From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #154 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, April 25 2001 Volume 10 : Number 154 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: the league of FEG [Glen Uber ] some things [dmw ] Re: the league of FEG [Bayard Catron ] Re: Glasgow Gig 24th April [Eb ] working for the clampdown [dmw ] i only repeat what i hear [dmw ] Re: Worst [Eb ] re:you'll probably want to skip this [Viv Lyon ] Agreeing and Disagreeing Simultaneously 101 [JH3 ] Re: You can interrupt my banana any time [Tom Clark ] Re: Wurst [HAL ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V10 #148, 149, 150 [Stephen Mahoney ] peaceful demonstrators & violent idiots ["Walker, Charles" ] Re: so................ [GSS ] Re: so................ [Stephen Mahoney ] Re: Violence? [Capuchin ] Re: I was an anar-CHIST! I was the anti-CHRIST! [Capuchin Subject: Re: the league of FEG On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Bayard Catron wrote: >I'm a little verklemmt. Talk amongst yourselves, I'll give you a topic: >Andy, Julian, Robyn and Thomas start a band project, "Four Enlightened >Gentlemen" (or "a Few Enlightened Gentlemen," in case one leaves later.) >Assuming these frontmen could work together, what would it sound like, and >would it be any good? I'm just wondering who'll play what? What about a drummer? Cheers! - -g- )+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+( ) ) Glen Uber // uberg at sonic dot net // Santa Rosa, California ) )+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+( ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:40:18 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: some things i will s-bscr-ibe at underwatermoonlight.com when i can afford to, because, when all is said and done, i would like to support the cause, but i am no fan of 128K MP3s, and i wish there was something more tangible and with fewer compression artifacts available; i think MP3's are less worth paying for than a substandard cassette dub. i subscribed to kristin hersh's thing with the same desire to support the artist and the same reservations about the value of the goods being sold. i like amy corriea quite a bit, but probably not as much as Eb. my biggest problem with the idea of high speed trains is the idea that amtrak might run them. i'm unimpressed enough with their safety record as it is, and the 'acela' program was late, over budget, and rushed (in my opinion) into service. i haven't operated a motor vehicle in nearly three years (the last time i did so was to participate in aids ride, when amtrak plans became untenable) but i live in an urban area, and still have made an awful lot of accommodations to manage that (and cadged a lot of rides, for me and assorted musical equipment and pa gear). i wouldn't expect everyone to be able to make the same level of accommodation. i think we dwell too much on killers (in news and entertainment media, as well as on mailing lists). i think there's an essential fallacy in the subtext that there is something "there" to "understand," some kind of key to the way the killers mind works. there isn't -- on the one hand there are chemical imbalances, and on the other hand there are fewer differences than most of us would be comfortable admitting (me, i have genetic material, in part, from a monster, so i had to deal with it head on). i would never advocate trying to censor the stories of murderers -- i wouldn't want to give them that glamour -- but i hate to see them became our new folk heroes, and someone chastizing someone else for spelling a killer's name wrong really set my teeth on edge. this has nothing to do with my thinking john lennon was some sort of saint. he was an extremely gifted songwriter, a fine singer, and a competent musician. <-- that's a period. i have begun to suspect that it is possible that some of the 'black bloc' protesters are right wing ringers with a mission to discredit the movements they purportedly advocate. i don't have any hard evidence to support this, but such tactics have, historically, been used before. many of my activist friends here in dc have been distressed by the 'black bloc'ers' non-participation in coordinating protest activities -- they have a knack for popping up somewhere the rest of us didn't expect them. very tenuous and circumstantial, but nonetheless disquieting. i have found the discussion about the use of violent tactics by protesters very thought-provoking. i'm forced to concede that there have been times and places where revolutionary action seemed justifed. the distinction between a terrorist and a revolutionary is almost certainly in the eye of the beholder. like Chris Gross, here and now, i believe that working within the context of the existing system to improve and reform it is preferable to trying to tear it all down. i don't see how i could condone overturning a police car and still oppose bombing a clinic; I have to disapprove of both. the sex pistols were a manufactured hair band (well, okay, clothes horse band), and the clash were a bunch of rich kids. that's got nothing to do with the music. billy idol in his gen x days had nearly as much cred as they did (but less than the mekons). old punks not laughable are mostly not still playing punk. i nominate penelope houston. and the mekons. rollins was always laughable, but when he was good, he knew it. kira's got the ten-and-a-half, as ugly as i am. i can't believe there's a serious attempt to analyze that elephant/car thing -- without knowing the assumptions on which the purported statistics were based, it seems kinda pointless. but whatever. who is in bayard's fantasy band? andy (partridge?) julian (cope) robyn (hitchcock, or the single-named r&b singer?) and thomas (dolby?). i don't think it would sound very good. i think as a songwriter going into a collaborative project like that -- between distinctive, established writers -- there are some real obstacles to to creating quality material in -- first, you probably want to keep your very best stuff