From: owner-angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org (angry-psychos-digest) To: angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org Subject: angry-psychos-digest V3 #158 Reply-To: angry-psychos@smoe.org Sender: owner-angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-angry-psychos-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "angry-psychos-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. angry-psychos-digest Friday, June 5 1998 Volume 03 : Number 158 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Westwood One radio show [VR5SBloom@aol.com] Re: Everything and nothing slightly NPR [Pagan5240@aol.com] NPR: Ani DiFranco [HoLeMdErAp@aol.com] Re: stupid move= stupid human surprise surprise [GaulAiel@aol.com] Re: (Mostly NPR) Album, Dead Puppies, and the First Amendment [GaulAiel@a] Re: A bit of balance on the dead puppies ["Bill Holz" ] Re: A bit of balance on the dead puppies [GaulAiel@aol.com] Re: A bit of balance on the dead puppies ["Bill Holz" ] NPR Re: A bit of balance on the dead puppies [Xeno11@aol.com] Re: NPR Re: A bit of balance on the dead puppies ["Bill Holz" ] NPR: Bill and His "Decency" [Xeno11@aol.com] Wow, how amazingly childishly out of hand. ["Bill Holz" ] NPR: RE: Wow, how amazingly childishly out of hand. [Lawrence Kim how about making a section for radio shows? > michele.. i have yet another one to scan for you.... :) > (don't freak... nothing major.. the clip is on the "mistress of groove" > compilation) I suppose we could do that...I really do have a discography update waiting right now, so I'll work on adding a section while I'm at it. Next major update will happen when Rise and Shine comes out. (Like I've been saying for months ;) - --Michele ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 09:02:54 EDT From: Pagan5240@aol.com Subject: Re: Everything and nothing slightly NPR We may be technologicaly smarter but that isnt saying much. The fact that we can eat what we want doesn't either I mean I am not going to argue with a bear about what he is going to eat because he can eat whatever the hell he wants. We may be able to kill animals but dont forget they kill us to. And as far as natural enemies our natural enemy is ourselves. Marie ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 15:40:11 EDT From: HoLeMdErAp@aol.com Subject: NPR: Ani DiFranco I know that we are getting many NPRs lately but hopefull this one won't cause all kinds of arguments. And don't worry, this has nothign to do with animals vs. humans. According to today's newspaper Ani DiFranco got married to her sound engineer Andrew Gilrchrist and in a little note she has already started work on her new album which she expects to be ready in 1999. alright, there is my post of the year. Sorry for teh NPR. Lynsey :) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 18:18:07 EDT From: GaulAiel@aol.com Subject: Re: stupid move= stupid human surprise surprise In a message dated 98-05-31 20:57:40 EDT, TORICOBAIN@aol.com writes: << That is not true. Jillsobule@Aol.com wrote do no spietful harm to another animal. Your example with a lion should not be used because lions do not know not to eat other animals. They need to eat other animals to survive. Humans can live with out ever purposely hurting an animal. >> Ugh. Some people watch too many Disney movies. Animals can be very deadly, and you or I are just another meal to them under the right circumstances. Gaul Aiel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 18:39:30 EDT From: GaulAiel@aol.com Subject: Re: (Mostly NPR) Album, Dead Puppies, and the First Amendment In a message dated 98-06-02 23:23:29 EDT, TORICOBAIN@aol.com writes: << I don't see why people consider other people more important then animals. How could you rather save the life of a person you had never met and far all you know was a horrible person then save the life of a long time animal companion. In my opinion animals are just as important as people and more important then some people. I would never think to save the life of someone I did not know instead of the life of my cat or dog. By the way I have an opinion about animal testing and I choose to say it because as long as we are on the subject of animals might as well bring it up. i also think it is fun to argue over opinions. I think animal testing is cruel because there are many alternatives. If anyone else has an opinion on this I would like to hear it. >> This is a sad excuse for a human being, and just another example of how whacked out this world has become. You obviously have an agenda, and will warp any sense of logic to fit your needs. How PETA of you. One day, when you're lying on the side of the road, after hitting a tree as a result of swerving to avoid an animal, and ended up hitting it anyway... I hope someone just like yourself comes along and takes the animal to the vet and leaves you laying there. Ok, not really... I'm not really like that, but I just want to make a point here. Your assumptions about people being 'horrible, for all you know' are utterly ridiculous. It sickens me to read this PC