Floyd Dazzles At Live 8 Reunion > > >By Jonathan Cohen, N.Y. > > > > >Playing with its classic lineup for the first time in more than 20 years, >Pink Floyd dazzled the crowd of approximately 200,000 people at the London >edition of Live 8. The group performed "Breathe," "Money," "Wish You Were Here" >and "Comfortably Numb," which was introduced to a new generation of U.K. >listeners last year via the Scissor Sisters' top 10 hit cover. > >Pink Floyd hadn't played live at all since the 1994 tour in support of the >album "The Division Bell," and hadn't performed with bassist Roger Waters >since 1981. The latter artist's dealings with fellow Pink Floyd principal David >Gilmour have been rancorous in the ensuing years; Waters even sued Gilmour, >unsuccessfully, for touring under the Pink Floyd name without him following the >band's initial split after the album "The Final Cut." > > >But on stage at London's Hyde Park, the group (which also includes drummer >Nick Mason and keyboardist Rick Wright) was all smiles. Waters even dedicated >"Wish You Were Here" to Pink Floyd founder Syd Barrett, whose mental >instability forced him to cede control of his band to Gilmour and Waters in the late >'60s. > >Although no official statement has been made, the Live 8 reunion is expected >to be a one-off affair for the members of Pink Floyd. > >The group was followed on stage by Paul McCartney, who was joined by George >Michael for the Beatles favorite "Drive My Car." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 14:41:57 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] reunion bells? At Sunday 7/3/2005 01:30 PM, Bradley Skaught wrote: >I'm also working on my case that Robyn Hitchcock's "Queen Elvis" album is a >lost classic. Even amongst die hard Hitchcock _fans_ it's a lost classic... I never understood why QUEEN ELVIS doesn't get more recognition. It was the album that got me into Hitchcock, and is still probably tied for my #1 among his (along with GROOVY DECOY). OTOH, GLOBE OF FROGS doesn't do much for me. Latre. --Rog - -- Distance, Redefined: http://www.reignoffrogs.com/flasshe ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 15:18:17 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a few thoughts At Sunday 7/3/2005 12:30 PM, Jenny Grover wrote: >First off- regarding that creepy, stalkerish pie chart and complaints of >Mark or anyone else posting "too much". It's an open topic mailing >list. If you don't want to receive and make posts, why are you here? I know I shouldn't get drawn into this, but since it's me you're primarily ranting against, I just can't help it. A couple of points: 1) Mark's constant need for approval from Stewart is far more "creepy" and "stalkerish". I feel icky whenever I read yet another post with Mark getting on Stewart's case in one breath and going on about how much he likes Stewart and wants to get along with him in another. 2) My point in posting the pie chart was not to show that Mark is posting too much, just that he posts more in relation to pretty much all other people on the List, and is therefore influencing the theme/direction of it more than any other person these days. Plus I thought it would be fun for everyone to see what slice of the pie they occupy, and I seem to have been right about that. 3) As I mentioned in the original post, I don't have a problem with Mark doing all the posting. I just said that it has turned the List into something that I'm not particularly interested in. However, I hang around because this has been a part of my life for a very long time and it occasionally still has some relevance to me. Also, I'll be interested to see the reactions/discussions when the new Scott album comes out later this year. 4) Posting statistics on how many posts people have posted doesn't strike me as violating anyone's personal space or revealing secret information. That's all public - I just put it together in a colorful format (I'm going for a Power Point presentation next). Please explain how this is a violation, as I'm not sure I understand. Is there a restraining order in my future? >And that's another thing. This list appears to be hands off in the >moderator dept., so learn to live without policing and police yourself >instead. And that includes the smug, self-righteous people who just >assume this applies to someone else. We actually do have a de facto moderator - that would be Mark by virtue of his near total thematic control over the List. (Witness the hissy fit about Stewart not responding "properly".) Let's just hand over the reins to him for real, so he can do whatever he wants with real power. I'd enjoy that show. >"Love does not keep a record of wrongs." I have never seen a list where >such records, and long-standing ones, were kept and published. When I was >new to this list I was apalled to see people scouring the archives from >previous years to find just that right quote to condemn someone anew. Is >this list's motto "Forgive and forget is for wusses"? Cuz I thought it >was "Munge the Smoes." There's a lot of history here. Music, life, love, anger, feuds, nitpickiness. Deal with it. Half the fun of a community like this is referencing the past of said community. Are you just upset because you weren't here from the beginning? Don't worry, we still consider you One Of Us (and by "we", I mean the Conspiracy of the Elite - BTW, Rex