From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V3 #834 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Tuesday, September 21 1999 Volume 03 : Number 834 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Question about banter (was Comments on Detroit 9/17) ["A.J. LoCicero"] Re: Question about banter (kind of long) ["A.J. LoCicero" ] Re: ot: john galt [jacey7@aol.com (Jacey7)] Arab names ["Zainab" ] Re: What I have determinded... ["Novac" ] Re: Question about banter (was Comments on Detroit 9/17) [srm9988n@aol.co] Re: Chicago show review/report! [hugh@fruhead.com (Hugh Miller)] Re: FW: Chicago show review/report! [hugh@fruhead.com (Hugh Miller)] Re: Question about banter [SugarFly26@aol.com] Jian's rejections (was: What I have determinded...) [NovFraggle@aol.com] Re: Jian's rejections (was: What I have determinded...) [fruwench@aol.com] Re: Food for thought on Tapers [fruwench@aol.com (FruWench)] Re: Food for thought on Tapers [fruwench@aol.com (FruWench)] Re: Murray is God (was: Re: The Chicago Metro Show...) [vika@fruhead.com] Heard on the Radio today [SnarkiFru ] Re: Food for thought on Tapers [coondog42@my-deja.com] Re: Fox Thing In The Morning [rob@knautz.com (Rob Knautz)] Re: swearing, disrespect, and difference of opinion [Katherine Bunting ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 04:20:08 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: Re: Question about banter (was Comments on Detroit 9/17) Mer Mer wrote: > No, this isn't there normal Banter, at least not that i have noticed. In > fact this form of banter I think they were really edgy about using. At > first Jian tried to skip over it but then Dave brought it up. Most of the > banter usually has to do with more topics of general audience, and since > this venue was 18+ and a bar, i don't think they would actually say that if > there were youngsters there (no offense to those that are under 18). I would have to disagree slightly. I think their banter runs hot and cold. It just depends on the show. Sometimes the shows are very "tame" while others can be chock full of epithets. Sometimes swearing seems to breed more swearing but other times there might be one or two words and no more. However, one factor that does NOT always seem to affect their language is the audience. One would think it would, but I know I've heard some strong language in front of all age audiences, while there have been adult-only shows in which they didn't even swear. I think mostly it has to do with the muse that strikes them that day. I'm sure that they DO think about the audience and what kind of talk is appropriate, but I'm not sure they are always able to stick to that once on stage. So fair warning, while many shows may not be particularly offensive at all. You never know when you might hear some strong stuff. I guess the parents in question are just going to have to deal with that. A.J. - -- Mariaweb last updated 5/13/99. See Maria Louise in all her... erm... Glory? Visit MariaWeb at http://members.aol.com/marilou99/ _____ _ / ____(_) | | _ ___ ___ _ __ ___ | | | |/ __/ _ \ '__/ _ \ | |____| | (_| __/ | | (_) | \_____|_|\___\___|_| \___/ @wwnet.com ICQ#: 13117113 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 04:29:41 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: Re: Question about banter (kind of long) truztno1 wrote: > while I know that they use, er, interesting language (a la live noise), which I > wasn't concerned about, I was worried that particularly graphic stuff might > upset my (our) parents. It seems that at the show, it was just mentioned really > quickly, which isn't really a problem. I wouldn't even go to a show where the > whole evening's banter consisted of nude people having organisms. Everybody has > a different sense of humor, and I respect that, but I personally wouldn't see > the point of paying $25 to hear that, even if the music was shockingly > wonderful. So, basically, to sum up this unnecessarily long post, I was saying > that they wouldn't like anything NC-17 (to put a rating on it). R is just fine. > > ~truztno1 Truztno1, You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I feel compelled to state here that =I= would frankly MUCH rather hear about people (nude or otherwise) having orgasms (but not organisms ecch!) than hear a lot of swearing. Not that swearing is bad, I certainly do enough of it, but I really am distressed by people who feel that sex is so bad that it mustn't be talked about. Sex is not bad. It is very wonderful, and while perhaps not everyone wants to hear every detail, the fact remains that it is a peculiar feature of OUR society that it is considered worse to depict sex than to depict violence, and that feature bothers me a great deal. To summarize: Shit is worse than an orgasm. Anyone disagree? :) A.J. - -- Mariaweb last updated 5/13/99. See Maria Louise in all her... erm... Glory? Visit MariaWeb at http://members.aol.com/marilou99/ _____ _ / ____(_) | | _ ___ ___ _ __ ___ | | | |/ __/ _ \ '__/ _ \ | |____| | (_| __/ | | (_) | \_____|_|\___\___|_| \___/ @wwnet.com ICQ#: 13117113 