From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #324 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 Monday, December 3 2001 Volume 05 : Number 324 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: his point ["A.J. LoCicero" ] Re: his point [Lori Martin ] FruCon5 shirts [zone5@home.com (Brent Miller)] Re: jian and other musician/celebrities [darlene88@yahoo.com (Jen Meyers)] Re: jian and other musician/celebrities [sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26)] Huge On The Luge [radi5hli2@aol.com (RaDi5h Li2)] Re: his point [sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26)] Re: his point [sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26)] Re: jian and other musician/celebrities [sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26)] Re: his point [sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26)] Re: his point ["Josh Drury" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 06:39:31 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: Re: his point Lori Martin wrote: > "A.J. LoCicero" wrote: > > What > > are you talking about? The taliban have violated human rights right and > > left, they supported terrorists who attacked the US. They wanted > > non-muslims to wear patches on their clothing for god sakes. > > They are intolerant in the extreme. Their existence is an affront to > > civilization in my opinion. YES, we have dealt with and even supported > > many awful regimes in the past, but does that mean we > > should continue to do so? > > A.J., just realise that many of the arguments you're making against the > Taliban, citizens in foreign countries make, with just cause, against > various American administrations including the current one. Lori, if you really believe that, then we are at an impasse in this discussion. I absolutely reject the notion that the US government at its WORST was ever as bad as the Taliban. For all of our flaws, we do stand for a few things in this country, like religious tolerance and freedom of thought. We fuck up a lot of stuff, we are money obsessed, and we are often very culturally insensitive, and sometimes we act in ways that are counter-productive to our stated ideals, but we are NOT a bunch of religious fanatics who tolerate none but their own. We do not (and never have) oppressed women the way that the Taliban do, nor stifled the free expression of ideas the way they have. And we do not harbor terrorists who are responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians. Anyone who thinks that the US is the equivalent of the Taliban are either blind, deranged, stupid beyond belief, or brainwashed. And frankly I don't care. The US military exists for the express purpose of protecting us from people who, for whatever reason, think we are THAT evil. For once they are actually doing their jobs. > I don't see significant difference between clothing patches and ID cards. > Both are abhorrent ideas. Both were infamously used > in Nazi Germany. Does this mean I should start carpet-bombing DC because I > suspect John Ashcroft is holed up in the environs? I think there is a difference, but that is irrelevant. I also oppose ID cards. But in the US it is a simple matter to register my disapproval. I just write my congressman and senators (as I have) and protest. Nobody in Afghanistan has that luxury. Also, if god forbid, we are somehow forced to carry id cards, I won't really be worried that I might be rounded up in the night, carted off somewhere and executed. In Afghanistan I would be. > And don't even get me started on favorable or indulgent government policies > toward non-governmental operations (we often call them "corporations") > enabling civilian deaths. 4000 domestic and foreign civilians being killed > in one day is an appalling figure, yes. But let's put it in mathematical, > global perspective, and consider deaths because of cotton-planting subsidies, > or sugar-planting subsidies, or American tobacco ... > > Some would call these terrorist methods as well, albeit slower and more > grinding than plowing planes into buildings -- enabled by > a government that has its own ruthless and self-interested aspects. Some would maybe, but again I'd call them nuts. It is NOT the same thing. Though I'm sure you don't mean to be an apologist for the terrorists, it sounds an awful lot like you are doing just that. There is nothing the US has ever done anywhere, IMO, that can excuse the WTC attacks. Nothing. Not germ warfare against the indians. Not secret wars in indochina, not suppression of popular uprisings in a multitude of 3rd world countries. Not even the supporting of bloody dictators. NOTHING we have EVER done ANYWHERE can excuse what those people did. I'm sure you agree with that. So why then are you talking about what WE've done? What we've done doesn't matter right now. This is about what THEY did. Yes we should stop doing the bad things that we do, but I don't see how that changes the response to what THEY did. They have shown that they are a real threat to us. Therefore to safeguard ourselves they must be neutralized, or at least disempowered as much as possible. You may rationally believe that the campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaida will not achieve even a part of that goal, but I do. In addition I think it has the benefit of helping the situation in Afghanistan. At least NOW the international community can GET