From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V6 #4 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 Saturday, January 5 2002 Volume 06 : Number 004 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: his point [mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth)] Re: his point ["A.J. LoCicero" ] Re: his point [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] Re: his point [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] Re: his point [Lori Martin ] something totally innocuous [frute_pie@hotmail.com (Molly Hathire)] Re: his point [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] Re: something totally innocuous ["Chris K @*_*@" ] Re: his point [sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26)] Re: his point [sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26)] Re: his point [sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26)] Re: his point [sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 4 Jan 2002 07:00:22 -0800 From: mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth) Subject: Re: his point sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) wrote in message news:<20020103211550.17762.00003102@mb-fn.aol.com>... > How about using "dear" and "sweetheart" etc. Dear sweetheart Ln, given half a chance I call everyone not only dear and sweetheart, but also snuggleboomps, sugar star, cuddlibumbkins, woozle-snoozle, and, on special occasions, snooki-skoopi-poopi-woopi-chops. Because I think the world is happier, kinder, snugglier place for it. Ah, how well I remember those halcyon days of this newsgroup, of long warm summer evenings, of the gentle sound of sweet clear water lapping in a plashing brook, of stories around the fire place, being tooked up snug in bed with an enormous, red hot, throbbing electric blanket, of calling each other dear and sweetheart and no-one getting upset about it. Ah, happy days. And just for the record, I am proud to say that I have on innumerable occasions hung out with gay people, done some bench presses, slipped into a dress, and pretended I'm a girl occasionally. (In fact there's evidence of me doing many of those things on this very newsgroup, for those with eyes to see.) It loosened me up a bit and did me good. I merely suggested that Eric may care to do the same. But he seemed to misinterpret my intentions. Quelle domage. His loss. I'm sad that you find this argument tiresome, and if I were Eric I'd no doubt tell you that isn't my problem and suggest you find the off switch of your computer, but I'm not Eric, so I wouldn't dream of it. But you say that Eric and I are arguing from effectively our own set of (equally valid) beliefs and its stalemate. I'm afraid that's not the case. Eric is arguing on the basis of his libertarian *hypothesis*, whereas I am arguing on the basis of *empirical evidence* of what effect globalised free markets have in the third world. I keep asking Eric for evidence, because I know he has none, because libertarianism has never been tried out on a substantial scale, so he can have no evidence for his theory. Eric is obviously never going to admit this, but I'm going to keep asking because then Eric won't have to admit to this fact, it'll just be readily apparent by his repeated failure to respond. Then the readers can draw their own conclusions about the veracity of Eric's arguments. Eric has admitted that people hate America because they have got the shitty end of America's stick. I think America should stop handing out shitty sticks to people. Eric apparently believes that there are living breathing sentient people on this earth who are only worth 87c an hour. I think that's dispicable and I'm going to say so. Eric knows he is losing this argument and in his last post tried to cover that by tiresomely slinging my accusations back at me. I'm afraid I'm not going to let him tell me that I've shirked his arguments in any way, because I haven't. I'm not going to lie down no matter how much Eric blusters at me and I rather suspect Bill isn't going to either. Eric may think that he can win debates by bluster, but he can't with me. Oh, and just another quick example: Eric asserted that third world countries were better off because of IMF intervention, I countered with *emprical evidence* of several third world countries that were not, and then Eric moved the goal posts and claimed he didn't care what the IMF did anyway. In exactly the same way as when confronted with myriad evidence of inequitable western foreign policy, he shirked and told us that he didn't agree with everything the US government did. That is the debating strategy of the rogue and rascal, and he's not going to get away with that on any newsgroup I happen to be involved in. Not least because I think there may be impressionable young people here who might be mistaking Eric's arguments for anything that equates to reality. Richard ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:59:36 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: Re: his point at Eric wrote: > >Anyone who is "proud" of the fairness of the last election, > >obviously doesn't know the system very well and has no qualms about > >the supreme court electing their president and the person that had the > >clear majority is not in the oval office. > > Or rather, anyone who is not proud of the last election obviously doesn't > know anything about our country's history or founding principles. Please > tell me, what do you think should have happened instead of the Supreme Court > handling this process? We should have just ignored all applicable laws and > our Constitution and put Al Gore in office? Please. I think I know a reasonable amount about "our country's history or founding principles" and the last election violated most of them IMHO. The supreme court was totally biased towards Bush. Most of the justices are clearly republican-leaning. If they had wanted true fairness they would have let the recounts go on until we had a legitimate count. 