From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #96 Reply-To: ammf@smoe.org Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Tuesday, July 14 1998 Volume 01 : Number 096 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Talents? (Was: Re: Fruvous Question...) [dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Zafrin)] Re: greetings from Alberta! [dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Zafrin)] Re: greetings from Alberta! [Starfox ] Re: Help! I've been Moxified! [dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Zafrin)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:28:45 GMT From: dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Zafrin) Subject: Talents? (Was: Re: Fruvous Question...) On Mon, 13 Jul 98 23:19:15 GMT, chad@radix.net (Chad Schrock) wrote: >After *finally* seeing them live, I must say that any one of them has >more talent in one of their fingernails than I can ever hope of >having. :) *laugh* Well, Chad, I know nothing of your musical ability - but what *are* you talented in? This goes for everyone - what're your hobbies, what do you guys like to do that doesn't have anything to do with your job? Me, I love cooking and experimenting with food (okay, that one was obvious - see my FDC bio), cross-stitching, wild mushroom picking (the ones you *eat*, sillies... the ones you *cook and eat*), translating Russian poetry and prose (which I, unfortunately, mutilate - - but hey, I'm not giving it to anyone else to read!), and from time to time I'll paint with acryllics, mostly greeting cards. Anyone else for interesting hobbies? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Vika [VEE-kah] Zafrin Patron Saint of Caffeine dacilen at bu dot edu aka Coffee Fru "You and your hula dance of culinary delight..." -ceecee ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:04:38 GMT From: dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Zafrin) Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 21:54:25 GMT, wahrend@my-dejanews.com wrote: >Holy batman here comes the rant... Hmm. A rant for a rant. >Somehow I find your logic flawed here... are you saying that because some >people lack restraint we should impose laws that stop everyone from randomly >puching people in the face. No, I am not. To me (and I may not have made this clear in my previous two posts to this thread), laws are dynamic. Laws *can* be changed. Laws are what we go by when we decide that something is right or wrong. Just because a law exists, nobody's forcing you to believe that it's the Only Truth - in fact, the structure of the U.S. government specifically encourages people to dispute laws that they find unjust by giving them plenty of opportunity to do so. >I don't think its too unreasonable to believe that if we >strive to not have people randomly punch each other in the face then we might >be able to reach utopia (hows that for convoluded). Well, how're you going to deal with a person who *likes* punching people in the face? What do you have to back you up? And how do guidelines for what's socially acceptable and what isn't get established? This is what the laws are, to me at least - they're guidelines, far from perfect, but changeable, not cast in stone. Sure, many of them are discriminatory and unjust, but if you feel so strongly about a law then you have every opportunity to start a petition, write to your Congresspeople, make noise. Again, I never argued that laws are perfect. And I've never, ever seen or read about a law that *everyone* it applied to liked. Not even freedom of speech - - have you ever been on the receiving end of someone exercising it? >It not an issue of prohibiting someone from buying something its an issue of >labeling something as objectionable because of some artifical standard. Oh, c'mon, Bill. Strictly speaking, none of us here conform to standards. If we did, we'd spend our hours devoted to music glued to MTV. You're right, it's an artificial standard, imposed by someone Up Above. Do people have to conform to it? No. As I mentioned in another post, the labels are an (albeit loud-voiced) expression of opinion by other people. As for your dislike of something being labeled as objectionable, you do it too - everyone does. If you are a thinking human being (and you are), you have your own set of values which at least a hundred other people in the world (and probably much more) will find wrong. You may hold something as objectionable that other people don't. You have your reasons, and they have theirs. You will *never* be able to persuade them of your point of view just by labeling something as objectionable, just as the government can't persuade any rationally thinking person of *anything* they haven't given a chance. >This >labeling can cause your message to be heard by less people since it can >influence a person's decision to listen to the music. True. But personally, I am not too concerned about the people who get turned away by a record just because someone labeled it "parental advisory". >In a less noble light, >this directly effects you financially. I liken it to forcing a computer >vendor to put a sign on his product saying "this product is crap" because I >happen to not like computers and I'm the person that decides what is good and >what is crap. I can't see how "Parental Advisory - Explicit Lyrics" would ever mean "This Product Is Crap." Explicit Lyrics means there are words in the songs that aren't acceptable in "polite conversation", whatever that may mean (and it means different things to different people). It is *not* a comment on the quality of the work. Just on what it contains. >> The issue gets stickier with minors. If the truth of the matter is >> that minors