food and clothing in there. When the Taliban were in charge it was much more difficult. Aid workers had to worry about being accused of being "missionaries" and threatened with death. No aid worker should have to work under those conditions. > > There was no reason whatever to give them more time to prepare. In fact I > > was worried for a while there that the taliban would actually give us > > Osama and then e wouldn't have been able politically > > to get rid of them and Al Qaida. > > It would have necessitated a much more subtle approach in the eyes of our > "allies", I'll grant you that. But I believe that with a concerted > effort at diplomacy and aid and intelligence operations > and financial and law-enforcement crackdowns within the peacetime legal > structure that was already in place on Sept 10, it could have > been done awhile ago -- and most importantly could *still* be done now. Well I don't agree with you. I guess that is really pretty much the basis of our disagreement here. We have opposite suppositions going in and that creates different logical results. > In a nutshell, I think the warlike aspects of this "war" on terrorism are > overkill, the alarmed overreaction of a country that's only spasmodically > attentive to events utside its own borders when it realises it's behind > the curve on an issue or twenty. > > I have a tremendous amount of faith in the peaceable, non-combative, > "below-the-radar" measures we're taking right now, in conjunction > with the rest of the world, to > thwart terrorism and to hem in the Taliban. So do I, but why should that preclude military action where appropriate (and I think it is VERY appropriate in Afghanistan)? > I'm surprised and disappointed that the administration and the American > people don't have equal faith in these measures. Again, I think they do, but that still doesn't argue against military action too. Why not use EVERY resource at your disposal? > And > I'm concerned that in focussing our attention on bin Laden, Al Qaeda and > Taliban we're missing the boat on the bigger picture. I'm not so sure. That is why Bush keeps saying this is going to take years. Clearly Afghanistan is not going to take years, and I don't think anyone thought it would. But the struggle is going to be a long one, and as they have said, a lot of it will not be visible and not be military. > Even if we take out > the Taliban, we still have repressive regimes all over the globe > -- including some of our "allies". And in an awful lot of them there is > official, or peripheral, government support for terrorism. Of course. Otherwise this would be an easy problem with a quick fix. Why does everyone think that that is what people are expecting. Nobody has said anything of the sort. > Are we really ready to turn against Saudi Arabia and start > carpet-bombing Riyadh because their rather slack financial > oversight still permits, although it doesn't precisely endorse, > financial support? For that matter, are we going > to turn against Saudi Arabia because they have a > hideous human rights record? Just one example. > There are entirely too many to count, if we're really going to try > to end terrorism through warlike means. Lori, you falling into the trap that Jian has. YOU are assuming that Bush's people are planning something simple like a regular war. That is NOT what they have said at all. They have stated over and over that this is an ongoing effort that will be waged on many many fronts. Nobody is suggesting "carpet bombing" Riyadh (Please note that nobody has carpet bombed ANY cities yet.*). Obviously in other situations other strategies will be dictated. (However, you know it doesn't hurt to have the example of Afghanistan in other leader's minds, just in case they are having trouble deciding whether to cooperate or not) > True, but I think you've touched on a salient point: THEY want bin Laden and > the Taliban-supportive Arabs and Pakistanis and others out of their country. > They want Afghanistan back. And some parts of our anti-terrorism campaign > actually are empowering Afghans, not destroying them. > Why don't we focus on those aspects of this > effort instead of making war on the country as a whole? Because that isn't what we are doing. We have made a very careful attack against THE TALIBAN so that a new governmental structure can be created. If you think we are attacking the NATION of Afghanistan, Lori, you don't know much about war. This is NOTHING like attacking Afghanistan. This is attacking ONE GROUP inside Afghanistan. If we were attacking the COUNTRY do you really think our ground forces could move around and operate in the small numbers that they are? No way. They are basically there at the invitation of the non-taliban leaders. I don't know why you persist in this weird view that all we are doing is bombing a bunch of defenseless people, because that is so NOT what we are doing. Removing the Taliban is the obvious first step in implementing those other parts that you are talking about. THAT is why I support it. > Why isn't it > sufficient to a) facilitate delivery of food and other humanitarian > aid and thereby helping ease life for ordinary Afghans to the point > where they are able to consider and rise against their social and > political predicament b) to enlist surrounding countries' support for > anti-terrorist measures that disrupt > their network, while at home paying more attention