From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V4 #431 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 Friday, October 27 2000 Volume 04 : Number 431 Today's Subjects: ----------------- me, giggling. [sox222@aol.com (Sox222)] Re: Here's *our* point - a response to rant # 3 ["A.J. LoCicero" ] Re: me, giggling. [Sally ] Re: me, giggling. ["A.J. LoCicero" ] re: The Item on EBay [Lori Martin ] Re: me, giggling. [Lori Martin ] RE: The Ballad of alt.music.moxy-fruvous [tamra ] Re: The Item on EBay [Kate Leahy ] Re: The Item on EBay [Lori Martin ] Re: Here's *our* point - a response to rant # 3 ["Lindsay Lion" ] Re: me, giggling. [fillyjonk@inweb.net.uk] [Addendum] Re: The Ballad of alt.music.moxy-fruvous [mischlerp@my-deja.co] Re: [Proposal] alt.music.moxy-fruvous.flame [barbara pattist Subject: Re: Here's *our* point - a response to rant # 3 In a private email Richard Butterworth wrote: > > At 3:13 pm -0400 26/10/00, Lindsay Lion wrote: > > >> Point 4. > >> Guns. Plain and simple, it is in our Constitution to have them. > "A well > >> regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, > the > >> right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." > >> (Amendment II of the Constitution - consult > >> http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/bor.html.) The free state here is > defined by > >> the > >> people, not by the government; the people's right to bear arms is > to > >> protect > >> themselves against oppresive governments. Is an overthrow > imminent? No. > >> But > >> it would be dangerous to amend the Constitution, because no one can > >> predict > >> the future. > > Do you *really* believe this?? I fear that they do Richard, but there are two camps here in the US. The other camp (to which I belong--full disclosure) believes that the important words in the above article are "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." Some people claim that the 4th amendment gives everyone the right to own guns. I maintain that it merely gives everyone the right to participate in their state militia. To keep and bear arms refers to the arms which are to be kept for the defense of the nation under the direction of the militia commanders. It in no way gives people the right to arm themselves to the teeth and kill each other the way we see today. This is a perversion of the original intent. There is nothing "well regulated" about the current gun situation in the United States. It is more or less unregulated at the moment and so much regulation is sorely needed. Besides, regardless of what one thinks of the right of the ordinary citizen to own a gun, the fact remains that G.W. Bush is in the pocket of the Gun Lobby and they have even said so. The gun lobby are more than just people who want to be able to legally own guns. They are on the whole a bunch of crazy paranoid fanatics (no I am NOT exaggerating) who think that any type of regulation of child killing assault weapons is really the precursor of a secret plan to take away their relatively innocuous hunting rifles. These people are so out of control that a few years a go they publicly called dully sworn agents of the BATF "jack-booted thugs". This was so clearly improper that even George Bush the father was forced to criticize them and resign his lifetime NRA membership. Now I ask you? Do we really want someone who is a "friend" to these people in the white house? I think not. A.J. - -- "If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for, then I'm for it.."--G.W.Bush St. Louis, Mo., October 18, 2000 Email:aj@locicero.org ICQ: 13117113 AIM: locicero For some of the best Long Distance and Calling Card rates around visit http://www.ld.net/?sensible. Cheap rates and *I* get a commission! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 06:04:03 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: D'oh! I said 4th amendment (which is actually unreasonable search and seizure) I meant second amendment. D'oh! A.J. - -- "If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for, then I'm for it.."--G.W.Bush St. Louis, Mo., October 18, 2000 Email:aj@locicero.org ICQ: 13117113 AIM: locicero For some of the best Long Distance and Calling Card rates around visit http://www.ld.net/?sensible. Cheap rates and *I* get a commission! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:40:29 GMT From: Sally Subject: Re: me, giggling. Michelle wrote~~~~ > and dammit, everyone know's that I'M the biggest fruhead. I perform >animal > sacrifices (well, just squirrels) out my window while chanting the >lyrics to > "fly". and jian and i are engaged, doncha know? Dammit, what the hell is wrong with you? You call yourself a true Frühead? We don't sacrifice squirrels! Apparently you aren't that big of a frühead because you obviously don't know that you're supposed to sacrifice llamas. *gah* *Skiffling away in disgust* *Sally* ;) - -- Do not cherish the unworthy desire that the changeable might become the unchanging.... ~buddha Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:25:18 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: Re: me, giggling. Lori Martin wrote: > > and jian and i are engaged, doncha know? > > Sshhhh! Don't let Ellen know that. She'll cry. Oh GET OVER IT! None of you womens are gonna marry Jian, because he's GAY and he and I have been lovers for 3 years! Now BACK off my man! A.J. - -- "If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for, then I'm for it.."--G.W.Bush St. Louis, Mo., October 18, 2000 Email:aj@locicero.org ICQ: 13117113 AIM: locicero For some of the best Long Distance and Calling Card rates around visit http://www.ld.net/?sensible. Cheap rates and *I* get a commission! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:17:03 -0400 From: Lori Martin Subject: re: The Item on EBay Once She Was The Queen-Lisa Of Spain wrote: > Given some of the Mr.Hankey that's been flying on this NG since tourless angst > has set in, Oh, is THAT what it is? > L who has decided she'd rather join Lori's Murray High Priestess sect It's NOT my sect. Let's get that clear. It's Murray's Sect. Jian said so. And heaven knows we don't mess with banter. ;) > than sit > alone on this throne ... you may now refer to me as LPL (currently Low > Priestess but working my way up the ladder) Oh dear. Already there's confusion. I thought you were taking on the mantle of Prior(ityl)ess? - -- Lori Glitter Fairy/Tattooing Fru/High Priestess, Murray's Sect ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ it's the Supreme Court, stupid! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:09:14 -0400 From: Lori Martin Subject: Re: me, giggling. soxx222@aol.com wrote: > >I never post here, Liar liar pants on fire. You just did. Nyah nyah. > nor do I know any of you personally, but just wanted to > >say-- > >keep it up. most entertaining reading i've had in a long time. and i even > >have > >a new game now (when ii'm not playing Snood): "guess who's serious and who's > >just silly". We're all serious. No one is ever silly at ammf. It's against the rules. Which Chad has conveniently posted in the FAQ at http://fruvous.com. Check it out. > >and dammit, everyone know's that I'M the biggest fruhead. I perform animal > >sacrifices (well, just squirrels) out my window while chanting the lyrics to > >"fly". Oh, the humanity. Sally's quite right; it's all about llamas. > and jian and i are engaged, doncha know? Sshhhh! Don't let Ellen know that. She'll cry. :) Welcome to ammf, Michelle. Glad you could see through the nonsense. And on that note, I toss Canadian Smarties(1) to my insufferable coparticipants in The Great AMMF Flame War of 10/24-27/00 (dated so as to distinguish it from the many other flame wars): Donna, Richard, AJ, Chad, chad, Joe, Anna, Jason, wild bill, ellen, Adam, Lindsay. And also to any innocents I might have I misled into thinking I was serious. :) - -- Lori Glitter Fairy/Tattooing Fru/High Priestess, Murray's Sect ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ it's the Supreme Court, stupid! (1) except for chad, that elitist f*, who gets Scharffen-Berger bars. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:49:13 -0400 From: tamra Subject: RE: The Ballad of alt.music.moxy-fruvous lyrical paul *absolutely* had me with his ballad until that cold bucket of water over the head to add insult to injury on the morning after line: >that the Flyersí defense does suck like the Mets wwaaaaahhhhhhh!...the METS don't suck *sniffle*......really, they're nice, hard working guys.....i'm so depressed......*sigh* tamra :( ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:20:48 +0200 From: Kate Leahy Subject: Re: The Item on EBay > um, i do. > --valerie I care if Val recognizes me! For crying out loud, we almost got thrown out of a Utica motel together :). - --Kate, whose time in Europe has deadened her to American sarcasm and really can't tell whether people are playing here . . . - -- Kate Leahy kleahy@loyola.edu http://kleahy.scribble.nu Little. Yellow. Different. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:32:38 -0400 From: Lori Martin Subject: Re: The Item on EBay wild bill wrote: You know, if there's one thing that's even more annoying than that furriner drummer(1) always opening his trap about weighty stuff like how we should run This Great Country Of Ours, it's ordinary fans -- and yes I use the word *ordinary* for all you peons who aren't In With The Band -- who decide this newsgroup is their personal soapbox on which to make their uninformed and totally biased political statements. > >Cause we really understand your issues! We're going to help you with a > >patient's bill of rights (like the one that bush didn't vote on but had > >to have rammed down his throat in Texas, although for some odd reason > >he's been spouting off like it was his plan). We're going to work on > >getting prescription drug benefits towards seniors (because heck, more > >people are getting older and we can just use market pressures to lower > >drug prices, more demand, lower price, hell we don't really have to do > >anything). We're for affirmative access (because we couldn't really > >tell you what affirmative action is). We're for being in the WTO > >because everyone is for global trade (this way wallmart and other huge > >multinational corperations can just feed off the empoverished countries > >of the world or countries with gross human rights violations which > >basically force their workers into slave labor conditions and do so > >without having to answer to anyone and can hide behind an organization > >which has no elected officals but is making global policy in terms of > >economics and the environment). We're for campaign fin... oh wait, no > >we're not. We're for equal rights of all citizens (unless you're gay > >or browse that awful internet or watch movies with voilence). Like we really care about ANY of those people? Honestly. I got mine, screw you already. > >ummmm.. didn't quite answer that amorality thing did I? Its bad. The > internet is nothing but a sesspool > for the amoral and the radical. wild bill, I think I'll join Lisa in line to marry you. Oh, wait. That would make me a bigamist too. Hey, for that matter it would make *you* a bigamist. *SEE* how corrupting the internet is?!?!?! Oh, the humanity! - -- Lori moved-to-tears Glitter Fairy/Tattooing Fru/High Priestess, Murray's Sect ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ it's the Supreme Court, stupid! (1) disclaimer: satirical post. Lori's actual point of view is represented only in her signature. :) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:34:05 GMT From: "Lindsay Lion" Subject: Re: Here's *our* point - a response to rant # 3 As an FYI - the post was part my input, part Adam's. I think that guns in this country *are* out of control. There is no need for all the weaponry that we have. Plus, all the handguns in the world wouldn't proctect a person from the kind of technology that the armed forces have. I get grossed out when I hear that someone I know has a gun, cause I know they don't need it. A lot of people, IMHO, have guns for whatever reason, and then try to hide behind the second ammendment. And that sucks. Lindsay (not joking for once in a while on this ng) - -- - --- Lindsay Lion Manager of Operations & Technology Biosyn, Inc. llion@biosyn-inc.com A.J. LoCicero wrote in message news:39F9192D.7887ED03@locicero.org... > In a private email Richard Butterworth wrote: > > > > At 3:13 pm -0400 26/10/00, Lindsay Lion wrote: > > > > >> Point 4. > > >> Guns. Plain and simple, it is in our Constitution to have them. > > "A well > > >> regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, > > the > > >> right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." > > >> (Amendment II of the Constitution - consult > > >> http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/bor.html.) The free state here is > > defined by > > >> the > > >> people, not by the government; the people's right to bear arms is > > to > > >> protect > > >> themselves against oppresive governments. Is an overthrow > > imminent? No. > > >> But > > >> it would be dangerous to amend the Constitution, because no one can > > >> predict > > >> the future. > > > > Do you *really* believe this?? > > I fear that they do Richard, but there are two camps here in the US. > The other camp (to which I belong--full disclosure) believes that the > important words in the above article are "A well > regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..." > Some people claim that the 4th amendment gives everyone the right to own > guns. I maintain that it merely gives everyone the right to participate > in their state militia. To keep and bear arms refers to the arms which > are to be kept for the defense of the nation under the direction of the > militia commanders. It in no way gives people the right to arm > themselves to the teeth and kill each other the way we see today. This > is a perversion of the original intent. There is nothing "well > regulated" about the current gun situation in the United States. It is > more or less unregulated at the moment and so much regulation is sorely > needed. > > Besides, regardless of what one thinks of the right of the ordinary > citizen to own a gun, the fact remains that G.W. Bush is in the pocket > of the Gun Lobby and they have even said so. The gun lobby are more > than just people who want to be able to legally own guns. They are on > the whole a bunch of crazy paranoid fanatics (no I am NOT exaggerating) > who think that any type of regulation of child killing assault weapons > is really the precursor of a secret plan to take away their relatively > innocuous hunting rifles. These people are so out of control that a few > years a go they publicly called dully sworn agents of the BATF > "jack-booted thugs". This was so clearly improper that even George Bush > the father was forced to criticize them and resign his lifetime NRA > membership. > > Now I ask you? Do we really want someone who is a "friend" to these > people in the white house? I think not. > > A.J. > > > -- > "If affirmative action means what I just described, what I'm for, then > I'm for it.."