are not allowed to purchase stuff with the stickers on >> them without their parents, then the government is actually doing a >> good thing and forcing the parents to be responsible for their kids. > >I don't follow this logic at all. How does this force a parent to be >responsible for their kid? Since we aren't living in utopia, you probably know that many parents tend to neglect their kids. Even if they think they're providing the kid with all he/she may need, there is a level of personal involvement that needs to be present. Any parent who truly cares for his/her kid will go to the store and check out what the kid's buying if specifically asked to do so. >If parents were doing their job then you probably >wouldn't have to worry about your child going to a record store and buying >objectionable material. True. In which case the parent would have even *less* problem going to the store. Little Kevin comes up to his mom, who has brought him up well, and says, "Mom, there's this record I want to buy, but it has an explicit lyrics label, and they won't let me buy it without you." Since Mom has brought Kevin up well, she trusts that his judgment is sound; she may have a short talk with him about it, but won't have a problem going to get the record with him. On the other hand, if Mom doesn't want Kevin to have the record, this at least opens the lines of communication and get the two of them talking about important issues like this. >Whats next? I'll have wear a bright orange shirt with black letters saying, >beware this guy has radical views. No, you won't. That'll be restriction of freedom. But any random guy, even a politician that everyone knows, can point his finger at you and shout in the Main Square that you have radical views. >So, if the kid looks over 18 then the government isn't doing its job of >making parents responsible for their kids. This is precisely the point! The government is not *forcing* this on anyone. The store, at its discretion, may tell a younger kid to bring his/her parents in. This is an example of people caring about the other members of their society. Joe the Cashier at Tower Records doesn't necessarily know that little Kevin's mom brought him up so well. If she has, then there won't be a problem. >I say if you >want make parents responsible for their kids, have them spend time in jail >for them if they shoplift or download pornography over the internet. I think >that would make parents educate their kids really fast. Education not >censorship. Er... that'd be an unjust restriction of freedom, and the punishment wouldn't fit the crime. *That* would be dictatorship, at least on this issue. >> For what it's worth, I just called the Tower Records in Boston, and >> they said that generally they aren't too worried about it, but if the >> kid looks "really young" - generally 13 or under - they'll make them >> bring a parent in. Sounds like looking out for others to me, not like >> restriction of freedom. > >Tell that to the scared teenager who has to ask her mom to go to planned >parenthood or a rape victim that she can't have an abortion because its >against her parent's religion. Extreme cases, yes, but still cases. That was unfair and inappropriate in this discussion. These are cases MUCH more serious than what we're talking about, and a different issue altogether. As far as I am concerned, I don't care what religion you are, your primary responsibility is to your kid. If it's against your religion that she have an abortion, you will help her take care of the child - but your child should NEVER be afraid to talk to you for fear of punishment. EVER. A parent, in a good family, is the Number One Support Person a kid has. Fear of punishment takes that support away - - but it doesn't take care of the problems that arise. Boy. There are five or six more posts in this thread I haven't read. Ack! I have to get to work at some point! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Vika [VEE-kah] Zafrin Patron Saint of Caffeine dacilen at bu dot edu aka Coffee Fru "You and your hula dance of culinary delight..." -ceecee ------------------------------ Date: 14 Jul 1998 13:05:03 GMT From: Starfox Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! Vika Zafrin wrote: : My fear is, though, that this society (I'm talking about the U.S. : here) is indeed conservative - so most of it probably does agree with : the warning labels. "Clem had a daydream, daydream from heaven, picked up the headline, his country was made up of singers, and no more right-wingers." Ahh...what a lovely daydream that must be. :) Starfox "Ooh, ooh, another tie-in to Fruvous, am I good or what?" - -- Starfox starfox (at) nationwide dot net "We each pay a fabulous price, for our visions of paradise." - Rush "Mission" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 12:38:48 GMT From: dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Zafrin) Subject: Re: Help! I've been Moxified! On Tue, 14 Jul 1998 06:03:53 GMT, chris25@nah.babba.nah.org (chris) wrote: > I've Gotta Get a Message to You > On Her Doorstep > Johnny Saucep'n (with comments about cheesy video quality) > You Will Go to the Moon Wow. Neat. >The videos are repeated all night long, so I haven't been in any hurry to >videotape them. Well, if you do videotape them, let me know - I'd *love* a copy. Offer of sending you a blank tape and postage included, of course (I don't have much to trade at all). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Vika [VEE-kah] Zafrin Patron Saint of Caffeine dacilen at bu dot edu aka Coffee Fru "You and your hula dance of culinary delight..." -ceecee ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #96 *******************************************