crap. I would never deliberately hurt an animal, but if it comes down to a human and an animal, the human life is what I will save... even yours. You, by your letter above, seem to have lost all humanity and compassion as a result of your misguided indoctrination and brainwashing to the animal rights agenda. I feel bad for you. If you choose to take this personally, so be it, but you made the statement. Gaul Aiel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 18:03:51 -0500 From: "Bill Holz" Subject: Re: A bit of balance on the dead puppies I DO think calling a fellow psycho a 'sad excuse for a human being' was completely uncalled for. Perhaps her bias may be conflicting with yours, but I do think a level of respect is in order. A lot of us tend to be 'centric'. Often (even in a subtle fasion) that people outside our 'fold' are inferior. This leads to things like racism, culturism, beliefs that other countries are 'inferior' or have 'lesser people', etc. Perhaps some people also apply their feelings to animals in some sense. Obviously many of the higher mammals are quite intelligent, and it does appear that some forms of animal testing, etc. may be of questionable ethics, but then again many humans are inordinately cruel to other humans as well. And I like to think it's obvious that maliciously hurting anyone/thing is morally wrong. I'll side slightly with the 'PC crap' people simply because at the least their message is one that is fundamentally kind, where it seems like when people attack the 'green' types they get all out of hand and often quite unkind. I think I'd propably favor a person if I had to choose, but if the person was a jerk, I'd propably take a risk and save the animal :) - -Bill > This is a sad excuse for a human being, and just another example of how >whacked out this world has become. You obviously have an agenda, and will warp >any sense of logic to fit your needs. How PETA of you. One day, when you're >lying on the side of the road, after hitting a tree as a result of swerving to >avoid an animal, and ended up hitting it anyway... I hope someone just like >yourself comes along and takes the animal to the vet and leaves you laying >there. Ok, not really... I'm not really like that, but I just want to make a >point here. Your assumptions about people being 'horrible, for all you know' >are utterly ridiculous. It sickens me to read this PC crap. > > I would never deliberately hurt an animal, but if it comes down to a human >and an animal, the human life is what I will save... even yours. You, by your >letter above, seem to have lost all humanity and compassion as a result of >your misguided indoctrination and brainwashing to the animal rights agenda. I >feel bad for you. If you choose to take this personally, so be it, but you >made the statement. > > Gaul Aiel > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 19:08:05 EDT From: GaulAiel@aol.com Subject: Re: A bit of balance on the dead puppies In a message dated 98-06-04 18:56:27 EDT, me@usinternet.com writes: << I DO think calling a fellow psycho a 'sad excuse for a human being' was completely uncalled for. Perhaps her bias may be conflicting with yours, but I do think a level of respect is in order. >> The decision to save an animal over a human just because the person could be a 'horrible' person is totally inhumane and unforgivable. I believe that equates to a 'sad excuse for a human being'. I guess that's a little strong for you to hear, but it is the truth. What ever happened to human compassion and decency? By saying that, I wanted to make a point. I don't know the person who wrote it, and I don't know you, but if someone chooses the life of an animal over the life of a fellow human, they are truly horrible and completely without 'humanity'. I am not discusssing animal testing here, nor any of the other animal rights 'agendas',. What I am speaking of is the human compassion we should all have as brothers and sisters. In this day and age, it seems all of that has been lost by a significant and disturbing portion of the population. Gaul Aiel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 18:34:59 -0500 From: "Bill Holz" Subject: Re: A bit of balance on the dead puppies There are a few possible mindsets here. Some believe that all humans are by definition superior to animals. Therefore all humans are 'united' and all animals are 'inferior'. Some people believe that all creatures are to be judged on their 'worth' so to speak. Therefore a very morally good animal is superior to a morally corrupt human, and therefore if a choice is to be made an animal could easily be just as worthy of survival as a human. Lastly, some feel that animals are 'superior' in many moral ways because humans often appear to be 'crueler' than animals, and that they have gone beyond 'genetic programming and been corrupted by power, so to speak. Only the first group will agree with the 'human brothers and sisters' comment you made. I'm sure you can see that any mindset has potential validity. All are correct in their ways, and often they are swayed based on a person's