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 Jan 2002 11:44:22 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: his point Richard wrote: [snip snip snip] > I think that fact has rather a lot to do with the > US's recent support for the 'relatively moderate[1]' military > dictatorship in Pakistan. Now Richard, I think you might be picking on Aj a bit too much. Seriously, there have been plenty of relatively moderate well intentioned military dictators. I mean take for example Julius Caesar. Now, really, he wasn't all that bad a dude. Sure you bloodly slaughtered anyone that opposed him, but come on! That was the thing in those days. And in the more contemporary, Napeolean. I mean, I have no idea what you Brits had your knickers in a bunch about, but he seemed like a pretty decent short fellow. "wild" Bill ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 2002 11:34:46 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: his point Ln wrote: [snipty snip snip] > >Again. What is your point here? Or are you just commenting for the > >sake of commenting? Or are you attempting to say that none of these > >promote charity? And if so, I'd really love to see your reasoning > >behind it, considering that I know Buddhism promotes generosity and > >charity pretty highly. > > I'm not saying that none of them promote charity, what I'm saying is two > things. A) Parts of some of these philosophies/religion, etc. is not > responsibility toward society, or at least not primarily, but toward the self. And where in the world did anyone say that most of the world's religions and or philosophy were based solely on charity? only that most of them *valued and promoted* charity as a means of placing one closer into the society that they are a part of (whether they want to be a part of it or not). > And B) While promoting charity may be a part of the religion or philosophy, it > is often not a main focal point or consideration of said religion/philosophy. > That's all. And Catholicism, in particular, I feel goes about their > charity/morality stuff wrong anyway. It's being trained to feel guilty if you > don't do what someone else tells you is morally right. Again, are you just coming up with stuff because you feel the argument at hand is boring you or do you want to start a separate topic? nobody here has insinuated that charity was the focal point of the previously mentioned philosophies or religions. if you want a discussion on that, just let me know. please name me a major religion that doesn't have set rules of wrongs and rights? guilt is just a natural reaction (as far as I know) to someone attempting to do something they believe is right and failing to do so (or doing something wrong knowing that it is wrong). as soon as you lay down rules, inevitably guilt will follow. i can name a dozen religions where someone else is telling you what is wrong or right (priests, rabbis, the koran, torah, bible, etc). [more snipping] > >Well there you go Richard, you're embarassing yourself. You too Eric! > >You both should be ashamed. I personally haven't seen anything that > >would be too much of an embarassment, besides a very fundimental lack > >of understanding about the electoral college. > > How about using "dear" and "sweetheart" etc. brushing off arguments, and > basically trying to make someone who disagrees with you feel stupid/inferior, > etc? That's only effective for so long. Then it just gets annoying, petty, > childish, whatever you want to call it. Oh come now, it's just a term of endearment. I might call Richard sweetibumpkins or sugarwuzzle or stickybuns, it just shows my affection for the crossdressing man that we all know and love. > >> "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your > right > >> to say it." > >> --- Voltaire > > >The IMF's actions and/or existence have nothing to do with free > >speech. And everything to do with keeping the poorest nations > >indebted to the richest. > > I didn't say it did. I was merely using a related example, because it was > nicely parallel and fitting. What I was pointing out is that Richard thought it > odd that Eric defends the IMF's right to exist, even if he may not like what it > does, which is quite reminiscent of Voltaire saying that he defends anyone's > right to say what they want (parallel to Eric's IMF right to exist) even though > he may not necessarily agree with what the person is saying (parallel to Eric's > not necessarily agreeing with the IMF's actions.) This is why I didn't do very well when we covered poetry back in high school. because I couldn't find all the subtle little related things and deeper meanings that are implied ... like when you discuss the existance of something tangible vs the existence of something which is non-tangible and that the only thing connecting them is that the persons don't like what they're