Date: Tue, 3 May 1994 14:31:46 -0500 (CDT)
From: Tad Kepley <tkepley-AT-bigcat.missouri.edu>
Subject: so flamin I's on fahr



DON'T WORRY GANG, THIS IS THE _LAST_ POST ON THIS SUBJECT, WHATEVER IT IS.

TAD WROTE
> > > 
>> > 
> > It's NOT what he said in his suicide note, and you're an asshole, yeah, 
> > an ASSHOLE, for putting words first in MY mouth and then his, and then 
> > POSTING your fantasies regarding his last communication. Why don't 

> THEN WHIT WROTE
 > Well shit, my source was a transcription of his wife's
reading of the > note that appeared in a conference on the net (which
matches fragments > I've seen, yes, in the Times).

THEN TAD WRITES TODAY 5/3/94

Not that it'll do you any good, cause it seems pretty obvious at this 
point that your reading and comprehension (not to mention debating) 
skills are fatally flawed, but, I'll mention for anyone else that is 
interested that Neil Strauss' bit in the current (and otherwise dismal) 
ROLLING STONE includes the most lenghty and accurate transcription of 
part of the note in question. It should be evident from reading it 
that nowhere was the dead rocker in question agonizing over his lack of 
"authenticity" especially not in the tone and manner described in previous 
postings here. Again, if anyone cares. 

> > you call your good buddies Poneman and Pavitt and have them tell you what 
> > was there... I used to recieve SubPop the zine, with the comps that came 
> > with it as well- I know those guys put out the SLIVER 7", big deal. I 
> 
> The point was, you were insisting I got my music history from the mass 
> media. If I wanted to drop names, I could do better than those two. My 

So what? I know, and still work with/keep in touch with, etc., many of the
500 or so of us that were doing things in the early eighties. Some have
gotten rich pimping angst. Most haven't. But most importantly, WE KNOW WHO
WE ARE, and I know you're not one of us. You might've known some HC types,
and probably quite a few college radio types, but I have a feeling you
were a devoted Echo and the Bunnymen fan. NO names you could drop 
could unconvince me of this. How's that for "authenticity"? 

> My only point was that I know exactly the scene Cobain made it in  
> years back when I left for NYC), and I know what punk meant to the 
> development of that scene - from the perspective of some of the key 
> developers of it.

Why, then, do you remain so confused? If you _did_ know "exactly" the 
scene you're talking about, we wouldn't be having this spirited little 
exchange.

> > I didn't need to resort to name-dropping (which I can do quite handily, 
> > thank you) to make MY point. You admit you didn't know Kurdt, but you 
> > interpret "the note" through the filter of what you were told about 
> > it on MTV or in the papers; which is actually what the core of this whole 
> > argument has been about.
> 
> I don't watch MTV. If you know what they would have told me, I guess you 
> must have been watching.

I sure was... and drinking, too. Man, you got me there. And of course,
everything I've had to say is rendered invalid because of that glaring
moral failure.>
 
> You seem to have one circuit in your head, like "Trash everything." I'm 
> not putting those words there, mind you, but trash is all that comes out. 
> That's not my program. There are some interesting points you touch on, 
> despite your teenage bombast, and I thought to draw them out for the 
> benefit of those here who, unlike yourself, like to consider stuff beyond 
> what you yourself have originated.

I'm glad you had such foresight and compassion for me and my "bombast". 
You're one perceptive cat. Hell, you were just leading me along this whole
time for the benefit of our posting peerage. I always _was_ easily
manipulated, just ask my probation officer. God, no wonder people like you
have no social life. I can just imagine you patting yourself on the back
for really putting me in my place, chuckling as you congratulated yourself
for your wit, whit.  Wannabes like you are a dime a dozen. You're
enraptured by the spectacular activity of convincing yourself that you're
not a spectator.  Like the rest of your class, youse hip-mo-tized by the
sound of your own voice. You think words are cheap cause you've never had
to defend yours.  More simply put, you're not only an ASSHOLE, you're a
SUCKER. 

>Never mind, I'll ignore you and get on with the real discussion. > > Whit

That's fine with me, because this has obviously descended to the nyaah
nyaah level. You've proven the weakness of your arguments by attempting to
counter my points with fanciful wordsmithing that you wrap in quotes and
attribute to me and others in order to support your inane, derivative
viewpoints. Maybe you ought to listen to what people say, nah, that's too
much to ask from people like you, you're too comfortable being smug and
self-righteous to actually _think_ about anything. Maybe you need to think
about what you post before you post it. Maybe again, that's too much to
ask. After all, I get the impression you're a student (or worse, a
grad-student)....anyway.

this discussion, to the relief of everyone else, is
terminated. At least I got the last... oh well, whatever, nevermind. 



Tad Kepley

(I should apologize to all you grad-students out there. You aren't _all_ 
bad. But a lot of you are natural-born pedants. And we all know what a 
degree can do for one of those... the pedantry increases exponentially, 
BY DEGREES, until such folks can no longer function anywhere but within 
the walls of some university. Beware this doesn't happen to you, my friends.)

     ------------------