religion or experience. Many Christians are very human-centric, because that is part of their teachings. Other religions (Shinto, Budhism, 'earth' based religions, etc.) often have a more 'worth' based model. A man who lives in the wilderness may have a greater respect for other forms of life than one living in the city surrounded by electronics, etc. , simply because he has a better understanding and appreciation of their minds. If you take the time to step into someone else's shoes, you'll see that often their mindset is as valid as your own. The world revolves around none of us. Obviously your beliefs are your own, I still find describing someone as a 'sad excuse for a human being' given such innocuous and unlikely-to-be-tested statements fairly childish, but perhaps such statements are more common, or even signs of affection where you are from. Since we clearly don't know each other. - -Bill > The decision to save an animal over a human just because the person could be >a 'horrible' person is totally inhumane and unforgivable. I believe that >equates to a 'sad excuse for a human being'. I guess that's a little strong >for you to hear, but it is the truth. What ever happened to human compassion >and decency? By saying that, I wanted to make a point. I don't know the person >who wrote it, and I don't know you, but if someone chooses the life of an >animal over the life of a fellow human, they are truly horrible and completely >without 'humanity'. I am not discusssing animal testing here, nor any of the >other animal rights 'agendas',. What I am speaking of is the human compassion >we should all have as brothers and sisters. In this day and age, it seems all >of that has been lost by a significant and disturbing portion of the >population. > > Gaul Aiel > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 20:03:08 EDT From: Xeno11@aol.com Subject: NPR Re: A bit of balance on the dead puppies In a message dated 6/4/98 5:59:39 PM EST, me@usinternet.com writes: > I DO think calling a fellow psycho a 'sad excuse for a human being' was > completely uncalled for. ah good, you come to the defense of a "fellow psycho"...that's nice of you. where you when Starstrail@aol.com said, "he is not one of the sweetest people on the face of this planet" i mean, if you're going to play the part of the fuzz why don't you try to protect everyone from undue slander and harassment. Starstrail made two posts (or was it three?) about the nature of my character and just what a bad person i am. Starstrail set the procedure, GaulAiel@aol.com was just following it. You've got to get the problems when they first begin if you're going to function as a decent cop. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 19:24:30 -0500 From: "Bill Holz" Subject: Re: NPR Re: A bit of balance on the dead puppies >ah good, you come to the defense of a "fellow psycho"...that's nice of you. >where you when Starstrail@aol.com said, "he is not one of the sweetest people >on the face of this planet" > >i mean, if you're going to play the part of the fuzz why don't you try to >protect everyone from undue slander and harassment. Starstrail made two posts >(or was it three?) about the nature of my character and just what a bad person >i am. Starstrail set the procedure, GaulAiel@aol.com was just following it. >You've got to get the problems when they first begin if you're going to >function as a decent cop. Sheesh, some people. They're barely comparable, you guys were already in the middle of a debate and the comments weren't remotely close. Besides, I didn't read that one until very late in the 'reply process' (sue me, I just occasionally check) It's odd that you're commenting on starstrail specifically though. Is there something personal or something? I had no idea she was part of the discussion I was having. And where'd ya get this 'cop' stuff? I just happen to have a thing for decency and stuff, and commented when I saw something that I would have perceived as extremely offensive if it was posted to me, after having read the message it was in response to. - -Bill ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 20:21:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "Michele Santiago" Subject: Re: New POE discovery!!!?!!!! From: Jon Bell >> I just got back from a record show and found a CD copy (an original and >> not a bootleg) of POE's Westwood One broadcast from 27 January 1997 . >hmmmm... I heard that a couple years back broadcasted on the radio.. >I've been trading that tape ever since... but I didn't realize it was a >CD It's on Tape Tree 1, actually. Shows like these are put on promo CDs and sent out to radio stations to play. Live 105 in San Francisco played this show like 4 times... - --Michele Michele Santiago, shell@poe.org The Spirit of Serramonte Will Never Die! ;D http://members.aol.com/vr5sbloom/psychovixen.html For Live 105 stories, P(*)E links, VR.5, Buffy, Mono, and other cool places on the {{{{{Web}}}}} Watch VR.5 on The Sci-Fi Channel, Monday nites at 10pm Eastern 7 Pacific!!! Mailing list for Hibernia Beach Live! hbeach-list-request@eskimo.com "If you really get that pissed off because you don't know who a little construction paper kid's father is, then there's really something wrong with you." --Matt Stone, cocreator of _South Park_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 20:31:32 EDT From: Xeno11@aol.com Subject: NPR: Bill and His "Decency" In a message dated 6/4/98 7:16:35 PM EST, me@usinternet.com writes: > you guys were already in the middle of a debate LOL. actually i wasn't even talking to Starstrail when she made that comment. i had written a reply to jillsobule@aol.com. starstrail had nothing to do with it when she slandered my character instead of commenting on the discussion. In a message dated 6/4/98 7:16:35 PM EST, me@usinternet.com writes: > I had no idea she was part of the discussion I was having. if you're going to start critiquing posts for not being "decent" you have to be prepared to take care of them all. starstrail's comments toward me is an example of something that was not decent and was not part of the conversation that you said nothing about. don't discriminate. now, i have to wonder why you come to the defense of TORICOBAIN@aol.com but not Xeno11@aol.com...hmm, i wonder.... In a message dated 6/4/98 7:16:35 PM EST, me@usinternet.com writes: > I just happen to have a thing for decency and stuff hmm, that's a lovely sentiment, doesn't everyone wish this person followed it? here's an example. when "bill" sent a reply he sent it to angry- psychos@smoe.org and Xeno11@aol.com which led to me receiving the same e-mail twice. i e-mailed him and informed him of that and asked that he avoid it in the future. instead of saying, "sure thing, sorry for sending you the same e- mail more times than needed." he said "It is less effort for me and in no way damaging to you. I fail to see a reason to go to the extra effort." even though i told "bill" that i found it annoying. is that how a "decent" person acts? i think not. bill is a hypocrit. that's a proven fact. -Xeno, disliking some people more and more ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 19:52:14 -0500 From: "Bill Holz" Subject: Wow, how amazingly childishly out of hand. >> you guys were already in the middle of a debate > >LOL. actually i wasn't even talking to Starstrail when she made that comment. >i had written a reply to jillsobule@aol.com. starstrail had nothing to do with >it when she slandered my character instead of commenting on the discussion. Again, I wasn't aware of that, I only read occasionally. >if you're going to start critiquing posts for not being "decent" you have to >be prepared to take care of them all. starstrail's comments toward me is an >example of something that was not decent and was not part of the conversation >that you said nothing about. don't discriminate. now, i have to wonder why you >come to the defense of TORICOBAIN@aol.com but not Xeno11@aol.com...hmm, i >wonder.... Again, I simply responded in the manner one responds in an open medium. Being fairly experienced I'm somewhat aware of what constitutes 'flaming' and what does not. Of course I simply posted an opinion, but since I'm not easily offended I was more than happy to make the 'risky comment'. Remember we ARE in a purely text medium, it makes it difficult to pick up 'subtleties. Whether or not her comments were harmful to you is not something I am obligated to address, as I wasn't aware at the time and the time has now passed. >> I just happen to have a thing for decency and stuff > >hmm, that's a lovely sentiment, doesn't everyone wish this person followed it? > >here's an example. when "bill" sent a reply he sent it to angry- >psychos@smoe.org and Xeno11@aol.com which led to me receiving the same e-mail >twice. i e-mailed him and informed him of that and asked that he avoid it in >the future. instead of saying, "sure thing, sorry for sending you the same >e-mail more times than needed." he said "It is less effort for me and in no way >damaging to you. I fail to see a reason to go to the extra effort." even >though i told "bill" that i found it annoying. is that how a "decent" person >acts? i think not. bill is a hypocrit. that's a proven fact. Well, I COULD act childishly and forward the entire thread, starting with your 'demands' that I stop immediately, and ending with the fact that I likely would had you asked nicely. However I realize that forwarding a private conversation to a public forum is amazingly tacky. Nice paraphrasing by the way, you'd make a wonderful reporter :) You have cleverly woven your web and I am caught in your trap, oh mighty Xeno. - -Bill By the way. Are there any 'codes of conduct' or somesuch on this forum? Despite the fact that it wasn't harmful, sending private messages to a public forum is remarkably out of line. If I had done such a thing I would have expected some repurcussions ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998 17:49:41 PDT From: "Fur Wearing Spice" Subject: freakin dead puppies Tying the Threads Together A short Essay by Fur Wearing Spice Ya'all get a grip now ,okeedokee? Who cares about this?...