to existing security > protocols than to cutting corners in the name of profit, and > c) to reject outright and refuse to support a (I'd like to say *any*) > heinous regime? Because it isn't. Those things are good to do, but the center of this plan requires the removal of the Taliban. I don't see why you cannot see that, nor do I understand your reluctance to embrace it. Taliban gone = good for everyone for many reasons. That is the key that allows a lot of the other stuff to happen. > I absolutely believe al Qaeda is behind the events of Sept > 11. That > doesn't mean I totally dismiss the importance of the opinions of hundreds of > millions > (probably well into the billions) I'm not dismissing them either. I think we certainly need to make our case to them, and we DO need to try to fix some of the problems we have created for them in the world. You have no argument from me there. However, all of that is a separate issue from our defense policy. We CAN increase our security by helping the 3rd world, yes, but whether or not they like us or our policies cannot dictate our defense decisions. I'm not willing to put US defense in the hands of world public opinion. Defense exists to protect us from others who have decided that we should die or be their slaves or whatever. It is an inherently self-serving activity and we have to recognize it as such. A.J. *I'm sick of hearing about how we are wreaking such havoc in poor Afghanistan. YES we ARE wreaking havoc, BUT let's keep it in perspective. As wars go, this is probably the cleanest one in history. Let's not compare it to peace, compare it to other wars. And let's stop exaggerating the damage. War is hell. That is a given, but it is unfair to our troops who are trying hard to avoid civilian casualties to go on and on about carpet bombing civilians, when no such thing is happening. Yes there IS collateral damage. Even a LOT of collateral damage, but it is still a lot LESS than in other conflicts. We need to keep that perspective in mind. - -- "I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport."--G.W. Bush, Arlington VA, Oct. 2, 2001. 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: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 02:23:09 -0500 From: Lori Martin Subject: Re: his point Molly Hathire wrote: Lori Martin wrote in message news:<3C091B62.D0D8234B@xpnonline.net>... Yeah. Specifically, that you did indeed tell Eric to shut up and leave the newsgroup to those who share your definition of "objectionable". But who cares about one's own lapses and oversights? They're all so ... "unimportant" ... when compared to the real questions (which are none that Eric would ask, of course.) > > involvement in the Lebannon if he thinks (as he seems to) that all US > > foreign policy is benign. > You believe. Big question there. no i don't think there's a question there. Eric's words were: "What policies do you feel are not equitable, and what do you propose in their stead?" That's a question posed to you, which says nothing about his own beliefs but which does explicitly challenge you to come up with constructive alternatives instead of just raging *against* policies you abhor. Okay, you don't have an answer to his question. I get that. But now Eric doesn't seem to know that, or else he wouldn't have asked the question, just doesn't follow logically. Perhaps a review of your own rules of debate is in order. and I'm the only one who seems to want to tell him. you seem much more exercised by giving me a thorough critique of my manners. Then clearly you haven't been reading other posts that were not directly addressed to Eric. I may be a schoolmarm, but I'd rather not be redundant. it is essential that the US citizens who are "clueless on international geopolitical matters" (your words) are clued, and I'm afraid responding to Eric's question and telling him to open his eyes is much more important that handing out lessons in newsgroup etiquette to someone like me, who I'm afraid, doesn't care. Interesting. Yet you propose the US should oblige your notion of being a good global citizen? It shouldn't just barge in, guns ablaze and prepared to take no prisoners, when its attention is drawn by a single precipitous event such as Sept 11 or dictated by a narrow set of economic or military interests such as with the Kyoto accord? Maybe it should first bother to gain some understanding of the climate and culture it is entering or affecting, and take pains not to leave a swath of destruction in wake of its involvement? Perhaps the US, I'm afraid, doesn't care. It seems to me that the microcosm imbues the macrocosm. Or is what you and I seem to agree is woefully misguided in foreign policy somehow tres cool on Usenet? > >I otoh could cite reams of data to back up my position that > >Americans > > as an aggregate (although obviously not all individuals) are clueless on international > > geopolitical > > matters. >then cite. A representative three listings: http://www.pollingreport.com/defense.htm#United Nations http://www.pewtrusts.com/pubs/pubs_item.cfm?image=img5&content_item_id=818&content_type_id=18&page=p1 http://www.people-press.org/102401mor.htm which includes the following notation with rather telling statistics: "Less Aware, More Worried Americans who are not well informed about foreign affairs are more worried by the possibility of new terrorist attacks and less supportive of an internationalist role for the United States. In early September, respondents were asked a series of factual questions designed to measure their knowledge of international matters.