From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #326 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 Wednesday, December 5 2001 Volume 05 : Number 326 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] h'lo. ["Eri L. Gayler" ] Re: his point [mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth)] Re: his point [mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth)] Gullin ["Siddharta Dasgupta" ] Re: Huge On The Luge [zone5@home.com (Brent Miller)] Re: his point ["A.J. LoCicero" ] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: his point ["N Wood" ] These decisions were based [b1bfsp88 ] Re: jian and other musicians/celebrities ["Cap'n" <"capn"@home.com (delet] Re: jian and other musicians/celebrities ["Cap'n" <"capn"@home.com (delet] Re: Huge On The Luge ["donna hunt" ] Re: his point [sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26)] Huge on the Luge = hiatus over? [Roby Sherman ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Dec 2001 00:17:54 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point frute_pie@hotmail.com (Molly Hathire) wrote in <5548227e.0112021527.8308c8d@posting.google.com>: >now Eric doesn't seem to know that, or else he wouldn't have asked the >question, 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. Oh, I am well aware of everything you say. You continually attempt to undermine me, but also underestimate me. You also fail to respond to my many question, instead picking on line of my response. I ask you this question in response: what policies do you think the US (or, the west) should put in place in the stead of the current ones? Should we support oppressive dictatarian regimes? Should we let evil go unsanctioned? Should the United States not be expected to put the interests of its citizens first? Oh, and by the way, in addition to dancing around my responses, your condescending tone is not appreciated and is not helping you to gain credibility. You see to think that you are better or smarter than me, but yet you really know little about me. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 23:13:53 -0800 From: "Eri L. Gayler" Subject: h'lo. Just thought I'd wave hi... just got the urge to start reading the newsgroup... I'd bet that some of you know me from FHDC.... and that's all I have to say right now. :) Erilee ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 2001 01:00:45 -0800 From: mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth) Subject: Re: his point lightman(at)tmbg.org (Eric) wrote in message news:... > especially when > it is clear that the vast majority of the people on this group are able to > see through your straw man arguments. Nice of you to elect yourself spokesman for the vast majority of the people on this group Eric. I'm sure that you will take offense > to this as well, but that's your problem, not mine, so likewise I won't > bother to respond to it. And award yourself the last word in the argument. Good tactic. > You did not produce a single example of where I misunderstood you. Oh but I think she did. I saw Molly make an argument about the morality of calling people 'not human'. Based on that you then saw fit to tell her that she believed there to be a moral equivalence between killing the Taleban and killing civilians (and that therefore she also obviously believed that there was a moral equivalence between consentual sex and rape). Sorry, but I seem to have missed the link there. But you're very clever and very eloquent Eric, so I'm sure you'll clear that point up for me. > 3) You accuse me of "ignorance" because I am using a computer whereas others > in poorer countries are not. I don't see the connection here. Well let me help you out with that one. You asked for examples of where US foreign policy is inequitable. The fact that most, if not all, of our consumer products (including the computers we are typing on) are made in the third world in close to slavery conditions is a very clear example of, if not inequitable US foreign policy, inequitable western foreign policy. Is it becoming clearer now? Because you see, lots of foreign people don't just wake up one morning and decide that they hate the US and its freedoms and its religions. All of us foreign people are quite happy for the US to have its freedoms and its religions. But whereas the US can point to its internal politics with justifiable pride, in rather a lot of cases its foreign policy leaves a little to be desired; like giving arms to Saddam Hussein which he used to inflict genocide on the Kurds. You, of course, knew all about that, and vocally opposed it at the time I assume? > It seems to > me that you are making a socialist argument, in which case I recommend you > show your true colors so that the people on this newsgroup know exactly whom > they are dealing with. It seems to me to be a rather sad state of affairs when this once brave newsgroup of entertaining radicals is reduced to leaden McCarthyite attempts to out socialists. > 4) I don't quite see what your argument is in the Ghana situation. Are you > proposing an anti-capitalistic system? Such as communism? Socialism? Hmm? More help needed here too, I see. The Ghana situation is another example of inequitable US foreign policy, which you asked to be told about. The US backed IMF only gives aid to third world countries if those countries put in place economic regimes which are, in fact, more draconianly free market than those in the first world. So you get the rather unfortunate position that third world citizens (who can't afford it) have to pay individually for things like water and health care, which we in the first world deal with on a state level. The IMF also enforces economic policies whereby the local government cannot subsidise its own farmers, so the locals have to buy imported goods, usually from the first world, where we do subsidise our farmers. No-one said anything about communism or socialism or even anti-capitalism. We could start, and you could start, by capitalist policies that are equitable