From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #267 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, July 12 1998 Volume 07 : Number 267 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Rock over London [Eb ] Re: Crop Circles Are Go! [Eb ] in other news.... [Eb ] chinese bones [capuchinism flows ] still a critics choice [dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich)] annoy9ing [dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich)] Re: Revelling in evil (also long and also probably boring :)) [Terrence M] "Gloss Fish" update [Bayard ] Re: Crop Circles Are Go! [nicastr@idt.net (Ben)] Re: Rock over London [nicastr@idt.net (Ben)] Re: still a critics choice [nicastr@idt.net (Ben)] Re: Rock over London (98% petulant-child content) [Eb ] 1974, continued [Natalie Jane Jacobs ] "Gold, guns, groceries, and god -- the four G's of the Y2K." ["Capitalism] Re: Revelling in evil (also long and also probably boring :)) [amadain Subject: Rock over London Eddied: >i'll even go so far as to say that i love jello's voice. But do you love it because it's *beautiful*, or because it's raw, edgy and distinctive and supports the anger of his lyrics well? Does it agitate you with its fire, or relax you with its loveliness? >wesley willis is *not* annoying. wesley willis is a motherfucking GOD. >and as soon >as eb gets up an endorsement of him on his starfucker site, then eb can >be a prophet. I have three Wesley Willis CDs...for now. Nobody will buy them. ;) And again, how can you say he's not annoying? Either he's good-annoying or bad-annoying, but there is NO way that man ain't annoying. It's just a question of how you respond to that annoyance. For me, he doesn't make the "good-annoying" list. If I must listen to a mental case, I choose Daniel Johnston. Davehead: >I cannot comment on Eb's last post about the dead because as a man of my >word, I have promised not to . Aren't you all pleased ? I certainly am. >Now if only Eb will do the same we can all relax, but I expect the piles >will begin to act up some time and we will go through this tired old >argument all over again. Oh, it was MY piles, eh? The only reason this argument started is because some of you fussy, tape-hoarding Deadheads can't read ONE Anti-Dead sentence without launching a rambling tirade in response. Before you and Ben showed you were too weak to ignore ONE SENTENCE, this was a very interesting discussion about the power of "annoyance." For three and one-half years The Happenings were known as the Four Graduates. Eb np: Swell/For All You Beautiful People ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 16:05:58 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Crop Circles Are Go! Woj: >there seems to be a disconnect here. aren't all these acoustic >singer/songwriters reverting to traditional folk-song structures as well? No, not really. Some are, some aren't. And very few of them recall generations-old European folk as strongly as Robyn Hitchcock. For instance, DiFranco's guitar style (also, see Kristin Hersh) definitely has an unusual, distinctive sound which I couldn't compare to *anyone*, off the top of my head. Her lyrics also have a topicality and social relevance which Robyn's don't. That's the more important thing. Hence, she gets press, widespread acclaim and sells lots of records. Being a self-conscious cult artist only gets you so far. DiFranco also projects a very strong personality, which is generally appreciated, whereas Robyn's music sort of hides and DARES you to get to know him. That willful obfuscation can be a turnoff. I generally like it, but it does put a bit of a "ceiling" upon how much I can enjoy his music. >in other words, he's still a darling of the critics, but doesn't sell any >magazines or newspapers. Hmm. He's certainly critically "praised," but I definitely wouldn't call him a "critic's darling" nowadays. I mean, I hate to keep bringing up the Village Voice Pazz & Jop poll, but I DO think it's the ultimate litmus test of American critical support. And Hitchcock has placed exactly three albums in VV's yearly top 40: Fegmania (#33), Element of Light (#37) and Perspex Island (#38). Yes, that's an endorsement, but not a particularly enthusiastic one, considered all the other albums which were overlooked. >huh? writing songs should not be a case of keeping up with the neighbors. No, but keeping up with the times would help Robyn a bunch. And Woj, if you wanna "burst my bubble," then post about music other than Robyn and Lilithfairism. ;) A name which only brought them bills. Eb, praying that Mitchell Froom never gets his meddling hands on a Rufus Wainwright song ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 16:16:00 -0700 From: Eb Subject: in other news.... Believe-it-or-not department: On September 15th, there's a new album coming out on A&M titled Respect. No kidding! But...it's by *Shaquille O'Neal*. Heh heh. :) To pick what has turned out to be the niftiest nom de plume in the business, they held a contest among their immediate families. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 19:32:06 -0400 (EDT) From: capuchinism flows Subject: chinese bones > But do you love it because it's *beautiful*, or because it's raw, edgy and > distinctive and supports the anger of his lyrics well? Does it agitate you > with its fire, or relax you with its loveliness? again, subjectivity. something rough and course can be beautiful to some - - this IS art we're talking about, no? perhaps it relaxes people through catharsis. the experience of music is so different to different people.. > some of you fussy, tape-hoarding Deadheads can't read ONE Anti-Dead > sentence without launching a rambling tirade in response. Before you and > Ben showed you were too weak to ignore ONE SENTENCE, this was a very > interesting discussion about the power of "annoyance." And I think you've shown just how powerful it is (; But seriously... wha? You're posting things so people can ignore them? I thought the idea of a listserv was discussion and dissection, tirades and tidbits. If Deadheads are so weak, maybe you should go easy on the poor suckas. Now, what I really wanted to say... does anyone remember a show (it's on tape) from somewhere in california i think, where RH explains the first verse of "chinese bones"? It had to do with Romeo masturbating by a lake, as Juliet shoots up heroin with a snake. Please let me know if you've heard this, so i know i didn't just dream it... =b np: the =birthday gig ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 23:54:14 GMT From: dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich) Subject: still a critics choice On Sat, 11 Jul 1998 19:01:23 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: >Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 15:08:55 -0400 >From: frater tot >Subject: Re: Crop Circles Are Go! > >also sprach Eb: > >>The general fading of critical support for Robyn has little to do with >>being dissonant vs. acoustic. It's more a question of him repeating himself >>too much, and reverting to traditional folk-song structures which look >>backward instead of forward. He's just not current anymore, and he used to >>be. > >>Element of Light was a critics' favorite, and that's not "angular" or >>"dissonant." And I don't really need to list all the acoustic >>singer-songwriters who are current critics' favorites, do I? > >there seems to be a disconnect here. aren't all these acoustic >singer/songwriters reverting to traditional folk-song structures as well? >if so, why is there such a wellspring of critical support for them? do i >misunderstand what you mean by "acoustic singer-songwriter", eb? > >for what it's worth, my perception is that robyn is still fairly >well-received by the critics, despite not being "current" or >"forward-looking", but, for those very reasons, doesn't receive much press. >in other words, he's still a darling of the critics, but doesn't sell any >magazines or newspapers. When ever he's appeared in this area (Ram's head show excepted), there always seems to be at least one interview article in one of the newspapers around Baltimore/washington. I have a feeling he is a fun interview for the music critics. Quite simply, most people don;t CARE what critics think. ME got 4 stars in ROlling stone, while Hootie and the SPice Hurls got panned. Remember who sold millions of records vs. Robyn's 20,000... -luther ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 23:58:08 GMT From: dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich) Subject: annoy9ing On Sat, 11 Jul 1998 19:01:23 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: > >rabid >DK fan saying that Biafra's voice is "beautiful" or "pleasing"?> >i'll say it's pleasing to me, yes. i'll even go so far as to say that i >love jello's voice. I have just one word for the "Good annoying" camp: DEVO. -luther ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 23:00:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence M Marks Subject: Re: Revelling in evil (also long and also probably boring :)) >From sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu Sat Jul 11 21:37:40 1998 >>directors. actors have no social responsibility for possibly >>shaping peoples attitudes? >Nope. I don't believe so. The anger was there already, the idea >would have occurred to the person eventually. If not from >Charles Bronson then "eye for an eye" from the Bible would do >just as well. I don't think that media SHAPES attitude, though I >do believe that a positive presentation of such >could be counted as encouragement. Media shapes attitudes. Industry is currently spending several billion dollars per year to shape people's attitudes on products. Advertising has proven effects. It has been shown that on a short term, people's attitudes towards violence can be changed. However, most people don't believe that media affect them. There have been a good number of theories about how television affects people. If anyone is particularly interested, I'll expound upon them. >Hi! My name is Susan, and I'm a pervert and a subversive. Who >has never committed a crime or killed anyone, nor romanticized >the doing thereof. Can you claim the same in all good >conscience, Monsieur Heston? Never committed a crime? I find that hard to believe. I'd believe that you'd never been convicted of a crime or that you've never committed a felony (which not everyone on this list can claim, mind you. We've got a fair number of admitted drug users around here.) (Or were you to claim that you've never committed a crime that you consider really serious, I'd believe that. I wouldn't respect you for it, but I'd believe it[1].) And has Charlton Heston ever been convicted of a crime or killed anyone? In which of his movies does he romanticize killing people? 