for yourself, and second, you probably try to bend your muse in a direction consistent with the talents/proclivities of the others, which may tend to dilute the inspiration a bit. i don't doubt that good stuff can come out of such a venture now and then, but look at, say, the travelling wilburys -- does anybody *really* think that that record stands up to the best of what any of its contributors did separately? what about Andy (Shernoff, Dictators, etc. on bass) (Ivan) Julian (Richard Hell, Shriekback, Matthew Sweet, etc. on guitar) Robyn Hitchcock (guitar and vocals) (Chris) Thomas (procol harum, etc. on drums) okay the last one is lame. i cna't figure out how to do a search for "drummers named thomas." Someone finish up my NY punk/Hitchcock dream band, willya, then I'll phone all their agents. No, duh! I got it! Tommy Ramone on drums. there. now that's a tour i'd like to see. - -- d. np house of large sizes _idiots out wandering around_ "we reserve the right to burn anything" they sing. heh. - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.shoddyworkmanship.net -- post punk skronk rawk = the new thing - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = rock music ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:23:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Bayard Catron Subject: Re: the league of FEG On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Glen Uber wrote: > > I'm just wondering who'll play what? What about a drummer? I'd thought of that. Mr. Dolby will be in charge of the "drum machine". I hear they're all the rage! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 10:57:30 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Glasgow Gig 24th April Hamish(?): >Not sure why they're playing "Airscape" so much. Not an obvious choice. Well, to my ears, it's *the* Robyn Hitchcock recording which cries out for a steady recurrent spot in alt-radio rotation...even moreso than "Balloon Man." So, the choice seems obvious enough to me. I'm kinda sorry they didn't perform the tune in L.A., frankly. There's a possibility that I've never seen Hitchcock perform the song at all, but I'm not sure about that. Certainly, not in recent years.... dmw: >and the clash were a bunch of rich kids. Were they? I haven't read an awful lot about their background. Explain. Eb np: Barry Adamson/Soul Murder ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:15:56 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: working for the clampdown On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Eb wrote: > dmw: > >and the clash were a bunch of rich kids. > > Were they? I haven't read an awful lot about their background. Explain. I should probably clarify that this is second-hand info. My room-mate read Marcus Gray's _Last Gang in Town_; i didn't. Quick web search suggests that a) Gray didn't *interview* anyone in the Clash for his book, b) he's got a major "they sold out" agenda/chip on shoulder but c) no one with a site that gets many hits is exactly claiming he's full of crap, either. "Rich" may be overstating the case; my notion of rich is probably not average at this point. Let's go with "middle-class" instead. Definitely not the street toughs they pretended to be, at any rate. > np: Barry Adamson/Soul Murder so where's that on the eh...whee! scale? - -- d. - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.shoddyworkmanship.net -- post punk skronk rawk = the new thing - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = rock music ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:17:21 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: i only repeat what i hear On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, dmw commits unforgivable netiquette breach of self-response: > I should probably clarify that this is second-hand info. My room-mate > read Marcus Gray's _Last Gang in Town_; i didn't. Quick web search ..for one thing, it's 500pp. i'll get to eventually. - -- d. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:22:53 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Worst HAL: >How dare you? You are truly clueless/classless. Look in the >mirror and weep. Kill yourself now. Wow. Well, by now, anyone can see that you have lost rational control of your faculties when it comes to me. "Kill yourself now"? Good grief. And you call *me* classless? Seek help. There must be counselors who specialize in trauma resulting from prolonged exposure to another person's trivial jargon. You could spend the first year working through "Eb," the second year working through "Fgz," the third working through "weenie"...then maybe you'd be ready to bear down and tackle "Oof." It's something to shoot for. Hey, we're all here for you, buddy. >/hal, remembering your TRULY homophobic posts about eddie tews - they >are there for all to see in the archives, pal - you fucking phony >egomaniacal asshole... Class act, Hal. It's all just slipping away from you, isn't it? I'll wait for a moment, while you wipe the froth off your chin. Firstly, I have no idea whether Eddie is gay or not (nor is this is a nagging question in my mind). Secondly, there's no question that he recurrently writes suggestive comments revolving around my "ass." (Witness his recent, peeee-culiar "story" about me and the Matador dildo, for instance...and I didn't even respond to that one.) It's perfectly *factual* to say his comments about me can have a "homoerotic" quality. Sorry to say, I'm just not confident that you have all your marbles anymore. You ostensibly regard Lennon as a role model, but you're starting to sound more like Chapman. In email, someone compared your fixation on me with herpes -- it just uncontrollably *erupts* every few months, without any direct external cause. I thought that was a sharp analogy. Let's see, your current outbreak of Ebby Simplex is based on...um...a total stranger's aside about hippies in a Ramones newsgroup? Oh yes -- *that* makes sense. Or wait, maybe it's because I acted like such a drippy Wainwright fanboy through...um...strongly