At 10:58 PM 12/19/01 -0500, GueenMuse wrote:
>Oh my goodness. Somebody actually GOT it.
>
>Well, Natasha, that is by far the best article I have ever read about your
>brilliant mind and ;) "body" of work. I wish that all the press you
>recieved had half that much edification. Well, not surprisingly that is
>required to fully report on the ideas you present, yet sadly lacking in
>most mainstream coverage of your work/ideas/accomplishment.
>
>Congrats on finally having mostly fair and reasoned reporting on what you
>have been doing all these years, and the sometimes abstruse meanings
>behind it. I realize it's really not probing very deep, but that's OK with
>me. It is a relief to see your ideas presented as they are and not twisted
>by some deathist nihilist frangmented journalist's need to sound up-to-the
>minute and hiply "noir".
>Congrats.
>That made my day. : ) : ) : ) : ) : )
>-Queen Muse
I think the reason the article is so good is that the journalist is darn
good. He has an ability to concretize ideas without fluff and
fanfare. It's a knotty task to synopsize any concept. He performed his
research and instead of turning a blind eye, a deaf ear, a hair, or his
back, -- he created a page turner.
Best,
Natasha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:29 MDT