1: Mainly because most people's definition of "crimes that aren't really serious" is "crimes that I wouldn't commit". >I think that's exactly why they do it. They feel defensive >because they do know that that's occurring, or at the very >least, that others perceive that to be the case. So they wanna >go pin it on someone else so they can feel better. You're rather attributing things without proof here. Going around and saying that The Gun Lobby thinks like this or Political Correctness thinks like that or The Religious Right thinks like this, and attributing some unflattering ideology to them is simply a way of stereotyping some group that you disagree with. A lot of people like to make bogeymen out of the above groups and you're doing the same. >I personally would rather see loving sex than a guy getting >decapitated by a surfboard. Why is the former often X and the >latter R or PG? Why is SEX ALWAYS BAD and a guy getting shot up >by a nailgun merely harmless entertainment? You misunderstand the MPAA[3]. The point of harsh ratings isn't to say that the film is bad. "R" stands for "Restricted: No children under 17 allowed without parent or guardian"[2] When a movie is given an "R", be it for sex of violence, the point is that children shouldn't exposed to it. The prevailing theory when the MPAA was formed was that exposure to sexual material was more harmful to children than exposure to violent material. I don't know if that's the current theory now or not, and I don't much care. I don't recall seeing anyone get decapitated in PG movies. 3: The MPAA are the dudes who rate movies in the US. Terrence Marks normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 23:58:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: "Gloss Fish" update We need help duplicating the 4-CDR box set, _Gloss Fish_, a collection of original music by fans of Robyn Hitchcock. It's good - you're gonna want to play this a lot of times. And if you have a 4X cd recorder, it will only take you 74 minutes to dupe all 4 discs, right?? Contact me, CD burning types... =b ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 00:20:39 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: Re: Crop Circles Are Go! >Woj: >>there seems to be a disconnect here. aren't all these acoustic >>singer/songwriters reverting to traditional folk-song structures as well? > >No, not really. Some are, some aren't. And very few of them recall >generations-old European folk as strongly as Robyn Hitchcock. For instance, >DiFranco's guitar style (also, see Kristin Hersh) definitely has an >unusual, distinctive sound which I couldn't compare to *anyone*, off the >top of my head. Her lyrics also have a topicality and social relevance >which Robyn's don't. That's the more important thing. Hence, she gets >press, widespread acclaim and sells lots of records. Being a self-conscious >cult artist only gets you so far. DiFranco also projects a very strong >personality, which is generally appreciated, whereas Robyn's music sort of >hides and DARES you to get to know him. That willful obfuscation can be a >turnoff. I generally like it, but it does put a bit of a "ceiling" upon how >much I can enjoy his music. The ceiling was built by you, not Robyn... so if you want you can tear it down. >>in other words, he's still a darling of the critics, but doesn't sell any >>magazines or newspapers. > >Hmm. He's certainly critically "praised," but I definitely wouldn't call >him a "critic's darling" nowadays. I mean, I hate to keep bringing up the >Village Voice Pazz & Jop poll, but I DO think it's the ultimate litmus test >of American critical support. And Hitchcock has placed exactly three albums >in VV's yearly top 40: Fegmania (#33), Element of Light (#37) and Perspex >Island (#38). Yes, that's an endorsement, but not a particularly >enthusiastic one, considered all the other albums which were overlooked. > >>huh? writing songs should not be a case of keeping up with the neighbors. > >No, but keeping up with the times would help Robyn a bunch. Oh boy... there's a great idea. Maybe he should jump off a cliff as well... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 00:34:27 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: Re: Rock over London Eb squeezed *really* hard, and out came: >Oh, it was MY piles, eh? The only reason this argument started is because >some of you fussy, tape-hoarding Deadheads can't read ONE Anti-Dead >sentence without launching a rambling tirade in response. Before you and >Ben showed you were too weak to ignore ONE SENTENCE, this was a very >interesting discussion about the power of "annoyance." Ahh, because someone doesn't ignore something you wrote, they are weak. But how can we ignore the Word of God? Since your taste in music is so much better than everyone else's I suppose we should sit back and nod in agreement. Hey, it's ok to argue with someone else's opinion, but folks this is Eb we're talking about, to disagree with his opinion is to disagree with unquestionable fact! He has the papers to prove everything he says! Eb, may I make a request? Please post another story about one of your nights out on the town, we could all use a good laugh again... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 00:35:39 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: Re: still a critics choice > Quite simply, most people don;t CARE what critics think. How *DARE* you!!!!! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 21:44:12 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Rock over London (98% petulant-child content) Benned: >Ahh, because someone doesn't ignore something you wrote, they are weak. But >how can we ignore the Word of God? Since your taste in music is so much >better than everyone else's I suppose we should sit back and nod in >agreement. Hey, it's ok to argue with someone else's opinion, but folks >this is Eb we're talking about, to disagree with his opinion is to disagree >with unquestionable fact! He has the papers to prove everything he says! Oh don't worry, Ben, your Petulance permit isn't up for renewal yet. No need to reapply. >Eb, may I make a request? Please post another story about one of your >nights out on the town, we could all use a good laugh again... Well, since the initial story WAS intended to give everyone a good laugh, I guess it achieved its goal. Thanks for your support. Bob was greasing Galaxies in a local garage at the time, so his mom suggested the boys call themselves Bobby and the Bumpers. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 01:13:30 -0500 From: nicastr@idt.net (Ben) Subject: Re: Rock over London (98% petulant-child content & 2% critics inflated ego content, he wouldn't let any more of it go) Eb said, from on high: >Oh don't worry, Ben, your Petulance permit isn't up for renewal yet. No >need to reapply. Thank you for the extention, oh Great One. BTW, whatever happened to Eb's live chat? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 03:09:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence M Marks Subject: The Three O'Clock (0% Eb vs. Ben content) Is "Sixteen Tambourines" by The Three O'Clock worth $13? I've got "Arrive Without Travelling" by them and I can't decide if it's a good album or just self-indulgent throwback bubblegum. (I seem to have trouble with these judgements sometimes...) Thanks Terrence Marks normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 03:16:51 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: The Three O'Clock (0% Eb vs. Ben content) On Sun, 12 Jul 1998, Terrence M Marks wrote: > Is "Sixteen Tambourines" by The Three O'Clock worth $13? > > I've got "Arrive Without Travelling" by them and I can't decide if it's a > good album or just self-indulgent throwback bubblegum. (I seem to have > trouble with these judgements sometimes...) i'm solidly in the 'good album' camp on 'arrive' and i think sixteen tambourines was even better. 'specially if you get the version that had their first e.p. tacked on, with a spiffin' version of 'lucifer sam.' i'd say that'd be worth a twenny spot. they went downhill swiftly after 'arrive,' though; the prince-produced lp being particularly dreadful. - -- d. - - oh,no!! you've just read mail from doug = dmayowel@access.digex.net - - and dmw@mwmw.com ... get yr pathos at http://www.pathetic-caverns.com/ - - new reviews! tunes, books, flicks, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 18:53:49 -1851 From: dlang Subject: Re: Revelling in evil -short, but still boring Re Kubrik and Clockwork orange's resriction to cinema only >With all due respect, I have a feeling this had more to do with British law concerning appropriate material and age strictions than it did with noblesse. The film is widely available in the US. I wondered if it was available in the US. I really do think it wasKubrik who insisted on the restriction. its not Uk or Australian law, as a lot of other R -rated stuff is available over here.I've read and heard in discussion by film critics it was specifically on the resquest of Stanley,because of a rape that was supposed to have been patterned on the rape scene in C Orange. He might not have been able to insist on this happening in the US, but certainly this has pertained over here and in the Uk . The film was NOTbanned in the Uk when first released as i went to see it immediately, beign a mega Kubrik fan. Thanks for your interesting comments on this issue Susan , I enjoyed the exchange and I think I agree with you on most points, thought not perhaps the fine detail. I am still in two minds over the responsibility of artists issue .I really do think over the years that kids have been more and more influenced by the media . I find its affected their imagination to some extent and perhaps their behaviour too.Therefore I don't always acccept that there is no responsibility on the part of media people, although of course its really down to us all to set some responsible guidelines for kids to follow and to understand that they are NOT miniature adults and see things differently to grown ups . Thats why I love teaching Media studies, because I can bring some of these issues into discussion, start kids being a bit more thoughtful and objective over their media experiences and get them to make up their own minds about the issues rather than just going along with the herd and accept the status quo. dave Np-Squeeze- greatest hits tape-whoooo!, I just love that band! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 18:55:07 -1850 From: dlang Subject: Heston and guns Terrence quoth And has Charlton Heston ever been convicted of a crime or killed anyone No , but his stance on gun laws has probably contributed to some people getting killed who may otherwise have lived. Really how anyone can argue that the use of automatic or semi automatic weapons is an unalienable RIGHT and then also argue that we have a society that is too violent ,etc, etc is a pretty colossal hypocrite in my book. Ok I know all the arguments about one needs guns to defend oneself and its not the guns it the people who own them. but you only have to look at statistics to prove that if there are lots of guns, freely available for everyone, with virtually no restriction, then you will have a hugely inflated murder rate. To wit. 11 people killed in australia with hand guns, 20.000 in the states. Even if you factor in the population difference, its way, way bigger. Also, I do have some self interest in this issue, the way kids are bumping off teachers these days does worry me a little. I can't think of any films that Heston was in that glorify violence, I lumped him in with Gibson and Schwartznegger because of their right wing tendencies and moralistic stance.Sorry Charlt' dave ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 10:29:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Natalie Jane Jacobs Subject: 1974, continued 1974 was also the year that poor Phil Dick received his pink laser message from the stars. The Empire Never Ended. n., who thinks about Robyn Hitchcock in the shower quite often np: Robert Wyatt, "Rock Bottom" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 13:46:53 PDT From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: "Gold, guns, groceries, and god -- the four G's of the Y2K." actually had a bit of a timely encounter at work yesterday. i was listening to a beefheart bootleg from '81, and the girl i work with came in and asked, "is there something wrong with the tape?" i assured her there was not. then a little why later, "this music doesn't make you crazy?" "i was made crazy a LONG time ago." "i know that." <>i'll even go so far as to say that i love jello's voice. But do you love it because it's *beautiful*, or because it's raw, edgy and distinctive and supports the anger of his lyrics well? Does it agitate you with its fire, or relax you with its loveliness?> maybe it's not beautiful, but it is pleasing. and it doesn't annoy me. if it did, i wouldn't listen to them. i guess i think "good annoying" is an oxymoron, while you do not, eb. i think that's the only difference. 'cause as i said at the outset, i dig most of the bands on your annoying list. what does it have to do with being a mental case, eb? you know, that's kind of like me saying you don't like tool because you haven't listened to them enough. i love wesley willis so much because he IS rock 'n' roll. now, maybe you don't agree. that's fine. but you shouldn't reduce his fans to...well, it's really the same thing we just went through with syd, isn't it? i don't think wesley's fans get off on the fact that he's schizophrenic. they truly like the music. and i don't care if it's the same fucking tune every time. it's the attitude. it *works* for me. i want to keep listening. it's rock and fuckin' roll! yeah, sure, his music would probably be a lot different if he weren't schizophrenic. but that's beside the point, in my opinion. i've either heard that, or i've heard you refer to it so much that i *think* i've heard it. hope that helps! you know, even if he never did say that, it's certainly the *type* of thing he'd say. close enough, in my book. you go, bayard! it's official! he said it! <(Or were you to claim that you've never committed a crime that you consider really serious, I'd believe that. I wouldn't respect you for it, but I'd believe it[1].)> but who decides what is or is not a crime? why is it ok for timothy mcveigh to go off and slaughter iraqis, but not ok for him to blow up the federal building? why is it ok for cops to beat up black people when there are no cameras watching, but not ok when there are? why is it not ok for someone to steal food for their starving family, but it's ok for the imf to impose austerity in the third world? because the bosses make the rules, that's why. well, FUCK the bosses, you know? np -- crass, THE FEEDING OF THE 5000 (hey, maybe that's why i seem so "annoyed" today!) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 17:48:09 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: Revelling in evil (also long and also probably boring :)) >Media shapes attitudes. Industry is currently spending several billion >dollars per year to shape people's attitudes on products. Advertising has >proven effects. Thank you for pointing this out to me. I never would in a million years have ever thought of such an obvious thing. Look, you CAN make up your own mind. What to buy, where to go, or even whether or not you WANT to go anywhere or buy anything, or whether or not you want to watch TV, where most of it is. This generalized "media" and generalized "attitudes"- take it out of the generals and lets remember we're talking about individuals, both who create shows and advertising, and who consume it. You can choose whether or not to watch, to read, to consume- no one is forcing you, and that is what I was saying before in the very post you responded to, I believe. You can also choose to study the advertising you watch, take it it apart, look at the symbolism, look at what emotions it is designed to play on, &c. After one makes a habit of doing this for awhile it has a lot less of an effect because it doesn't get quite so readily under the skin. Now you could have assumed I was someone who did this (and I am, i.e., very conscious of what I see), but you didn't. No comment :). >It has been shown that on a short term, people's attitudes >towards violence can be changed. On a short term. So you brought this up because.....surely there's a reason, as actually it contradicts your previous paragraph by implying that the changes, if any, are short-lived. I am playing devil's advocate here, I thought I should point that out, just in case you try to argue with me about how I said that there was no such thing as long term changes. >There have been a good number of theories about how television affects >people. If anyone is particularly interested, I'll expound upon them. I've got my own. I'm keeping them to myself as well. This is bad enough without going into that issue. Please do keep in mind that I never did say that movies or television had no effect on anyone, ever, and that your dogged insistence on arguing about something I never said made this a really tiresome read. What I ACTUALLY was arguing, if I recall correctly, was that it didn't make the decisions FOR people, and that people don't become serial killers because they saw them on TV and thought it would be cool, they're unhinged to begin with and any inspiration would have done. If you want to argue with that point, please do, but don't put words in my mouth. >Never committed a crime? >I find that hard to believe. Ain't it amazing? Your definition is a good deal more literal than mine. Stealing, raping, robbing, killing, assaulting, is the kind of thing I meant. I did drink underage, I have smoked pot a few times (not that many), and I believe some of my pillows may not have those annoying tags on them. Also I believe I may have had oral sex in places where it wasn't actually legal, I'll look that up if you're really curious. I know it actually is technically illegal in Illinois but I'm not sure about other places. >I'd believe that you'd never been convicted of a crime I know the difference between convicted for something and having done something :). >(Or were you to claim that you've never committed a crime that you >consider really serious, I'd believe that. I wouldn't respect you for it, >but I'd believe it[1].) Well, it ain't something that keeps me awake at night exactly, but, er, yeah, if you consider any of the above crimes, then I have committed crimes I don't consider especially serious. I doubt the Kansas police are looking for me because I had oral sex within their state lines. You may inform the Illinois police if you like, that I am committing that same misdemeanor on a more or less regular basis in their state, and have been doing so for years. I'm sure they will be right on it :). >And has Charlton Heston ever been convicted of a crime or killed anyone? >In which of his movies does he romanticize killing people? He's a spokesperson for the NRA. Isn't that bad enough? Why spend large amounts of time promoting weaponry? This is a good thing? >like that or The Religious Right thinks like this, and attributing some >unflattering ideology to them is simply a way of stereotyping some group >that you disagree with. Did I say this? I don't believe in promoting weaponry, or that making a big fuss about the right to own guns is a productive way to spend time. Those are things many members of the NRA do. You may or may not agree with this, but that IS what they are about, fighting for the oh-so-important right to own weapons, is it not? >You misunderstand the MPAA[3]. No I do not. >The point of harsh ratings isn't to say that the film is bad. I am aware of that, thanks much. My quibble was with how the ratings are determined. The sight of a penis is an automatic NC-17 rating. Were you aware of that? Films are much more likely to be rated NC-17 for sexual content than violent content. In fact, I cannot think of a film rated NC-17 for violence alone, offhand. >when the MPAA was formed was that exposure to sexual material was more >harmful to children than exposure to violent material. This is really what my objections concern, because I believe that to be an offensive premise. >that's the current theory now or not, It is. > and I don't much care. No one said you had to. It bothers me quite a bit though, because it indicates a rather disturbing attitude towards what is OK and what is not in our society. When you have standards like these basically you are saying that killing someone with a nailgun is somehow more OK than sex is. That's warped. >I don't recall seeing anyone get decapitated in PG movies. I do recall people getting shot at, stabbed, punched, or otherwise assaulted in many PG movies. If you do not you aren't paying attention. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #267 *******************************