and treat thrid world workers with some respect and allow them some dignity. Ghana is a nice example actually, because this time last year I asked my students to prepare short presentations on any subject they wanted, just to get them used to public speaking, because they had to do an assessed presentation the week after. One student who is a Ghanian immigrant delivered quite the most moving and eloquent pion for his country, because it was at the time under pressure from the world bank and the IMF to move to a more 'American form of democracy' and where was the justice in that? Because the American form of democracy had just delivered to America a leader that the majority of American citizens didn't vote for. Now, seeing as you're so clever and eloquent, Eric, maybe you could explain to him where the justice is in that, and I'll pass your message on to him. If, by the way, you want any more examples of inequitable US and western foreign policy, you only have to ask. Because I (and Molly apparently) know lots and lots and lots of them. Just stating that Taleban are evil and hate the US out of spite or jealousy is rather too simplistic I'm afraid Eric. People hate for a reason, and what I'm hoping you may realise is that there are some reasons out there that can be dealt with without the need for cruise missiles. Hmm? Richard ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 2001 04:16:35 -0800 From: mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth) Subject: Re: his point lightman(at)tmbg.org (Eric) wrote in message news:... > I ask you this question in response: what policies do you think the US (or, > the west) should put in place in the stead of the current ones? Should we > support oppressive dictatarian regimes? Should we let evil go unsanctioned? > Should the United States not be expected to put the interests of its > citizens first? Ah! Now correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to have moved from asking (paraphrasing you, sorry) `What US policies are inequitable, and what is the alternative?' to simply `What is the alternative?' So (and you must correct me if I'm wrong) you seem to have implicitly accepted that there are US policies that are inequitable. So is the debate moving on here? I'll happily debate alternatives with you. Shall I? By the way: Pakistan -- oppressive dictatorial regime with nuclear weapons, currently supported by the western alliance. Richard ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:49:40 -0700 From: "Siddharta Dasgupta" Subject: Gullin Hi! How are you? I send you this file in order to have your advice See you later. Thanks [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/mixed which had a name of Gullin.doc.com] [demime 0.97c removed a section which didn't have a content-type header] ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 2001 09:20:10 -0800 From: zone5@home.com (Brent Miller) Subject: Re: Huge On The Luge Two thumbs up for "Huge on the Luge". Mar and I have thought for years that there should be a Fruvous Christmas record. Of course I have to assume that the cost of production would be prohibitive. So I guess this is as close as we're going to get. Brent and Mar seasonsuite@hotmail.com (Jason) wrote in message news:<2e9064c.0112031713.2003148b@posting.google.com>... > Have you all checked out the new holiday Fruvous song on Fruvous.com? > "Huge on the Luge," with each guy singing a different verse. > > Is this a REAL NEW Fruvous song, or an unreleased one from years past? > If this is new, this is certainly worthwhile...in any case, it's a > very cute song. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 17:20:14 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: Re: his point Richard Butterworth wrote: > Just stating that Taleban are evil and hate the US out of spite or > jealousy is rather too simplistic I'm afraid Eric. I don't think so in this case Richard. It is fair to say that some PEOPLE in general hate the US for a reason, but in this case that doesn't fly. The REST of Afghanistan doesn't seem to hate us us that much. It is only the Al Qaida (most of whom arn't Afghans), and by extension, the Taliban government that is allied with them, that seem to hate us. And the reasons that Bin Laden has given are a bunch of crazy nonsense. > People hate for a > reason, and what I'm hoping you may realise is that there are some > reasons out there that can be dealt with without the need for cruise > missiles. I also reject the idea that people should HATE us--especially as individuals as opposed to our goverment, out of some economic issue). Be displeased with us, sure! Criticize the hell out of us, amen. Call for boycotts or other forms of coercion, Ok. BUT, Call for the murder of any American that one can see?? (I realize that was Bin Laden, and not the Taliban, but I now believe they are completely intertwined) I think not!!!! Other situations can and SHOULD be dealt with by other means, but The Taliban/Al Quaida situation is one that DOES require cruise missiles. At this point I'm ashamed that I have so totally opposed military spending for all these years, because clearly there WAS a need. It just wasn't the one anyone told us about. A.J. - -- "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: 4 Dec 2001 13:28:58 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth) wrote in <3af38f41.0112040416.37dc0a78@posting.google.com>: >So (and you must correct me if I'm wrong) you seem to have implicitly >accepted that there are US policies that are inequitable. So is the >debate moving on here? My hope was that by showing that there are no alternatives, it was also show that they are not inequitable. >I'll happily debate alternatives with you. Shall I? Go for it. >By the way: Pakistan -- oppressive dictatorial regime with nuclear >weapons, currently supported by the western alliance. Well, America also considered allowing terrorist states such as Lebanon and Iran into their coalition. I never said I agree with everything the US government does. