RTP-area local music and culture

["Todd Morman" <tmorman AT nc.rr.com>]

 > I don't think that line exists between donating and
 > purchasing. Either way you are supporting the business.

Guess i disagree, Bo. I see a world of difference between donating money to
help a local business rebuild after a fire and choosing to buy corporate
coffee when other options are easily available. I see no reason for anyone
to believe that donating in that instance should give them a say in how the
business is run, unless the owner makes that clear in the solicitation for
help. Brian's statement implied that voluntary donors now have power to tell
the Starlite how it should be run, simply for deciding they wanted to help
rebuild the screen. That still seems like bullshit.

But the real point is that some of us actually thought in depth about the
gun issue at the Starlite *before* the fire, and are ok supporting a
gun-selling business. Ruby obviously hadn't come to a resolution on that for
herself, which makes her initial foray *very* hypocritical, not to mention
insulting to those she accused of sticking their heads in the sand. (Come
on, that part was pretty funny.) And we *still* don't know if Ruby and Brian
plan to boycott the Starlite in the future. Seems they don't want to reply
to that simple question, but as Ross seconded, it's the only position
logically consistent with their own outraged statements. If Ruby is going to
continue to fudge for herself as she compromises on this issue, she's in no
position to be raising it for others in the way she did. Ditto for Brian.

And don't pull that pot/kettle stuff on me, Bo; my first post here Monday
night was perfectly civil, and even mentioned I was glad Ruby and Brian had
raised the issue. Go back and read it if you don't believe me. Neither of
them bothered to respond to the questions I asked them in that post,
particularly the one that asked if they intend to visit the Starlite in the
future, although they both posted other things. And the first post I made
Wednesday night was equally civil, even as it sharply pointed out the
hypocrisy.

But ok, then I called "bullshit" on a quote from Brian's first letter that
had bugged me from the start, and laughed at Ruby's annoyance that I
preferred to post in a much more democratic forum than her personal blog. So
what? Since when is arguing with kid gloves the norm here, anyway? All of my
language was perfectly in keeping with the style of language at, say, Ruby's
blog, so I'll pass on this sudden wave of prudishness, thanks.

If there's one thing I've learned online, it's that a simple prisoner's
dilemma strategy works. Ruby's first post (pleasantly titled "Save the
handguns," remember) used me as an example of someone "jumping on the
bandwagon" (after I'd spent time digging up unusual links about why we
should care about drive-ins), and slammed a lot of us for something she
herself was doing, in an absurdly high moral tone *while she was unaware of
basic facts in the case.*

She can do that, but I can't respond sharply?

[snort]

todd it's true then Usenet really is dead morman