criticizing his new album? Okaaaay. And even those justifications make more sense than your other recent tantrum, which was ignited by (gulp) me not mentioning "Survivor" by name in one of my concert reports. Good god almighty. A man can only take so much, I guess. Sometimes I miss our early arguments about the Grateful Dead -- at least your attacks were *about* something back then. In any case, I can't help but wonder if your current fury isn't just redirected anger over being one of the only list regulars who missed the Soft Boys tour. You've been a boiling kettle for weeks and weeks, and this volatility seems to neatly coincide with the Boys' U.S. tour jaunt. Interesting. >razzafrazza...grumble... It's just slipping away.... Eb PS I'll be seeing J Mascis & the Fog tonight, so look forward to some entertaining comments about the band and my first experience with the new House of Blues outlet at Disneyland. Thanks! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:28:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: re:you'll probably want to skip this You'll all be happy to know that I'm taking the great "cars, trains, hamburgers, and jokes" debate offlist, so as to spare you a repeat of yesterday. Toodles, Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:37:56 -0500 From: JH3 Subject: Agreeing and Disagreeing Simultaneously 101 I probably shouldn't send this in because the rate of postings seems to have decreased in the last 2 hours, but what the hell, you can always delete it, right? Sorry to those of you who are tired of all this eco-political shite! >> The cumulative effect resulting in increased immigration and >> brain-drain from the third world? I'm just guessin'. >What is wrong with immigration? Where do you live? >Did you mean "brain-drain of the third world" or did you actually >mean what you typed? No need to haggle over prepositions, G -- whatever you thought I meant, what I *actually* meant is probably MUCH worse! Educated people with money in third-world countries have been moving here for years. I have nothing against those people them- selves, really. Of course, the people who *remain* in the poorer countries, because they can't afford to go elsewhere, are even easier prey for military regimes, paramilitary drug cartels and the like. Most people tend to give up and get out when faced with overwhelmingly superior oppressive force, as long as they can afford to. (Most can't!) Other than that, there's nothing especially good or bad about immigration; it's just moving people from one place to another. The idea, as you've correctly stated many times, is for people to stop having so many offspring, *everywhere.* Regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, religion or political beliefs. You might think "free trade" will help because it will allegedly speed economic development of poorer countries, but there's no guarantee of that. Even if there were, there are other and probably better ways of doing it, though those probably won't work either. And "economic development" doesn't mean the same thing in the third world that it does in the West, or at least it never has in the past. It usually means "exploitation." >Well, some new fun for the ravers and the cats would love me, >along with their keepers. Think of all the locals I could employ to >help produce and market the new treatment? What is wrong >with that? Nothing wrong with that at all, given the fact that you're using completely unrealistic examples that would be obviously beneficial to everyone (though I'm not sure what's meant by "designer drug"). I myself, for one, am working on a Star-Trek style "replicator" device that will create gourmet meals and various other luxuries and necessities out of thin air! These devices will cost next to nothing, not require electricity, and they'll work by converting nearby toxic emissions in the air and water into all the products we need! But WAIT - I'm not going to let anybody NEAR my new invention until I'm allowed to freely sell to the rest of the world all my SUV's, assault rifles, genetically-modified food products and toxic chemicals FIRST! Nyahh nyahh! Of course, once I've got my vast wealth from the sale of those things, I guess I won't need to invent those "replicator" thingies after all... Basically, G, if you're selling something everybody wants, nobody will stop you; why should they? So -- why are there still trade barriers? Because there are things people *don't* want? Again, I'm just guessing. And in a slightly earlier joint: >I won't waste time try to explain the importance of a healthy >ecosystem as most of us will agree on its neccesity, but since >the population growth is out of control, we need to find a way to >reduce this growth in population. Increase wages by >developing business and industry in underdeveloped countries >which will improve living conditions for the majority of people, >will slow the population growth. Allowing foreign investors, be >they small or medium level companies, and corporations to >invest in these countries is the first step that absolutely must >be made. On the one hand, you're absolutely right about the need to reduce population growth; I'd take it a step further and say that we need to create drastic population *shrinkage,* though as you've indicated it has to be through attrition -- so *it'll never happen!* And to add insult to injury, much of what people refer to as "environmentalism" is just a well-meant waste of effort (IMO) until it *does* happen. (Maybe you feel the same way, but maybe you've also had enough flames for a while so you held off on the hard-line stuff? After all, you once -- again, correctly -- stated that contraception was Mankind's greatest invention. Good man!) The problem with the rest of what you're saying is that population growth is a product of culture and basic human behavior as much as (if not more than) economics. My personal (though arguable & unsubstantiated) belief is that economics only affects birthrate to the extent that it *changes culture.