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:57:35 -0400 From: "Novac" Subject: Re: confusing letters wrote in message news:61fe1881.25183966@aol.com... > Another one...kid I know from school, born and raised for a while in Poland. > His last name is spelled (let's see if I get this right) Brzykcy. Pronounced > Brick-See. At the church I just started going to, the pastor's last name is Czyz. Weird. Pronounced Sizz. - --Novac ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1999 04:39:49 GMT From: jacey7@aol.com (Jacey7) Subject: Re: ot: john galt Before the hurricane, back when both the electricity *and*the phone lines were working in this neck o' the woods, katy wrote: >>well, it's a quote (damn me, for always quoting semi-obscure books)... he's a character, and a refrain of hopeless... << and so on. I just wanted to say that I am familiar with the book, and was just attempting (apparently unsuccessfully ;-) to reference the more often-utterred phrase, 'Who is John Galt?" that not only (I believe) even opens the novel, but is the central plot point. [1] And yes, it's very a good book, even if I tend to disagree with her philosphy. ~jen [1] OK, so plot isn't really the point of this book, but it's still a good one ;-) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Nobody likes you when you're 23"-- Blink 182 "Do you know that you are very strong?"-- Grover "Measure your life in love."--Rent ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:00:40 -0500 From: "Zainab" Subject: Arab names Lori delighted us with: >Me, I always wanted a Q. In fact I've always liked those Arabic names that end >in Q, but as I don't appear to be Arabic at all, taking one would be a ... um >... misnomer. >And I never felt much like a Queenie or a Quentin or a Quincey either. > >Any bright ideas out there? Oh, you're opening up the Pandora's box of this Arabophile..... I don't think your non-Arab status precludes you from assuming a cool Arab name that ends with a Q. I do think the fact that few, if any feminine Arab names end in Q might do it tho. A couple of suggestions: Wafiqa .......means successful Bilqis ..........means Queen of Sheba I prefer Khadija, myself. Yeah, I know it has no "Q". Zainab, another non-Arab who uses an Arab name ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 01:04:02 -0400 From: "Novac" Subject: Re: What I have determinded... wrote in message news:3ccd2232.2517fd7b@aol.com... > Hmm? I'm wondering just how often, on average of course, do the band people > [1] come out after shows? I'm not sure yet whether it's an all-the-time type > thing or a rare occurance. I realize it's somewhere in between [2], but > where? Jian runs about a 95% post-show appearance. He's the one you can usually count on coming out. Mike runs about 20%ish, and usually doesn't roam around much, just stays in one place. Dave comes out around 10-15% (usually only when Mike comes out) and is usually very laid-back. Murray, the introverted one, is around 10%. No comment :) If anyone has any comments about my rough estimates, TOO BAD. I suck :) - --Novac ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1999 05:21:28 GMT From: srm9988n@aol.comicrelief (Lori at fruhead dot com) Subject: Re: Question about banter (was Comments on Detroit 9/17) Cameron said: >>Teaching a child to swim is always >>best done before throwing them into the shark tank. > >The one major important part with this is that it really doesn't matter. I have to say that the Toolman's analogy of being taught to swim before being thrown into a shark tank, and then Cameron's observation that it doesn't matter, is just wonderful -- so truly reflective of the childhood protective parents try to give their kids. But what's the point of "inoculating" them with swimming lessons when the danger's not from drowning at all? In a way, that false parental security about "protecting children" until they're "ready" for the shark tank is exactly what this thread has been about. Specifically, what's the purpose of protecting children by forbidding certain words, or avoiding places where those words are likely to be used, when what we really need to be teaching is *why* those words inspire such a visceral reaction in so many people -- *why* some words are "bad" or "offensive" language? >Kids will here it, it is impossible for them not to, and they will also use >the language. Because while the house environment that they structure can >be happy and swear-free, it is not the only environment that the child is >exposed to, and probably the least influencial on the child's life (at >least, that is what it was like for me) Bingo. And if they aren't taught that a word -- any word -- can be both appropriately and inappropriately used, then the words themselves have no meaning to those children. They're not true communication tools. They are good for no more than a giggle, or a naughty feeling, not for a mature understanding of the world and the people who inhabit it. Context is everything. And truly understanding context is one of the keys to being a functioning, literate, fully socialized member of society. One of the reasons