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 4 Dec 2001 13:27:13 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth) wrote in <3af38f41.0112040100.467f33da@posting.google.com>: >Nice of you to elect yourself spokesman for the vast majority of the >people on this group Eric. My pleasure. Or perhaps I was just electing myself spokesman for reasonable human beings. >I'm sure that you will take offense >> to this as well, but that's your problem, not mine, so likewise I >> won't bother to respond to it. > >And award yourself the last word in the argument. Good tactic. Actually, you misconstrued this. What I was clearly saying was that I wasn't going to respond to her taking offense to me. Go ahead and neglect the obvious intent of my sentence. Good tactic. >Oh but I think she did. I saw Molly make an argument about the >morality of calling people 'not human'. Based on that you then saw fit >to tell her that she believed there to be a moral equivalence between >killing the Taleban and killing civilians (and that therefore she also >obviously believed that there was a moral equivalence between >consentual sex and rape). Sorry, but I seem to have missed the link >there. But you're very clever and very eloquent Eric, so I'm sure >you'll clear that point up for me. If you missed the link, I recommend you go back and re-read the posts. I think it was very clear. I hope that clears it up. >Well let me help you out with that one. You asked for examples of >where US foreign policy is inequitable. The fact that most, if not >all, of our consumer products (including the computers we are typing >on) are made in the third world in close to slavery conditions is a >very clear example of, if not inequitable US foreign policy, >inequitable western foreign policy. > >Is it becoming clearer now? No, it's not. Perhaps we should cut these people in third world countries off completely, so that instead of living in poverty, they die of starvation? It's called capitalism. I recommend you try it. >You, of >course, knew all about that, and vocally opposed it at the time I >assume? I'm opposed to pretty much all of the United States' foreign policies (with the current war on terrorism being a notable exception). But that doesn't mean that I'm not going to stand up the nonsensible arguments. >It seems to me to be a rather sad state of affairs when this once >brave newsgroup of entertaining radicals is reduced to leaden >McCarthyite attempts to out socialists. Hey, watch it -- I did not attempt to out her, or to silence her, and am quite offended that you would suggest that. I just want her to own up to her own politics so that everyone on this newsgroup will know exactly who they are dealing with. Isn't that fair? If it pleases you, I will tell you that I am an ardent Libertarian. Truth be told, I don't think that Molly really is a socialist. I just thought it might interest her to know what type of propaganda she was spewing. >Now, seeing as you're so clever and eloquent, Eric, maybe you could >explain to him where the justice is in that, and I'll pass your >message on to him. Sure. If his country doesn't want to listen to the IMF, then it shouldn't take its money. I hope you are able to see my brevity as eloquency. Oh, and by the way, a majority of the voters in the United States did not vote for George W. Bush, but he won the election -- and even the most conclusive studies have now shown that. If you can't accept this, then I would guess that you don't understand how the American presidential election system works. I would recommend reviewing your comments, and taking back your potshot at American democracy. >Just stating that Taleban are evil and hate the US out of spite or >jealousy is rather too simplistic I'm afraid Eric. People hate for a >reason, and what I'm hoping you may realise is that there are some >reasons out there that can be dealt with without the need for cruise >missiles. Or is it? The Taliban considers the United States "the great Satan." Why? Because, among other things, they hate our freedoms. I'm really interested to hear why you think why al-Qaida and the Taliban hate us. And how do you propose we deal with the situation if not by missiles? What I'm hoping you may realize is that some reasons can *only* be dealt with by cruise missiles. Hmm? - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 21:02:46 GMT From: "N Wood" Subject: Re: his point Lori wrote: >>>>>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?<<<<< Lori, This is an argument/excuse that I have to object to. The lack of cable TV or the economic availability of such luxuries is in no way responsible for people's lack of knowledge of world affairs. In fact, I *blame* cable TV for many people's ignorance - have you watched it lately? Cable news shows will turn even the most inquiring mind to complete mush. It's pablum. My parents are both in their 80's and live in a rural area where, believe it or not, there is no cable. Some people resort to satellite dishes, my Mom listens to NPR radio news. Guess what, it's FREE! She tends to be better informed and more critical in her political thinking than most of our upper middle class cable renting/satellite dish owning/news magazine subscribing co-workers. I vote for the intellectual laziness explanation myself. ~Nancy~ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 18:01:05 -0500 From: b1bfsp88 Subject: These decisions were based For [t]his lime tree bower my prison! I attempted to give a light and wistful feeling to lime tree bower followed by a lower and harder sound for my prison to correspond with the idea of a place that is usually valued and enjoyed as a bright, open space, suddenly turned confining and suffocating by the circumstance. [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/octet-stream which had a name of beginning.exe] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 00:44:58 GMT From: "Cap'n" <"capn"@home.com (deletethistoreply)> Subject: Re: jian and other musicians/celebrities Oh, and thank you for the condolences, Ln. Much appreciated. Cap'n ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 00:43:52 GMT From: "Cap'n" <"capn"@home.com (deletethistoreply)> Subject: Re: jian and other musicians/celebrities SugarFly26 wrote: > > Cap'n wrote: > > < different tune.