they're about. "wild" Bill (back to English 101) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 20:47:58 GMT From: Lori Martin Subject: Re: his point Richard Butterworth wrote: > Dear sweetheart Ln, given half a chance I call everyone not only dear > and sweetheart, but also snuggleboomps, sugar star, cuddlibumbkins, > woozle-snoozle, and, on special occasions, > snooki-skoopi-poopi-woopi-chops. Because I think the world is happier, > kinder, snugglier place for it. Dear cuddlywumpus darling snookums Richard buttercup, I understand your position and for the most part share it, as I too think the world is a sunnier cheerfuller all-around jolly place when people freely express their boundless affection for one another. However, in the midst of a heated, rather acid argument in which the participants seem not to have any surmounting relationship based on such boundless affection, please do acknowledge that the free use of such endearments can have an oddly jarring, even contemptuous or condescending flavor. Perhaps that is not the intended effect, but it is, nonetheless, a real one, and I think it's the one Ln is protesting. > Ah, how well I remember those halcyon days of this newsgroup, of long > warm summer evenings, of the gentle sound of sweet clear water lapping > in a plashing brook, of stories around the fire place, being tooked up > snug in bed with an enormous, red hot, throbbing electric blanket, of > calling each other dear and sweetheart and no-one getting upset about > it. > Ah, happy days. /me laughs. But, as a survivor of the latter days of that golden age, I confess I find such reminiscing somewhat irrelevant to the current state of affairs. Much as way back when I used to walk ten miles to school through eight-foot snowdrifts, barefoot, and it was a fine time indeed and we were all better more elevated people. Can we move on, with the present newsgroup? :) > And just for the record, I am proud to say that I have on innumerable > occasions hung out with gay people, done some bench presses, slipped > into a dress, and pretended I'm a girl occasionally. (In fact there's > evidence of me doing many of those things on this very newsgroup, for > those with eyes to see.) It loosened me up a bit and did me good. I > merely suggested that Eric may care to do the same. But he seemed to > misinterpret my intentions. Quelle domage. His loss. Now see, darling, that IS rather similar to Eric's saying "that's not my problem". He misinterprets the thrust of your altogether friendly and well-meaning words; you claim it's a shame for him, but not in the larger scheme of things and by extension not for you. I maintain, in my schoolmarmish way, that this very disconnect between one's intent in acting or speaking, and one's effect on the recipient of said action or words, is in fact at the core of the global issues we're discussing in this thread (whenever we're not busy taking issue with one another's tone). > Eric has admitted that people hate America because they have got the > shitty end of America's stick. I think America should stop handing out > shitty sticks to people. Eric apparently believes that there are > living breathing sentient people on this earth who are only worth 87c > an hour. I think that's dispicable and I'm going to say so. And, as usual, I agree with your position. I also applaud you for making the distinction that the belief (and, I would further say, actions based on the belief) is despicable, not Eric himself. Sitting in judgment of others' flaws from our own self-defined, morally exalted and irreproachable position, and finding them lacking in some way and therefore unworthy, inhuman and expendable, is what's been feeding the problem lo these many years. Any gesture toward ending that kind of mindset can't hurt -- as long as we don't just try to end it in everyone else's position, but also in our own. > Eric knows he is losing this argument and in his last post tried to > cover that by tiresomely slinging my accusations back at me. But see, to me that's where the argument does get tiresome indeed. You claim you know what's in Eric's mind and lampoon his motivations, instead of just sticking to the facts. He falls back on contemptuous tactics of his own, such as decrying the historical or political awareness of those who don't agree with him on the electoral college, or offers belief as fact, without explanation or follow-up for those of us who simply don't see it as fact -- such as his apparent assessment that the labour of a paper-pusher on Wall Street is in real life worth tens of thousands of times as much as a computer-chip assembler in India, or for that matter hundreds of times as much as an emergency room nurse or elementary school teacher in Philadelphia, simply because in one narrow subcompartment of human activity -- the economic realm --- they have more impact on cash flow than the chipmaker or the public servant, regardless of the rest of their impact on us, in the rest of our concerns. I just wish we could redirect all this inventive, argumentative energy, with the awareness that we all are real people, talking about and *to* equally real, multi-dimensional people. Not economic abstractions, although economic theory has its place in the discussion. And not some elitist left-wing cartoon of the far American libertarian right. (Richard, you are aware that there are left-wing or "progressive" libertarians as well, who