--G.W.Bush St. Louis, Mo., October 18, 2000 > > Email:aj@locicero.org ICQ: 13117113 AIM: locicero > > For some of the best Long Distance and Calling Card rates around visit > http://www.ld.net/?sensible. Cheap rates and *I* get a commission! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:24:04 GMT From: Ellen A Handbasket Subject: Re: me, giggling. In article <8tbm2t$ahj$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Sally wrote: > We don't sacrifice squirrels! Apparently you aren't that big > of a frühead because you obviously don't know that you're supposed to > sacrifice llamas. actually, my understanding is, if you're "in" with jian, you have to kill cats. peace, ellen ************************************************* When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:55:01 GMT From: fillyjonk@inweb.net.uk Subject: Re: me, giggling. In article <39F97398.1E15DB3D@locicero.org>, "A.J. LoCicero" wrote: > Oh GET OVER IT! None of you womens are gonna marry Jian, because he's > GAY Is he really? I was going to ask, but I wasn't sure that the ng was an appropriate place to do so. Anyone got his phone number? Bless, Richard Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:47:03 GMT From: mischlerp@my-deja.com Subject: [Addendum] Re: The Ballad of alt.music.moxy-fruvous The line: "that the Flyers’ defense does suck like the Mets" You may feel free to change it to... "that the Flyers’ defense is worse than the Mets" and you may change Flyers to your least favorite NHL/AHL/IHL hockey team... if you feel so inclined to. In article <39F8D6F7.2E6F9984@rit.NO.SPAM.edu>, Paul Mischler wrote: > > How peacefully Fruheads now slept, > But some just typed by a curbside and wept. > "But we still have some Spam! That stuff must be swept > from the face of our group ‘til nothing is left, > ‘til attitudes change, and we all accept > that the Flyers’ defense does suck like the Mets > on alt.music.moxy-fruvous. > > -Paul Mischler > -Remove the glaringly obvious from my-email address to reply. > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:30:23 -0500 From: barbara pattist Subject: Re: [Proposal] alt.music.moxy-fruvous.flame On 27 Oct 2000 07:59:47 -0700, Jason A. Reiser wrote: >In article <39F8E458.D72BF3CA@sfo.com>, Brian says... >> >>"Jason A. Reiser" wrote: >>> >>> Current traffic shows that well over half >>> of approximately 50 posts per day on the group are flame wars. The >>> traffic is not entirely unwelcome, but should be moved to the proposed >>> dedicated flame group. >> >>Won't work. There's no way to enforce topic on an ummoderated group. >>There's no way to move people off of the existing group if they don't >>want to go. >> >>B/ > >I'm not suggesting that enforcement is possible or welcome. If the new group propagates, those creating the traffic may very well move accordingly. There's never a guarantee that a new alt group will be used. There are some good guesses, and moving a group who doesn't particularly want to move seldom works. It's difficult enough to get people to jump through hoops like requesting a new group from their provider when they want a new newsgroup, much less when they can have a bigger audience by staying where they are. A new group must have posters. Flaming isn't much fun if you can only argue with people who agree with you. > >"If you build it, they will come." (especially since I've cc'd the proposal message to alt.music.moxy-fruvous, and I know a lot of these people... they're willing to use a forum like this.) That's an excellent step. You should get a feeling for what the group will do. Let's see some responses from people who will use a flame group, not just those who think it's a good idea to get rid of them. > >Comments pro and con are welcome of course. > >Regards, > >Jason BarB - -- pattist@ix.netcom.com,moderation board, news:news.newusers.questions General Newsgroup Help............. http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/ Deja Power Search............ http://www.deja.com/=dnc/home_ps.shtml Creating New Groups... http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb//ncreate.html ------------------------------ Date: 27 Oct 2000 20:30:12 GMT From: saphiracat83@aol.com-remove- (SaphiraCat83) Subject: Re: me, giggling. >> Oh GET OVER IT! None of you womens are gonna marry Jian, because he's >> GAY > >Is he really? I was going to ask, but I wasn't sure that the ng was an >appropriate place to do so. > >Anyone got his phone number? > > >Bless, >Richard > I love Früheads...they make life so interesting. Totally f*cked up, but interesting. - -Saph with Bender influences (F*cked up being a good thing, by the way) *~~*~~*~~*~~*~~* "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -- Groucho Marx http://www.geocities.com/saphiracat *~~*~~*~~*~~*~~* ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 20:29:28 GMT From: wahrend@my-deja.com Subject: this post rated: inflamatory (ammf.flame) Hmmm.... Interesting.. I thought that this was a joke when I first read it, I guess its not. So, I guess I'm going to have to be serious. I'm not really sure how many *.flame groups there are, but I doubt any of them actually work. Personally, I think creating a dedicated group for flaming is like saying, "well, if you don't like our country, you can just move to russia". I've read and participated in the current little flame fest (which to me wasn't all the inflamatory, but I guess there are some very thin skinned people around here) and call me crazy but most of it is just a joke between friends. I think its natural and healthy for a group to be able to look at itself and see that it does have some very scary and funny quirks. If you can't take people making fun of what you believe in, then you obviously don't believe in it very strongly. I guess I'm wondering what the real point of .flame group would be. Do the majority of people on ammf decide who should be on the flame group and who shouldn't? If yes, what happens when someone from .flame exile decides they want to post to ammf? Who is part of the ruling committee? Is it rule by majority? Can people like Chad, who maintains the FAQ be exiled to this new group (which I doubt would happen, but you never know, he can be quite evil)? If not, are we then setting up a class system of fruheads? What happens after you've eliminated all the "trouble" makers? Is this an ongoing process, so that once the first round is done, the next people who talk up get voted off the island? Of course, this could be just a group where people can stick posts of a more "inflamatory" nature on when its deemed inappropriate, I suppose. But then who determines what is inflamatory and what isn't? Should people start voluntary labelling of posts, G, PG, PG-13, R? FWIW, I could care less if you create a new newsgroup or not, I just don't think it would work. I also think it really makes a big statement about our little "community", we're all open for the free expression of ideas unless they don't agree with our ideas. "wild" Bill - ----- Of course, this could all just be an elaborate hoax, in which case you've figured out what can really get me going. If not, oh well, the creation of the other group won't stop me from posting here as long I feel like I can have constructive conversation/debate. Also, even at the height of this little flame war, I don't think we were reaching 50 post a day, but thats just me quibbling on details (must be an election year). Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:43:30 -0400 From: Lori Martin Subject: Re: this post rated: inflamatory (ammf.flame) spake wild bill: > >Interesting.. I thought that this was a joke when I first read it, I > >guess its not. So, I guess I'm going to have to be serious. billiam, come on! You're talking about the man who claimed the domain name jiankillscats.com. You think he's not capable of dreaming up a new newsgroup inquiry? I think Jason can say 'gotcha!' here. :) - -- Lori Glitter Fairy/Tattooing Fru/High Priestess, Murray's Sect ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I may be wrong for all you know but I may be right ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:24:57 GMT From: wahrend@my-deja.com Subject: Re: this post rated: inflamatory (ammf.flame) In article <39F9F702.39DC4969@xpnonline.net>, moonshimmer@xpnonline.net wrote: > spake wild bill: > > billiam, come on! whoah.. nelly... now I can tollerate Richard of the "we've got beer tents at our folk festivals" crowd calling me Billiam, but thats only because he is not local and my evil-network only works here in the US (until I decide to expand my operations overseas). A bunch of evil elves will be dispatched to your house now to adminster your punishment, please remain at your computer until they arrive. "wild" Bill (now I must leave work before I implode) Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V4 #431 ********************************************