From: schmidt@iasdv1.iasd.honeywell.com (Kreg J. Schmidt)
Subject:  Feelings on an inappropriate Beating >> Was SPIRITUALIZED....
Reply-To: schmidt@iasdv1.iasd.honeywell.com
Organization: Honeywell,Phoenix,AZ
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 18:15:38 GMT

>>>> In response to "Justin C. Goh" <jcgoh@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> from a 
>>>> message received Fri, 14 Aug 92 02:28:54 EDT

So after two weeks of critical projects at work, I finally have some time to 
read my mail and much to my chagrin, not only do I see that Justin has 
posted his response to the net, but was also arrogant enough to personally 
mail me copy. I won't bore the net with re-posting the entire article, 
since only he responded to it.

As my wife so elegantly said, "Oh my, sensitive little guy isn't he?". 
Far be it from anyone to flame his precious little "favs" of the year.

Justin first accepts my point, but then apparently feels some anal retentive 
need to provide rebuttal to his own acceptance: 

>Point taken.  There is the old adage about not criticizing someone else
>until you try it yourself.  But its relevance here is debatable...

Relevance anywhere actually...well now let's see...
        Don't criticize the President's policies until YOU have been President
	   and made a few policies yourself...
	Don't criticize the plot in a movie until YOU have written a movie...
	Don't criticize a mass murderer until you maybeeeee, wipe out your
	   family...
	Don't criticize a drunk driver who kills a mother and child until
	   you get slammed and try it yourself. Yeah, you might like it!
What a brilliant and well thought out quote!

Then the "Grammar King of the Year" points out a misspelling of mine on 
this oh so syntactically correct network... 
>>...diddo for Pavement...
>Wow, you, uhh, really undermine your argument here with a rather large
>misspelling.  Hey, I'm not trying to be petty.  If I wanted to, I could
>have made a nasty petty remark about it.  But, nevertheless, it kind of
>makes me not take you seriously.
> 
But earlier is his literary masterpiece states: 
>No, that in itself does not.  I did not mean that at all, and if you gave
>me an credit for being semi-lucid, you would no that I didn't mean that
                                              ^^ 
"Yes", he said, " I NO him well" 
"Do you NO the answer?" "Why yes," said Bert, "The answer is KNOW."
BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE...WITH THIS LOVELY BIT OFF HOMONYM KNOWLEDGE
DISPLAYED, YOU ALSO GET THIS:
>Spiritualized is pretty spacey,
>ambient music while Pavement is very bobby and rocking.  There ain't
                                      ^^^^^
Bobby?  Bobby Brown?  Bobby Pin?  
bobby (bobe'e N., pl. -bies [After Sir Robert Peel ( 1788-1850).]
   Chiefly Brit.  A police officer

You not only make several mistakes, of which I normally would care less if 
someone has a typo, but to make a point of correcting someone else and 
then... doing it yourself? OOOOOOOOhhhh, I get it now, you were trying it 
yourself before criticizing me! (see above).
Does this mean by your own admission that no one should take you seriously?
Or should I just apply another term  you use so frequently: "hypocrisy".

>> review the music, since at that point it had only graced my ears
>> three times.  And in this short duration, I'll be damned if I didn't come

>Three times?  I thought so.  First of all, I know you weren't trying to
>review the music.  But as you yourself state, your bone of contention is
>that this music was misrepresented to you.  I turn this around on you and
>say that you are guilty of the same thing, so you really have no right to
>complain.  Again, this is hypocrisy on your part to decry something of
>which you yourself are guilty.

No, Justin, I said "at the point", which means... when I first posted the 
ORIGINAL article. Since the original post, I have given Pavement ample time 
to enlighten me and it just hasn't, IMHO. NO BIG DEAL!  But as far as the 
original point of misrepresentation:
>Lou Reed?  Huh?  Lou has a pretty deep voice in case you haven't
>noticed.   ...<plenty deleted>...
Well it still appears that I wasn't being blasphemous to the work you hold so
sacred.  For as I picked up the current copy of Alternative Press, and scanned 
through the articles what did I find... OH MY GOD, someone else compared the 
vocals on a track of Spiritualized to whoooooo... Lou Reed.  Well fuck me 
to tears!  Just how many people need to agree with me before my statement 
is NOT misrespresentation!  Whereas I don't think anyone would say that
Spiritualized sounds like JMAC ( which was orginally told to me ).

And to further humor me, Justin writes: 
>Try playing it loud, by yourself, and in the dark.  For a truly full
>experience, try some weed.
 
Gee, now there's a really imaginative, high school suggestion!  So, in order 
for me to really understand and relate to the music, I need to turn 
off the lights, be all alone, and smoke some weed!  Jesus, I hope you really 
don't feel this way; otherwise, someone needs to turn the lights ON for 
you and maybe find you a woman (or man)... whatever trips your trigger.

If I need something to smoke in order to understand music, then there's
something seriously wrong or the music simply sucks and I'm trying to 
justify liking it.  Pot and a dark room certainly isn't the solution to 
shitty music.  Drugs may elevate your emotions, but they do not change 
the music.  I suppose you think you're just a master poet/philosopher too 
after a good buzz.   Or maybe you're like several RAVE'rs I know who think
the music's awesome....well at least until they come off the X.  ( p.s. I 
not implying that RAVE music isn't good w/o chemical influence, there's
a lot of excellent music out there. )

>...I think you should be careful about future insults lest
>you look foolish again.

Enough said.


A man with too much sulfur
at the end of his match,
Kreg Schmidt