Broome: your membership card is in the mail). >The time to be nice and have fun and gush over pop music together is >now. To quote a best friend, on an entirely different, but still music >related subject, "This is supposed to be fun, not stressful." I agree. So why isn't there more of that and less of the Staples Show? But I already know the answer to that. Jenny, though we often don't see eye to eye, I've agreed with some of the things you've said over the last couple of days, especially in relation to putting personal stuff up here. But this rant was pretty wacky and somewhat incomprehensible. BTW, I've finally started listening to CIRCLING THE SUN (downloaded from eMusic), and so far (no pun intended) I agree more with Mark than Stewart. Fun stuff! Latre. --Rog - -- Distance, Redefined: http://www.reignoffrogs.com/flasshe ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:18:54 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a few thoughts Roger Winston wrote: > > I know I shouldn't get drawn into this, but since it's me you're > primarily ranting against, I just can't help it. My post wasn't primarily ranting against you. I'm sorry if you took it that way. > > 1) Mark's constant need for approval from Stewart is far more "creepy" > and "stalkerish". I would agree with you on that. > 2) My point in posting the pie chart was not to show that Mark is > posting too much, just that he posts more in relation to pretty much > all other people on the List, and is therefore influencing the > theme/direction of it more than any other person these days. I guess he's only influencing it more than everyone if no one else steps up to the plate to influence it otherwise. Is it Mark's posting that influences the list, or other people's lack of posting? Something to think about. And, as I said, Mark, or anyone else, can always be ignored if you don't care about what they have to say. > Plus I thought it would be fun for everyone to see what slice of the > pie they occupy, and I seem to have been right about that. Well, I wasn't the only one who thought it was kinda creepy, or at least obsessive, or at least strange that someone would not only hang onto all that info, but then analyze it and graph it. Maybe there's just more people here with office jobs that require that sort of thing than I'm used to being around. > > 4) Posting statistics on how many posts people have posted doesn't > strike me as violating anyone's personal space or revealing secret > information. It's not, but it just feels kinda like, not being evaluated and reported on exactly, but like someone's paying too much attention to things that aren't really the point. > Is there a restraining order in my future? Not from me. ;-) > > We actually do have a de facto moderator - that would be Mark by > virtue of his near total thematic control over the List. (Witness the > hissy fit about Stewart not responding "properly".) Let's just hand > over the reins to him for real, so he can do whatever he wants with > real power. I'd enjoy that show. I would not enjoy that show. And thematic control and ranting do not a moderator make. I merely meant there seems to be no list of rules for members and no one enforcing any rules here. But that still doesn't mean it should be a free-for-all, and how that is handled is a measure of maturity and community. > > There's a lot of history here. Music, life, love, anger, feuds, > nitpickiness. Deal with it. Half the fun of a community like this is > referencing the past of said community. Are you just upset because > you weren't here from the beginning? Oh please. No, I'm not upset because I wasn't here from the beginning. I'm upset (actually, that's too strong a word. Annoyed, perhaps) because people get whiney about how the past was better instead of trying harder to make the present better. It's fogeyism. But I also fail to see how it is "fun" to humiliate someone repeatedly over something years in the past, which I have seen done on here more than a handful of times, by someone going back through and picking out a problem from the archives and bringing it up anew just to prove or re-prove some point or other at that person's expense. > Don't worry, we still consider you One Of Us (and by "we", I mean the > Conspiracy of the Elite - BTW, Rex Broome: your membership card is in > the mail). I don't care about being one of anybody, really. I have plenty of friends in various places. I don't need or seek approval here. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 18:28:31 EDT From: A52boy@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] MY few thoughts I haven't read any posts in response to mine, except from my friends. I simply cannot handle the negativity. I do have a few things to say, if anyone cares to read: I told my friend who works the counter at the coffee shop the latest list goings on, in which he, a college graduate my age working a second job, made a masturbatory gesture and said, "It's a fucking e-mail list. Why do you waste your time there?" He may have a point. If this list is so fucking mature and fair and all, how come the creator of the "Friend of the Family" bumpersticker and Loud Family web site keeper, Sue Trowbridge, left? . I e-mailed her recently and said hey, just to see how she was. I'm the one who is accused of immaturity. Well, if having a heart and being