(1) Those who scored lowest on this "quiz" have very different views on the current conflict and international affairs generally than those who are more knowledgeable about foreign issues. [NOTE (1): Respondents were asked to name the president of Russia (23% correct), the country in which the crew of a U.S. spyplane was held for several days earlier in the year (62%), and the issue addressed in the Kyoto treaty (14%).] Roughly a third (34%) of the less knowledgeable group say the best way for the U.S. to avoid problems like terrorism is to not get too involved with international problems, compared to about one-quarter (26%) of those who are well informed about international affairs." If you want more, plug "polls" or "surveys" into the search engine of your choice. But yes, I maintain that the 86 per cent of Americans who don't know anything about the Kyoto accords are an example of widespread cluelessness. and here's another important thing: your desire to state that "Americans as an aggregate (although obviously not all individuals) are clueless" but your shyness from applying that argument to individuals. every American I've met has been intelligent, articulate, kind, and well informed. but every american that I have met also thinks that every other american apart from themselves is naive, ignorant, ill-informed and greedy. Oh please. Those are your words, not mine. There are a host of Americans who are not "naive, ignorant, ill-informed and greedy". Eric and Angela, for example. Not to mention A.J., Christine, Ln, Sen. Barbara Lee (D-CA), the clerk at my local convenience mart, and the kid down the street. Then there's Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, George W. Bush. Yeah, I'll go with ignorant and greedy for them. Naive? Hardly. Ill-informed? Through intellectual laziness and nothing else; they have the resources to find practically any piece of information they want. But as for the numerous citizens flying multiple China-made flags on their Mexican-import cars and drinking unsustainably grown, unfairly traded coffee from disposable paper cups as they talk about "those people" as if "they" have no impact on "us" or vice versa? The hell with citing individuals; I could name relatives of mine. I'm not going to call them naive or greedy or ignorant en masse, although some of them display some of those traits. "Ill-informed"? Absolutely. Has the same ring to it as "clueless", in fact. There's a pretty simple reason for this imho: their "news" comes from the mainstream American journalistic press -- if they access print media at all; lots of times it's just the television "news". Some of that may be intellectual laziness on their part, but a lot of it is simple economic reality. Without cable television you don't get CNN much less the BBC; without internet access you have to search out and pay a goodly sum for the alternative press as well as the newspapers. So how could they be anything *but* ill-informed, given their lack of exposure to anything but (your words) "a brain dead gun-ho media"? And what do we do about that mainstream media anyway? Or isn't it up to you to offer a possible alternative method of operation to it; all you have to do is tell it to stop being brain-dead? > And do you prefer to try to educate this supposed ignorance, or simply insult it so that won't bother > listening to you? It seems like the latter. and you want to patronise your clueless compatriots into enlightment? Hey, I'm not trying to enlighten anyone except myself. You're the one trying to clue everyone on what's really really important -- which is, apparently, that we can be as nasty as we wanna be to individuals we happen across, so long as we stay within bounds of what you consider morally unobjectionable global behaviour. Thanks, but I'd rather skip the strident name-calling and get a grip on why up to 95% of my compatriots, according to various polls, have at some point supported bombing raids and the Bush administration's handling of the crisis. Just "stopping" any kind of action that has so much momentum behind it is difficult. So if it's patronising to listen to and consider the points of view of people willing to entertain the question of US military action -- who don't consider the mere suggestion that US actions might be questionable to be unpatriotic -- then sure, go ahead, paint me with that brush as well. I'm still going to pursue the conversation -- without trying to turn the debate venue into the scene of a brawl. I could have the brawl in a local pub anytime I want -- all I'd have to do is go in laterish in the evening wearing on my lapel an American flag pin with a peace sign in the field where the stars should be. amm-f generally provides a more tolerant atmosphere. - -- Lori ------------------------------ Date: 3 Dec 2001 06:15:27 -0800 From: zone5@home.com (Brent Miller) Subject: FruCon5 shirts Hi all, Mar and I have been working on the design for the FruCon5 shirts. We've narrowed it down to about 8 designs which we will be submitting to the band for approval or modifications. Unfortunately, we're on the Excite@home network which went bankrupt. That means we no longer have a webpage or home email. This will, without a doubt complicate things. Until our ISP issue