>> > > Do you mean the specific war on Afghanistan or the "war on terrorism"? I was refering to the precision, smart-bombing of Afghanistan. I think the war on terrorism is a wondeful concept, if not an extremely difficult one. I am, however, one of those opposed to the war currently being waged on Afghanistan. While I agree the Taliban is an oppressive influence, I don't believe bombing strategic locations and taking civilian lives (so-called "acceptable losses") is the answer. America and other forces fell into the war against the Taliban as a seeming way to relieve tension and anger among American civilians and frigthened people around the globe. I realize this may not be the case, but it certainly appears that way to some people. And in case anyone is wondering, I am not anti-war. I believe war serves a purpose in our society and has its advantages. I am just not convinced that the war against Afghanistan and the Taliban was not an error in judgment based on the fear caused by the terrorist attacks of September 11. Cap'n ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 20:09:59 -0500 From: "donna hunt" Subject: Re: Huge On The Luge "Brent Miller" wrote in message news:a2558049.0112040920.c4a5e64@posting.google.com... > Two thumbs up for "Huge on the Luge". I thought it was cute as heck, myself. Vocals sound rusty (or perhaps coated with too much eggnog!) but it's cute. > Mar and I have thought for years that there should be a >Fruvous Christmas record. Wow. I never thought of it until I started bopping my head to that fast-rhyming nonsense. Then I started thinking of all the holiday songs they could bastardize. Or they could at least cover that Snoopy and the Red Baron Christmas Song. ciao, donna CHRISTMAS BELLS THOSE CHRISTMAS BELLS, RINGING THROUGH THE LAND... BRINGING PEACE TO ALL THE WORLD, AND GOOD WILL TO MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ------------------------------ Date: 05 Dec 2001 03:06:04 GMT From: sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) Subject: Re: his point Richard said: <> I see *a* link, though I don't know if it's the one he meant...Saying that killing the Taliban is killing innocent civilians is saying that consentual sex is rape. I believe he was pointing out that the way things are phrased here, it almost sounds like the United States is sitting around saying, "Hmm, let's gather up some innocent civilians in a big group and kill them all." When in point of fact, it's more like, "Hmm, let's kill the Taliban and be as careful as we can to not kill innocent civilians." <> There is, of course, Japan..where I have relatives who work making lots of our electronic technical equipment and are quite glad for it. <> And lots of foreign people still don't. <> True. Yet foreign policy is a very complicated thing, and if you try to please everyone you'll please no one. It's one thing to be able to say, on paper, this is what we would do and it will all work a lot better than what's going on right now. It's another to try to make it happen. Think communism. Paper. Great. In practice? Ehm...no. I know on a much smaller level what it's like trying to organize just a little in-school event and what goes into it with approval, with planning, etc. And that's dealing with 350 people, tops, let alone several million, with billions of dollars and jobs to think about, with safety and security, with peace, with war, weaponry, and other people's lives. <> Bad idea. That we must stop. <> We're arguing over politics, and you don't think it's brave? :) <> I thought we always had some massively non-radicals. <> So are you suggesting we cut other countries up into states, and then tell each state they have to deal with water, etc? <> I seem to recall that it's very unprofitable to be a farmer (or a rancher) and that the profession is and has been rapidly decreasing in the past several years, reducing farms to parking lots. I know one of my best friend's mothers is trying to support 4 kids on $16,000 a year.. <> What equitable policies would you propose? And what would you be willing to give up in order to achieve it? And could you further explain the respect and dignity part? <> It's hard to be objective with a very personal situation. I think I'd be more inclined to look at it more closely if it was written by a neutral party, neither American or Ghanian. <> I don't believe anyone said the American form of democracy is even remotely close to perfect, and yet personally, I'm kinda glad it worked out that way. <> It seems though that you're as unwilling to admit good things as you are willing to condemn bad. <> Just because you have a "reason" doesn't mean it's anymore fair than what we do. A large part of the Taliban's "reason" is the dislike of our freedoms. What concern of that is theirs? Uh...none? What if someone stabbed your best friend because he wore yellow? Wearing yellow is a reason? What concern is it to the stabber if your friend wears yellow? <> For just one example, how would you solve the disliking freedoms reason, then? Give up your freedoms? Let the Taliban re-create a surefire form of government, where you definitely won't get to elect the person you want, because there'll be no election? To quote from the Man in the Iron Mask: "We know now that some problems can't be solved with a sword." "And some can't be settled without one." Ln ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 21:37:10 -0700 From: Roby Sherman Subject: Huge on the Luge = hiatus over? I'm hoping that the release of a new fruvous song means that the hiatus is over and we can get back to fru-business. Does anyone have the inside scoop? - --Roby ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #326 ********************************************