open and wanting more community here makes me immature, then I'm quite at home in the elementary classroom, as a child teaching children. I'm not changing and I'm not leaving, either. Not again. There is such love and openness on the Coupland list (we even made our own t-shirt!) most of you guys would fucking throw up at the emotional display and love we have for one another, because you couldn't handle it, because of your hard hearts, and the cynicism which eats away at your souls like a cancer. Fuck you all. I love you all. - --Mark ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 18:58:26 -0400 From: Janet Ingraham Dwyer Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a few thoughts I thought the pie chart was pretty cool, myself. And if Rog wants to compile a master list of all loud-fans past and present while he's at it, I'd look at that too. Not in PPT, though. There's been a lot of love here. Janet (delurking, well, to get my piece of the pie) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 17:55:47 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a few thoughts At Sunday 7/3/2005 04:18 PM, Jenny Grover wrote: >I guess he's only influencing it more than everyone if no one else steps >up to the plate to influence it otherwise. Is it Mark's posting that >influences the list, or other people's lack of posting? Something to >think about. My point, which I think others will agree with, is that it's a disincentive to post when most subjects seem to always find their way back to the Mark Staples Show. And you can bet that for every person who publicly agrees with me, there are about five or so who agree but don't post about it (assuming they're still here). And no, that's not presumptuous of me. The subject, as posited by Stewart and countered by Mark, was that people have left or have become lurkers because of the personality shift. I was providing supporting evidence. And I'm not saying that my lack of involvement or posting is all due to Mark, just that it contributes. As I said, I have other outlets now. It's much easier for me to talk about music and other things in my blog (though I'm sure there's a smaller audience there), especially since it's hard to come up with material for that and so I have to save it up. I don't want to repeat myself or waste it by having responses to the material turned into the umpteenth screed about how great the 80s were compared to today, or about how bad people who drive SUVs are, or whatever. >Well, I wasn't the only one who thought it was kinda creepy, or at least >obsessive, or at least strange that someone would not only hang onto all >that info, but then analyze it and graph it. Ever since I've been on the Internet, I've kept all my e-mail in my e-mail client. It's not like I have to do anything special for that - I just don't delete it. I suppose someday a hard disk crash will wipe it all out, since I don't keep very good backups, but oh well. I've found archiving is an incredibly useful reference tool, especially if I want to go back and find out what somebody said about a CD or book or movie or whatever. And up until lately, all the LoudFans archives were easily accessible on eScribe, so anyone could gather the info. You can still sort of get to them through smoe, but there are no easy links and I'm not sure how up-to-date it is. >Maybe there's just more people here with office jobs that require that >sort of thing than I'm used to being around. Yes, I've had to do this sort of thing many times for my job (though usually only to aid in diagnosing problems), so it's not that hard for me. Nor is it hard for anyone who has used Excel, a common piece of office software. But again, the primary reason after making the point about the All-Mark List, was to do something fun and interesting. I just can't understand why the pie chart bothered you and these mysterious other(s) so much. But I've learned my lesson! I'll never do it again! >It's not, but it just feels kinda like, not being evaluated and reported >on exactly, but like someone's paying too much attention to things that >aren't really the point. But it was the point. I was trying to show why people felt alienated. >I'm upset (actually, that's too strong a word. Annoyed, perhaps) because >people get whiney about how the past was better instead of trying harder >to make the present better. It's fogeyism. I agree - people living in the past is one of my biggest pet peeves. I don't believe I have personally harped on how this List was better in the past (though it was, and that's partly because there was more to talk about, Scott-wise), and I've given up trying to change its future course. There have always been things wrong here, of one stripe or another. Again, I just don't find the current incarnation that interesting. >But I also fail to see how it is "fun" to humiliate someone repeatedly >over something years in the past, which I have seen done on here more than >a handful of times, by someone going back through and picking out a >problem from the archives and bringing it up anew just to prove or >re-prove some point or other at that person's expense. I guess I must be totally dense (or unobservant, or have missed a post) because I really do not know what incident(s) you are referring to here. Could you give some specifics, please? >I don't care about being one of anybody, really. I