is resolved, we can be reached though my office email address. See you in Toronto, Brent and Mar brent@industrialheating.com ------------------------------ Date: 3 Dec 2001 11:19:04 -0800 From: darlene88@yahoo.com (Jen Meyers) Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities tracymeyers@canada.com (Tracy Meyers) wrote in message: > a news group poster's age should not be brought into the issue here > but miss Ln you are trying to write like an adult from your previous > posts & then you end a post with the statement for someone to fuck > off. in your first posting to this news group you mentioned that you > were 16 & attended your first Fr|vous show. that recent posting > sounded exactly like a frustrated teenager that threw a temper > tantrum. when holding your own in a discussion on > alt.music.moxy-fruvous or any news group you need to keep your age > hidden to avoid being flamed by the others. No she doesn't; I find that just sad. There are plenty of people on here who's incessant ramblings, dripping sarcasm, and blatently patronizing attitude equate to a big "fuck off", but God Forbid they don't articulate their posts into a thoughtful, policically correct piece of literature worthy of being posted on The Great AMMF. I don't bother posting my views anymore because i don't have the time or patience to sit here and rationally discuss posts which garner a big "fuck off" from my natural first instincts. In the past couple years I've had more than a few friends who've screwed me over somehow, usually by lies and deception. I spent wayyy too much time and energy reasoning with them in an adult manner and trying to get them to see my point of view. In the end, I discovered a phone call and a big "Fuck Off" was far more effective. I'm willing to wager there are plenty of mature people on this NG who just feel the need to say fuck off every once in a while, but in many reader's eyes, to do so means they are just being a "frustrated teenager throwing a temper tantrum". Lots of people, myself included, are dual-natured and can "hold their own" in an intelligent and thought-provoking discussion. But sometimes you just need to say fuck off because that's just simply how you feel. Lord forbid you don't ALWAYS mask your true feelings on this newsgroup lest you come off sounding like a *gasp* simple human being with innate and simple feelings. - -jen meyers, who is 21 if that means anything. ------------------------------ Date: 03 Dec 2001 20:54:48 GMT From: sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities <> If the last posts were made about it then, how can you possibly tell me your angry post, about the end of November, wasn't directed towards me? <> I wasn't, and am still, not screaming. And, I *did* also say it here and someone suggested I post it to the website, so if you had been reading my posts you wouldn't have been "forced to go see." <> I'm sorry you can't see where I'd get that. I apologized. Please drop it. Ln ------------------------------ Date: 03 Dec 2001 20:54:40 GMT From: radi5hli2@aol.com (RaDi5h Li2) Subject: Huge On The Luge Has anyone else downloaded it? What do you guys think? - -Liz ------------------------------ Date: 03 Dec 2001 20:58:57 GMT From: sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) Subject: Re: his point Molly said: <> We are obviously not interacting with the same Americans. I know some very unkind ones. Some of them are smart and unkind. Some of them are uninformed and unkind. Uninformed and kind. Mixes. And we are definitely not talking about teenage Americans. (Or are we not Americans yet?) And what does an American constitute? Born here? Citizenship here? Just really really like it? <> Some of them are, some of them aren't. I don't think you can say Americans vs. say French, and French are more informed/intelligent/clued/kind, etc. It doesn't seem to make sense like that. Ln ------------------------------ Date: 03 Dec 2001 20:58:08 GMT From: sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) Subject: Re: his point Cap'n says: A whole bunch of stuff that I personally mostly agree with AJ on, but focusing on this point: <> Yes, that's true. But, it's equally important not to forget that many people are behind us on this, and will be helping us with our actions, not just responding to them. (ie, someone quoted Tony Blair before...the British Prime Minister.) And it's also important not to forget that there were people of other races, religions, nationalities etc. that died that day. People not strictly born and bred Americans. That often gets overlooked. Some of the people that share their nationalities, etc. are also supporting the steps we are taking, even if they don't live in the US, because it affected them too. Granted, some aren't. Just a point. Ln ------------------------------ Date: 03 Dec 2001 20:55:57 GMT From: sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities > I don't feel the need to respond "adult-like" if the person isn't trying to make a civil valid point. Nor am I "trying" to write a certain way. <> Mm...are you sure? I'm pretty sure my first posting to this newsgroup was something to the effect of "Geez, you'd think we'd have something better to talk about with Fruvous than Jian's pants." and that I was actually 15. :P <> I wasn't having a discussion with Christine. I was having a flame. You could be 95 years old and "sound like a teenager" when flaming. <