often are far more "radical" in American conservatives' eyes than any liberal Democrat?) It does no side of the argument any good to put down another merely for the sake of being able to say "touche'!" That's tempting at times, as it can provide a powerful surge of endorphins. But I don't think it solves anything, and I don't think it convinces anybody. I wish I knew what *did* convince people. Then I could bottle it ... and distribute it to peacemakers far wiser than me. - -- Lori ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 2002 15:14:42 -0800 From: frute_pie@hotmail.com (Molly Hathire) Subject: something totally innocuous hey guys! did anyone else hear Jian saying that it was a bit cold in Toronto recently? is that like a totally interesting topic for debate or what? Mol ------------------------------ Date: 4 Jan 2002 15:20:58 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: his point Ln wrote: > Bill said: > > >Would you perhaps ... promote democracy? > >not friendly dictatorships? etc. you mean, we'd have to *gasp* look > >at our foreign policy and make some changes. > > Considering I've been for changing our foreign policy through much of this > discussion, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't make it sound like this is a new > idea to me. Thanks. Yawn, this grows tiresome. Did I say you weren't for making foreign policy changes? No. I just said that if we did fix our foreign policy to be more inline with what we are attempting to promote (the idea that we are the light of the free world.. of course I am sure the Ukranians might have something to say about that) then perhaps we won't have the problems we currently do with our lack of popularity in the third world. Your insistance that the third world has "freedom envy" does more to make you seem like you are not for changing foreign policy changes than I could ever do. [ snip ] > > Neville Chamberlain was about dialogue. Got him real far. All I'm saying is > that yes, sometimes words are better. Sometimes they aren't. In this specific > case, I feel that words aren't enough. Words need to be used in one part, the > gun in another. Yea, Chamberlain, what a moron! Need I remind you that we didn't get involved in the war until the Japanese started bombing us? What does that say about FDR? What an idiot for trying to use diplomacy with the Japanese instead of sending the Pacific fleet in. Beyond that, don't you think that if Germany had received better treatment (i.e. gotten less of a raw deal) after WWI, that there wouldn't have been a WWII? The settlement that was arranged by the allies was so poor that it created conditions which allowed Hitler to come to power. Granted appeasement was not the way to go (after hitler coming to power - hindsight being 20/20) but a far more effective solution to the problem would have been equitable treatment of germany after world war I. now, had we not abandoned afghanistan and created a situation there which allowed the taliban to come to power (even funding the radicals who eventually took over the country), do you not think that we would not be dropping bombs on the country? I am hoping that you see that the gun is a 'quick' fix for the problem. Its also an expensive bandaid in terms of money and lives. And that if we just used some forsight in foreign policy, we might save ourselves from the next major disaster. > >Okay.. and this point is relevant how? He didn't say it or insinuate > >that people who don't give to charity are bad people. > > I took it as insinuating when he said something to the effect of (talking about > money) "I do all this and more. How about you?" Perhaps a good course in reading comprehension might be something you'd want to look into. > >Its like arguing for or against planned > >parenthood funding and then having to randomly say that "not all > >people who get abortions are bad people". It doesn't need to be said, > >because you never implied that in the first place. > > No, it's not. It's like him arguing against abortions and me for it, and having > him say, "Well, *I* didn't get an abortion because I don't feel it's a moral > thing to do." And me countering that. Umm.. no. Although if you want to try to think of it in that way, you're welcome to. Was Richard arguing for Charity? Were you arguing against charity? Did he say that you weren't moral if you didn't give to charity or if you were charitable? No. "wild" Bill ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 23:43:42 GMT From: "Chris K @*_*@" Subject: Re: something totally innocuous A *bit* cold?!?!? What the hell does he know? He didn't have to stand outside for hours at FCII to see a band called "Moxy Freeze-Us." Sheesh...did he write a "Here's my point" on the cold? Is this why this thread started? Christine. Molly Hathire wrote: > > hey guys! did anyone else hear Jian saying that it was a bit cold in > Toronto recently? > > is that like a totally interesting topic for debate or what? ------------------------------ Date: 05 Jan 2002 04:46:42 GMT From: sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) Subject: Re: his point Lori said: >Much as way back when I used to walk ten miles to school through eight-foot >snowdrifts, barefoot, Uphill, both ways.. Completely agree. :) Ln ------------------------------ Date: 05 Jan 2002 04:46:26 GMT From: sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) Subject: Re: his point Richard said: >Dear sweetheart Ln, given half a chance I call everyone not only dear >and sweetheart, but also snuggleboomps, sugar star, cuddlibumbkins, >woozle-snoozle, and, on special occasions, >snooki-skoopi-poopi-woopi-chops. Because I think the world is happier, >kinder, snugglier place for it. Lol...riiiight. I meant doing it condescendingly. >Ah, how well I remember those halcyon days of this newsgroup, of long >warm summer evenings, of the gentle sound of sweet clear water lapping >in a plashing brook, of stories around the fire place, being tooked up >snug in bed with an enormous, red hot, throbbing electric blanket, of >calling each other dear and sweetheart and no-one getting upset about >it. Ah, Hallmark moment. :) >But you say that Eric and I are arguing from effectively our own set >of (equally valid) beliefs and its stalemate. No, no, no. I said you were effectively arguing from your beliefs. I said Eric ocassionally was able to back up a point. I was insinuating that it's a stalemate because your beliefs differ from Eric's and Eric is not going to concede to you, however many points you make, based in real world examples or in alternative theories. >Eric is obviously never going to admit this, but I'm going to keep asking because >then Eric won't have to admit to this fact, it'll just be readily apparent >by his repeated failure to respond. Then the readers can draw their >own conclusions about the veracity of Eric's arguments. Ah. So you're fully aware he won't concede to you, but he doesn't have to because his words (or lack thereof) will speak for themselves. >I think that's dispicable and I'm going to say so. As do I. >Eric knows he is losing this argument and in his last post tried to >cover that by tiresomely slinging my accusations back at me. There comes in the tiresomeness! :) >That is the debating strategy of the rogue and rascal, and he's >not going to get away with that on any newsgroup I happen to be >involved in. Not least because I think there may be impressionable >young people here who might be mistaking Eric's arguments for anything >that equates to reality. Impressionable young people. Including moi. Agreed, but give me *some* credit here, geez, Richard. If Eric's arguments equated to reality, he would be very able to give solid real world examples. This hasn't escaped me, even though it may appear that way at some points. Ln ------------------------------ Date: 05 Jan 2002 04:53:20 GMT From: sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) Subject: Re: his point >Sounds like a debating team from what you >described. No, because a debate team uses evidence, not random spewing in hopes of hitting on a point. Between Richard and Eric, only Richard *consistently* bases his statements on solid real world evidence. >Do they have that at your high school Ln? Actually, it would be honors debate, an English elective class. >Because you see the points very vividly - might be a good extra-curricular activity for >you. Wow, this is great! Everyone suddenly knows what's best for Ln! She should make sure to get on a debate team, but only if she can still squeeze in Reading Comprehension! Thanks for the great advice, I will rush out to comply. Ln ------------------------------ Date: 05 Jan 2002 04:47:43 GMT From: sugarfly26@aol.com (SugarFly26) Subject: Re: his point Bill said: >Yawn, this grows tiresome. Did I say you weren't for making foreign >policy changes? No. Oh, sorry, that's just what I get when someone says, "Does that mean we'd have to *gasp* take a look etc..." I think it's the dramatic *gasp* that got me. >Your insistance that the third world has "freedom >envy" does more to make you seem like you are not for changing foreign >policy changes than I could ever do. I'm sorry if I made it seem like "an insistance." Because I don't mean it to be. Merely a little passing comment. An 'oh yeah, this too.' >Yea, Chamberlain, what a moron! Need I remind you that we didn't get >involved in the war until the Japanese started bombing us? Indeed. Then bin Laden attacks us. Repeating pattern, it seems. We have this tendency to not fix things that are broken until they directly hurt us. Which is a bad thing. > Beyond that, don't you think that if Germany had received better treatment (i.e. >gotten less of a raw deal) after WWI, that there wouldn't have been a >WWII? Yes, I do. >but a far more effective solution to the problem would have been equitable treatment >of germany after world war I. Yup. >And that if we just used some forsight in foreign policy, we might save ourselves >from the next major disaster. Yup. >Perhaps a good course in reading comprehension might be something >you'd want to look into. Excuse me? Considering the fact that there is more than one way to take many things, and the other fact that you have no idea *no idea* about my educational background I would kindly ask you not make comments about my education. I would also surmise that you do not interact with teenagers in any sort of intellectual way on a regular basis. >Was Richard arguing for Charity? I don't know, I'm not Richard, but it could sure sound like it. "So why is it that all major philosophies and religions promote charity and the redistribution of wealth? Coincidence?" etc. etc. Oh, nevermind...I'll get back to you after my class on reading comprehension. Ln ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V6 #4 ******************************************