have plenty of friends >in various places. I don't need or seek approval here. I didn't say you did. Okay, I guess I must really pepper my posts with "Just Kidding!" notes from now on. I thought the "Conspiracy of the Elite" etc. reference was a dead giveaway of the jokey tone of that paragraph, but I can see how I have to really spell things out. Latre. --Rog - -- Distance, Redefined: http://www.reignoffrogs.com/flasshe ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 18:05:09 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] MY few thoughts At Sunday 7/3/2005 04:28 PM, A52boy@aol.com wrote: >I'm the one who is accused of immaturity. Well, if having a heart and being >open and wanting more community here makes me immature, then I'm quite at >home in the elementary classroom, as a child teaching children. I just hope that nothing of a personal nature you post on this List (a publicly accessible forum) puts you in danger of losing that classroom job. >There is such love and openness >on the Coupland list (we even made our own t-shirt!) most of you guys would >fucking throw up at the emotional display and love we have for one another, >because you couldn't handle it, because of your hard hearts, and >the cynicism >which eats away at your souls like a cancer. Oh, there's plenty of love here. You're just upset that it's not being showered in your direction. I would respond to your comment about Sue, but I don't want to put words in her mouth. Latre. --Rog - -- Distance, Redefined: http://www.reignoffrogs.com/flasshe ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 17:15:18 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] MY few thoughts On Sun, 3 Jul 2005 A52boy@aol.com wrote: > If this list is so fucking mature and fair and all, how come the creator of > the "Friend of the Family" bumpersticker and Loud Family web site keeper, Sue > Trowbridge, left? . I e-mailed her recently and said > hey, just to see how she was. I don't really care about the "maturity" level of this list; I just find it boring. Sorry, guys. (I do occasionally check in via the archives.) I'm not as into the indie rock as I used to be. Love those Queens of the Stone Age, though! - --Sue (via Joe's e-mail) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 20:55:00 -0400 From: John Swartzentruber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a few thoughts On 7/3/2005 6:58 PM Janet Ingraham Dwyer wrote: >I thought the pie chart was pretty cool, myself. And if Rog wants to >compile a master list of all loud-fans past and present while he's at >it, I'd look at that too. Not in PPT, though. > >There's been a lot of love here. > >Janet >(delurking, well, to get my piece of the pie) > I guess anything that delurks Janet is worthwhile. Give that woman a slice of pie! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 21:17:56 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] MY few thoughts In a message dated 7/3/05 6:29:31 PM, A52boy@aol.com writes: > There is such love and openness > on the Coupland list (we even made our own t-shirt!) most of you guys would > fucking throw up at the emotional display and love we have for one another, > I don't usually wear t-shirts, but I would if the official LoudFans one said something about how we throw up at emotional displays. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:32:38 -0400 From: "Stewart Mason" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] reunion bells? - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Winston" > At Sunday 7/3/2005 01:30 PM, Bradley Skaught wrote: > >>I'm also working on my case that Robyn Hitchcock's "Queen Elvis" >>album is a >>lost classic. Even amongst die hard Hitchcock _fans_ it's a lost >>classic... > > I never understood why QUEEN ELVIS doesn't get more recognition. It > was the album that got me into Hitchcock, and is still probably tied > for my #1 among his (along with GROOVY DECOY). OTOH, GLOBE OF FROGS > doesn't do much for me. I seem to recall that there was kind of a perfect storm of criticism fired at that album at the time: a lot of the longtime Hitchcock fans thought it verged on slick and commercial in the production (which is possibly a fair point -- it does have that singularly late-'80s major-label drum sound) and some of them also found his newly heightened media profile -- this was around the time he was opening for R.E.M. in their early major-label days -- to be something of a sellout. Meanwhile, the album was still too weird and obscure for the mainstream folks, so he was getting it from both sides. I really like QUEEN ELVIS a lot too, although I always did wonder why the album version of "Madonna of the Wasps" didn't have that kinda spooky solo a cappella opening that the mix from the video had. I liked that a lot, and the album version is weakened by its absence. S ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 21:46:16 -0400 From: "Stewart Mason" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] MY few thoughts - ----- Original Message ----- From: > I don't usually wear t-shirts, but I would if the official LoudFans > one said > something about how we throw up at emotional displays. Interestingly, the original title of "We Love You, Carol and Alison" was supposed to be "My Keyboardist And My Photographer Got Married And All I Got Was This Chunk-Spattered