my ten-year-old son doesn't enjoy Früvous shows as much as his father and I do is because he doesn't understand the context of their swearing and sexual banter. He finds these words uncomfortable in themselves, because he has absorbed at school and among his friends and their parents that these are "bad words" -- words that, if children say them, make many adults uncomfortable or disapproving of those children; words he does not hear frequently among the adults he knows, and certainly not words he's used to finding other adults laughing at and approving. He understands the shock value of the words, but not their appropriate use, and this causes a bit of cognitive dissonance for him. It makes him squirmy to see adults laughing at something he expects them to disapprove. We've tried to explain the difference in usage -- but frankly I don't expect him to get it for another few years. For now, he knows that loaded words will generally cause a deep reaction in people, but that there are appropriate uses nonetheless. He also knows that if the intended effect is humor it involves very specific applications, and that if it's well done it's funny but if it's badly done it can be exceedingly offensive. Until he understands the distinction, he knows that trying to use such humor is not the brightest idea - -- especially around adults he doesn't *know* are accepting of such attempts. He also knows that if he uses such language around his parents for exclamatory purposes he'd better have a *really* good reason. :) What he says among his friends, otoh, is his -- and their -- business. He has a strong sense of what we find acceptable, but I can't run every sphere of his life, and I don't think it's advisable that I try. Different communities have different standards, and I can accept that the standards of ten-year-old boys are not the ones I'd look for in my own chosen community -- but they wouldn't choose me or my standards either. :) Anyway, what I hope he's learning from this is that language is a living thing, that it doesn't mean exactly the same thing to any two people, that we each bring our varying experiences and communities to our understanding of words. That's why some words are considered categorically "bad" by so many, and used only in anger or as a weapon, yet others can use them -- and understand their use -- with great humor and artistry. It's also why some people are set off by certain phrases that others take for granted as an ordinary everyday part of speech. Everyone has differing comfort levels, and that's part of maturing too - -- recognizing one's audience and not going out of one's way to alienate it for no effect. Lawrence's words early in this thread, which he didn't consider swearing or particularly insulting, triggered strong reactions in some people here, yet others probably said "bfd, I use that phrase ten times a day." We each have our own triggers about what we consider particularly offensive or assaultive. Part of that individual reaction may derive from the relative social taboo of certain words, which can fluctuate or be trend-oriented. That would be why, to use his example, "fuck off" is generally much more offensive a dismissal than "bite me," or why some people cringe when the epithet "anal" is bandied about while others apply it without second thought to their own obsessive-compulsive-control-freaky traits. But much of the visceral feeling of being attacked or offended by someone's words also involves some combination of the intent the speaker/writer *seems to* project through the words, and the weight the loaded words carry with the person hearing or reading them because of their prior experience with those words. And that's really mostly subjective on the listener/reader's part, which is why (I think) Lawrence said "they're just words, they can't really do any damage" or something to that effect. Words only have the effect the person perceiving them *lets* them have. At any rate, to answer Truztno1's question -- Früvous doesn't use language just for shock value, nor is their stage presence obscene. It's always a joke, and it's always sort of a gleeful, winky, delightedly-misbehaving aside, then back to the real business at hand -- the music, or the main point of the banter. I feel much better with Andrew witnessing these Früvous moments than I do with him watching South Park -- if that's the type of comparison that might make a difference to your parents. They might prefer not to hear some of the language Früvous uses -- but we all have things we'd rather not hear. The question is, would they be truly offended by a random silly moment in which Jian swore or referred to an orgasm? Because that's all it ever is -- a random silly moment. Hardly the theme of the show. Hardly something for any observer -- even a protective parent -- to get all worked up about. But that's just my opinion. :) - -- Lori ************* start off straight, then I get to meander ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 06:12:20 GMT From: hugh@fruhead.com (Hugh Miller) Subject: Re: Chicago show review/report! On Sun, 19 Sep 1999 23:47:52 -0400, Lawrence P Solomon wrote: >Encore #1 > >Authors - it took this one a while to get going because the acoustic still had >distortion on and any time Dave clicked it off, all the sound cut out. After >a bit of fiddling, they finally realized that it had come unplugged, and got >it working again. This time, for the sake of Dave's sanity, the streetcar >driver was "looking straight ahead." :) Also Murray's mod: "Who's in the grave? He's Robertson Davies!" ...whereupon Murray stopped singing, instead saying loudly, "... 