*pauses to shoot a doe,a deer,a female deer...ray, a golden.. ah never mind*... Are Poe's bi lovers vegetarian?....I have looked all over town for a Lesbian church but I keep getting sent to the Lutherans...are they similar? Ani married a GUY..(guy...PTUI) Ran into Mr Leary recently and the update is that he still resides on a higher energy level.Never heard of the drug 'War'..is it hallucogenic? I kinda liked PCP...War is good business-invest your son today.Always cook your meat well or risk salmonella poisoning.The 'days till Poes next album thing keeps changing-does anyone believe it? Now according to a few of the Midwestern members of this list I am 'shallow' and "in need of a reality check" , and 'stupid' for favorably comparing certain English contemporary entertainers to their New world brethren. Well.... They live in the midwest and I dont!! Haw hee haw haw! Now that i have alienated the cow - tipping set , on to the 'meat' of the matter. (hee hee) Where has the sanity gone? We NEED a voice of REASON!! SpOOk,where the hell ARE you when the list needs you most? (multi-cultural group hug) F.W.Spice ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 20:48:25 -0500 From: Lawrence Kim Subject: NPR: RE: Wow, how amazingly childishly out of hand. >>>>>>>>>>> By the way. Are there any 'codes of conduct' or somesuch on this forum? Despite the fact that it wasn't harmful, sending private messages to a public forum is remarkably out of line. If I had done such a thing I would have expected some repurcussions >>>>>>>>>>> Indeed there is... http://www.angry-psychos.com/resources/aplist/dodont.html It's just a Netiquette guide for this list. However, I believe I speak for many of the list-ees by stating that this discussion should really be taken to private mail. Sick of it all, Lawrence ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:52:41 EDT From: Jillsobule@aol.com Subject: Re: angry-psychos-digest V3 #154 i am not a vegitarian i do not think that animals will go kill another because that other dog stole her man that is purely human i do not kill myself cuz i am not like all of the rest thanx ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 21:55:56 EDT From: Jillsobule@aol.com Subject: Re: angry-psychos-digest V3 #154 if you can watch a man rape a girl and then get killed and shed a tear then get to your nearest psycologist ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 22:09:08 EDT From: Jillsobule@aol.com Subject: Re: angry-psychos-digest V3 #156 you will all realize how bad humans can be when some human kills your realtive for no reason( how bout a drive bye) but you will all be watching out for those killer dogs (since they do bite) but remember a human can kill you faster that a animal can (gun) i really started a war ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 22:41:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Rebecca Lynn Clark Subject: Re: angry-psychos-digest V3 #154 actually in nature animals kill each other over mates all the time...watch the discovery channel more... - -Becky =O) Poetry page: http://www.pathetic.org/member-works.cgi?siteid=876026929 Web site: http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~acrn/djs/psycho.html On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 Jillsobule@aol.com wrote: > > i am not a vegitarian i do not think that animals will go kill another > because that other dog stole her man that is purely human i do not kill myself > cuz i am not like all of the rest thanx > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 23:37:08 EDT From: TORICOBAIN@aol.com Subject: Re: stupid move= stupid human surprise surprise In a message dated 98-06-04 18:18:07 EDT, Gaul Aiel writes: << Ugh. Some people watch too many Disney movies. Animals can be very deadly, and you or I are just another meal to them under the right circumstances. Gaul Aiel >> That is not true. It is not often that an animal will try to eat a human for no reason. Animals can be deadly but I think that Humans are more deadly. If a bear trys to attack a human he can shoot the bear. The bear only has natural defenses. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Jun 1998 23:44:43 EDT From: TORICOBAIN@aol.com Subject: Re: (Mostly NPR) Album, Dead Puppies, and the First Amendment In a message dated 98-06-04 18:39:30 EDT, Gaul Aiel writes: << I would never deliberately hurt an animal, but if it comes down to a human and an animal, the human life is what I will save... even yours. You, by your letter above, seem to have lost all humanity and compassion as a result of your misguided indoctrination and brainwashing to the animal rights agenda. I feel bad for you. If you choose to take this personally, so be it, but you made the statement. >> I would save a human too but I think animals are just as important and that is why i said I would choose an animal I'd knew for a long time over a human I didn't know. If you had to choose between saving your best friend an someone you' never met who would you choose? ------------------------------ End of angry-psychos-digest V3 #158 ***********************************