T-Shirt." S ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 18:46:55 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] reunion bells? On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, Bradley Skaught wrote: > Anyone see, hear or read reports about the Pink Floyd reunion on Saturday? I > was out all day and didn't catch a single Live 8 related performace. The MTV/VH1 coverage was poorly done - VJs on-camera instead of performances. I never thought I'd type these words, but God bless AOL! They offered streaming coverage of all the European & North American shows, so I got to see the PF reunion on a 3.5 x 2.5 inch display, and it was wonderful. They were tight and powerful, playing "Breathe/Breathe Reprise", "Money", "Wish You Were Here", and "Comfortably Numb". Dave's voice was a little cracked, but still good. After the last song, Roger called Nick, Rick & Dave together for a hug. Dave didn't seem too interested, but they finally gathered, bowed, and left the stage. Joe Mallon jmmallon@joescafe.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:38:48 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] a few thoughts Roger Winston wrote: > > My point, which I think others will agree with, is that it's a > disincentive to post when most subjects seem to always find their way > back to the Mark Staples Show. And you can bet that for every person > who publicly agrees with me, there are about five or so who agree but > don't post about it (assuming they're still here). And no, that's not > presumptuous of me. The subject, as posited by Stewart and countered > by Mark, was that people have left or have become lurkers because of > the personality shift. I was providing supporting evidence. If people have, that seems kind of silly. I hadn't noticed even that Mark figured that heavily in discussions except some about bands that he brought up in the first place, and what's wrong with that? You can always post around someone you don't like. I think it's a skewed viewpoint that Mark "controls" the mood of the list. I hadn't noticed the list even had a mood until this recent blow-up between Mark and Stewart. I should think it would be an incentive for people to post if they want the mood to change, not the other way around. I don't even really know what you guys are talking about with the "personality shift" thing. > > Yes, I've had to do this sort of thing many times for my job (though > usually only to aid in diagnosing problems), so it's not that hard for > me. Nor is it hard for anyone who has used Excel, a common piece of > office software. But again, the primary reason after making the point > about the All-Mark List, was to do something fun and interesting. I > just can't understand why the pie chart bothered you and these > mysterious other(s) so much. But I've learned my lesson! I'll never > do it again! It bothered me because it seemed like a critique, not a fun thing, and one person other than me that I know of is now uncomfortable about posting for a while for fear of being accused of posting too much. So, whatever your intentions were, they are having negative impacts on some people. > > But it was the point. I was trying to show why people felt alienated. Well, if people feel alienated, I don't think the chart really says why. All it says is that during this one time period certain people posted certain amounts. It says nothing about content, quality of posts, why people posted or didn't, or even who was just not available to post as much. > I agree - people living in the past is one of my biggest pet peeves. > I don't believe I have personally harped on how this List was better > in the past (though it was, and that's partly because there was more > to talk about, Scott-wise), and I've given up trying to change its > future course. There have always been things wrong here, of one > stripe or another. Again, I just don't find the current incarnation > that interesting. It's always a problem when the focus of a list becomes inactive or less active for whatever reason. > I guess I must be totally dense (or unobservant, or have missed a > post) because I really do not know what incident(s) you are referring > to here. Could you give some specifics, please? I can't give true specifics because I don't save many posts, I lost track of how to get to the archives a long time ago, and I wouldn't know what to search for anyway, but back when I joined the list, and several times after that (though, admittedly not recently, but I was hoping to head off a similar situation in the Mark/Stewart saga) people did dig up quotes to fling back at people later on, dragging up old hard feelings that should have been left behind. > I didn't say you did. Okay, I guess I must really pepper my posts > with "Just Kidding!" notes from now on. I thought the "Conspiracy of > the Elite" etc. reference was a dead giveaway of the jokey tone of > that paragraph, but I can see how I have to really spell things out. I thought it might be a joke, but I couldn't really tell exactly what you were getting at, or where Rex fit in, or whatever, and since Mark has been accused (probably rightly so) of seeking approval and validation here... Jen (just trying to get people to be nice to each other and not create scapegoats) ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V5 #167 *******************************