'cuz he's dead! HE'S DEAD!" -=- HM P.S. Davies is actually undead and haunting Massey College in Toronto. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 06:48:39 GMT From: hugh@fruhead.com (Hugh Miller) Subject: Re: FW: Chicago show review/report! On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 15:11:58 GMT, "Vokes, Laurie" wrote: >While waiting to get in. Some idiot walked by and he said something along >the lines of "wow I can't believe all these people are waiting to see some >no-name band" Well obviously they aren't a no-name band if that many people >were waiting to get in! Some people! I was very disappointed at the level of publicity the show received in the Chicago media venues (read: zilch). I expected a nice Critic's Choice box in Section Three of The Reader, a nice ad with photo, a boxed blurb in the Trib's Friday entertainment section, etc. Instead, tiny little 6-point agate-type: "Metro Sept. 16 Scuzz Balls Sept. 17 Noxious Toads Sept. 18 Moxy Fruvous Sept. 19 Can't Abide the Boy Sept. 20 Pat Boone Tribute..." I know MF is a grassroots thing but their PR people need to do seriously better for a new-album tour in a major market town like Chicago. Just from looking around me and watching people lip-synching in the audience during the Thornhill tunes I'd guess 97.5%, give or take 3 percent, of the crowd already owned the CD. A nice sign that the diehard Fruheads are still with you but not evidence of reaching a new audience. Reaching a new audience is important to artists. It's not selling out. It's a sign your art is still alive. But as Dave pointed out to Katie Nicolais in her interview, music is a highly competitive business. Unless their record companies & distributors get their act together they'll always remain a cult/niche band. Fruheads may prefer their own little secret enthusiasm but that's a dead end for the band, IMHO. Just my 2 cents. Oh, and Mike Ford: You da man. I so wanted a good Tom Waits standard or Minnie the Moocher, but I was happy with a rousing Boo Time. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 11:05:03 GMT From: SugarFly26@aol.com Subject: Re: Question about banter I messed up: << Mer said something to the effect of: Ln >> Ggrrr...yeah, I can type. Uhm. Now I forgot what it was sposed to say. Sorries! - --------------> Ln ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 11:29:15 GMT From: NovFraggle@aol.com Subject: Jian's rejections (was: What I have determinded...) In a message dated 9/21/1999 1:34:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jesmore@hotmail.com writes: << Jian runs about a 95% post-show appearance. He's the one you can usually count on coming out. Mike runs about 20%ish, and usually doesn't roam around much, just stays in one place. Dave comes out around 10-15% (usually only when Mike comes out) and is usually very laid-back. Murray, the introverted one, is around 10%. No comment :) If anyone has any comments about my rough estimates, TOO BAD. I suck :) --Novac >> I have seen Jian quite a bit preshow too. Actually one lucky show my friend tipped me off that they were all in the mensroom with him so my chick friend and I (of course the groupies) waited outside to talk to them. That really was rude of us I guess. Nonetheless, I was thrilled with Jian's condescending "We'll take pictures afterwards..I have to go" as he held onto my arm. I'm easily pleased. Although I did add up the times Jian "regected" me that night and felt pretty silly. As we pulled up to that show he'd walked over to my boyfriend's '78 Lincoln Continental and oooed and awwed at it but when I said, "wanna get in?" he declined! Oh really, how much rejection can a gal take in one night? -Nov ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1999 11:32:18 GMT From: fruwench@aol.com (FruWench) Subject: Re: Jian's rejections (was: What I have determinded...) >Murray, the introverted one, is around 10%. No comment :) I dunno. I've seen Murray out a lot more then I've seen Dave. Maybe its just the shows I go to. *shrug* ladywench "Music not danced to is music wasted." - Eileen Ivers, PFF 38 FruSpace - We came, we saw, we slept on the floor . . . ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1999 11:39:53 GMT From: fruwench@aol.com (FruWench) Subject: Re: Food for thought on Tapers *ladywench re-reads the last line of her comment, recognizes the straight line, and waits to see what happens . . ." oops :-) ladywench "Music not danced to is music wasted." - Eileen Ivers, PFF 38 FruSpace - We came, we saw, we slept on the floor . . . ------------------------------ Date: 21 Sep 1999 11:38:47 GMT From: fruwench@aol.com (FruWench) Subject: Re: Food for thought on Tapers Snarki said: Yeah! And the band even teases tapers from stage. They know the tapers are there, they dn't mind. Why should we? *giggle* In Katonah last year I remember Mike/Spidey ripping off his jacket and pretending Jason's obvious but inoffensive mics were dangerous aliens or something, When Mike threw his jacket, obviously trying to cover the mics and just as obviously falling short, Jason leaped up and snaged the jacket out of mid air. And returned it later. Do you think Mike would have thrown clothing at someone he didn't trust? ladywench "Music not danced to is music wasted." - Eileen Ivers, PFF 38 FruSpace - We came, we saw, we slept on the floor . . . ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:25:45 GMT From: vika@fruhead.com (Vika Zafrin) Subject: Re: Murray is God (was: Re: The Chicago Metro Show...) Spake srm9988n@aol.comicrelief (Lori at fruhead dot com): >I mean, can you remotely imagine the guys doing improv with Dave on violin or >Jian on bass? I don't *think* so. Oh, just you *wait*. It'll be Matheson and Perlman, in lights. In that order.[1] - -v [1] Loosely paraphrased from FruCon I. - ----- Vika Zafrin ----- vika@fruhead.com ----- http://www.fruhead.com/users/vika/index.html "Please, rename the moons of Jupiter to John, Paul, George and Ringo. I've spent my brain and can't retain this interstellar lingo. Rename the moons of Jupiter, the Beatles sure won't mind. I'll do my best to ace this test and pass your course this time..." -Michael Clem / EFO ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:15:01 GMT From: SnarkiFru Subject: Heard on the Radio today So, just a quick note about something i heard on the radio today: Hilton Hotels is organizing a symposium to talk with experts on the plausibility of expanding their business... opening hotels in space and maybe even...(drum roll) THE MOON!!! The DJ's usually pull the news bits from the first page of the Rochester D&C, so during lunch I'll see if I can pull it up online (unless some Rochesterian FruHead not teaching Outlook 98 gets to it before I do). :^) coincidence, i think not... and with current discussion on Fruvous being divine beings or divine forces... thus it was proclaimed by Fruvous, and so it shall be.... aiyeeeeee!!! - --Angie ...there's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path... - --Morpheus The Matrix ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:10:14 GMT From: coondog42@my-deja.com Subject: Re: Food for thought on Tapers I'm probably going to beat a dead horse, but I feel compelled to respond since i was there on said night... As a reletivly new taper, I can see both sides of the argument, but one of the things I strive for is the 'perfect recording' which I am more then happy to trade to newbies and such, kind of like a recruiting tool, and position is SO critical to that, and without hours to check room acoustics, 9 times out of 10 dead center and 2-5 feet above the crowd will give you the best results. Here are some of the factors that affect room acoustics: Cubic volume (and coupled spaces) Shape and proportion (length to width) (height to width) Finishes (selection and placement) Audience layout Floor slope Speaker to listener distances Seating and other furnishings Suspended reflectors Resonant absorber Ceiling Type Speaking as a musician, generally the best sounding spot is right in front of the sound board because that's where the sound guy is, and he will adjust to what he hears (I'm guessing Cal works the same way, but much better then the house sound guys, if ya know what I mean) so I will try to get in front of the sound board... the Magic Bag was a 'Special Case', since the sound board was 'unaccessable'. Someone (I forget who) said something to the effect of 'tapers demand respect' ...yeah, so does everyone else, and just like everyone else, if you have a problem with me come talk to me. I rarely bite the head off of someone, since I started that anger therepy program at least :) One last note... the person that started this discussion (Not Mer Mer) spoke to me after the show and asked 'Why do you guys have to tape EVERY show' ....simple really, you never know what Fruvous is going to pull out of their musical hats... Can't we all just get along? - -Mark _MrB_ on #MF Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 12:34:16 GMT From: rob@knautz.com (Rob Knautz) Subject: Re: Fox Thing In The Morning I have a Real Media version of this performance and interview, but don't have the bandwidth available to put it on my website. If you can host the file (~10MB) or can trade something, send me an e-mail and we'll see what we can arrange. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 13:21:14 GMT From: Katherine Bunting Subject: Re: swearing, disrespect, and difference of opinion Okay, while the disclaimers route seems to have been well-utilized, I'll say this: I read all the threads, and tried really hard to stay out of this one. Lawrence footnoted: > [0][3] I don't consider the phrase "sticks up their asses" swearing. While it may not be swearing, it's certainly not particularly respectful. They may be conservative, and this may be something with which you disagree, but if the person whose parents they are doesn't consider them to be overwhelmingly overbearing, maybe it's not for you to say. > [1] Yes, I know I made a "value judgement" on Truztno1's parents and on > those who seem to care "too much" about people's choice of words in > newsgroup postings, I am familiar with the spellings of a number of four-letter (and other) words. In several languages. I'm not afraid to use them. When they're appropriate. Given that this is a newsgroup, and all manner of people view and read it, it is possible that use of certain words may *not* be appropriate. While *I* may be of the opinion that certain words are more or less potentially-harmful than others, other people may not share those feelings. Given that I know some folks' sensibilities are disturbed by the use of particular vocabulary, I try to limit my use of such words in this venue. I'm trying to be respectful of their views, in the way that I ask that they be respectful of mine. I remember walking into the dining room one afternoon after an argument walking home from elementary school, and asking my mother, point blank, "Mom, is F*!# a swear?" She, to her credit, said something to the effect of, "Well, dear, it's a word that means [insert baby-making reference here], and, while that in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's not a very *nice* word, and many people find it to be unpleasant, and will be upset by other people using it. I would appreciate it if you didn't say it in the house, or around me. Okay?" I, as a third-grader, found this to be pretty reasonable. I remember quite clearly the first time I heard my mother swear-- we were both involved in a community theater production in which I was the only person under-18. I was shocked. I pondered. Then, I thought it was cool-- I realized that Mom was not so much sheltering me by keeping certain language out of the house, but only using it when it was appropriate. Here's the point (waited long enough, did you?): this newsgroup has gone through a number of incarnations, and a number of discussions about repsect for other contributors. I think this fits that fold. Given that, while *I* may not mind swearing (in banter, in person, in messages, otherwise), *other* people do. I can say that I think some views are narrow-minded, and some aren't, but regardless, all parents are entitled to making decisions about how to raise their children. When you (you plurual, singular, whomever) have your *own* children, raise them as you see fit. People will disagree with your means and methods no matter *how* you do it. "Right" and "wrong" are entirely in the eye of the beholder. Whoo. This was way longer than I meant it to be. Sorry 'bout that. I don't post too often, so I guess I've been saving-up! I'll stop now. loves, Kate ____________________________________________________________________ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 14:05:37 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: Re: What I have determinded... Novac wrote: > Jian runs about a 95% post-show appearance. He's the one you can usually > count on coming out. > Mike runs about 20%ish, and usually doesn't roam around much, just stays in > one place. > Dave comes out around 10-15% (usually only when Mike comes out) and is > usually very laid-back. > Murray, the introverted one, is around 10%. No comment :) > If anyone has any comments about my rough estimates, TOO BAD. I suck :) Novac, I reply to this post not because you suck, but because I think some people want to know this information, and I believe your estimates are kind of off. For a long time they ALL used to come out much of the time. That WAS the standard. One or two of them only didn't show if they were exhausted, sick, or had to be somewhere. More recently the band made a conscious decision to let somebody take a break each night, so that on a rotating basis they'd all get a bit more sleep. I'll admit it may not exactly work that way all the time. Jian does seem to enjoy coming out a bit more, so I suspect that he may not take his nights "off" as frequently. Mike, (who is teased for having relatives "everywhere") has somewhere to be a bit more often than the others I think, so that may make him a little less visible. Murray and Dave each come out frequently. At any given show these days, you will usually see 2 or three of them. (Sometimes you might have to look hard, they might be off in a corner somewhere). If you are lucky, or the show is early (like it was at BG) you will get all four. Hope that helps A.J. - -- Mariaweb last updated 5/13/99. See Maria Louise in all her... erm... Glory? Visit MariaWeb at http://members.aol.com/marilou99/ _____ _ / ____(_) | | _ ___ ___ _ __ ___ | | | |/ __/ _ \ '__/ _ \ | |____| | (_| __/ | | (_) | \_____|_|\___\___|_| \___/ @wwnet.com ICQ#: 13117113 ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V3 #834 ********************************************