* Improved living conditions don't necessarily cause you to stop having babies; you have to *want* to stop having them because your values are based on the idea that having more than one (or better yet, zero) offspring is a bad thing, and that it doesn't mean you're "less of a man" or "failing to realize your full potential as a woman" or not "serving God" (sorry, "YHWH") properly. If I thought that globalization (or, as it's euphemistically called, "free trade") would help to achieve that goal, I'd be all for it! I'd be for it regardless, if I thought that the current crop of corporations and governments could be counted on to be "good citizens" and ensure a fair distribution of the wealth. But I have no faith in these people *whatsoever.* Do you? Sure, some people's living standards will be improved -- but at the expense of other people's. All this while the rich keep getting richer. And like I say, better distribution of wealth won't really help with the population problem unless it's accompanied by HUGE changes in attitude - changes that the current US leadership wants to *prevent.* So ultimately I've accepted the idea that the human race is doomed, it was never worth saving to begin with, and that's the natural order of things. Life on Earth was an interesting accident, but everything will be back to normal in a thousand years or two, except for some nasty toxic wastes lying around that will take a bit longer than that to become inert. Assuming I die of old age, I'll be around another 40 years or so... If I'm lucky, I won't be eaten alive by gangs of cannibals in the meantime. That's all I ask, really. Speaking of which: >> It may also be that racists, xenophobes, homophobes, religious >> fundamentalists, cannibals, etc... simply will never have the >>numbers, or the organization skills, to create an effective >>popular movement. >Leaving aside the cannibals, it's called the Republican Party. "Leaving aside the cannibals"? Obviously Steve hasn't spent much time in among Illinois Republicans! John "munchin' away at ya" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:42:34 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: You can interrupt my banana any time on 4/25/01 7:04 AM, Stewart C. Russell at stewart@ref.collins.co.uk wrote: > (the subject is what Kimberley said to me when I apologised to him for > interrupting the banana he was easting while signing my copy of Tunnel > Into Summer) Did he hand the CD back and say "Happy Listening"? That's what he told me in Portland when he signed mine. I now mimic him out loud every time I put it the player. 'appy listnin'!!! - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:06:38 -0700 From: "Cynthia Peterson" Subject: RE: Robyn played bassitone? And, winning the award for "Most Relevant, Useful, and Blessedly Succint Post of the Week" we have: - -----Original Message----- From: Motherfucking Asshole [mailto:asshole@feedthefish.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 11:55 PM To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Subject: Re: Robyn played bassitone? 05/22/80 SB Africa Centre Brainlode Benefit, Covent Garden ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:12:18 -0600 From: HAL Subject: Re: Wurst to Ebbie Simplex: The rant you responded to was sent to you off-list. *You* quoted it and responded publicly. So, I'll just publicly say that my private note to you was written in the heat of the moment as my jaw dropped upon seeing that you were calling me a homophobe in a public forum. Anyone that knows me knows that's untrue. Now be gone. /hal, no longer furious ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:43:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Mahoney Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V10 #148, 149, 150 who????? oh yessss, that soft boy. On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Traveling Riverside Blues wrote: > So, uh, anybody out there like Robyn Hitchcock? > > He's pretty good, huh? > > Mike > the average person eats about three pounds of food a day, 1095 pounds per year. by the time you blow out the candles on your 70th birthday cake, you will have eaten 33 tons of food, or a pile about the size of six elephants. Your total waste exiting from a certain orifice will amount to the size of a car! - -"the encyclopedia of everything nasty" Stephen Mahoney Multnomah County Library at Rockwood branch clerk stephenm@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us 503-988-5396 fax 503-988-5178 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:48:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Mahoney Subject: so................ ................how does everyone feel about gentrification? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:50:55 -0700 From: "Walker, Charles" Subject: peaceful demonstrators & violent idiots this is the price you pay for not "growing your own food." we no longer live in a society where each individual is expected to be self sufficient. hence a lot of nonsense stirs around. the more that you can do for yourself, the less you will hear this noise in your life. my 2c chas ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:00:13 -0700 From: "Walker, Charles" Subject: i like cars But how much would you save without a car, or by participating in a car-sharing program (if one is available in your area)? Is it possible that you might be able to afford a nicer place closer to work if you didn't have a car payment, an insurance payment, gas costs, etc.? Is it even worth it to you to add up these costs or is the country just "too large" to even try? I like having a car, options - Chas in LA who hauls stuff from time to time and likes to divert his path from time to time in an unscheduled manner ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:16:00 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: so................ On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Stephen Mahoney wrote: > ................how does everyone feel about gentrification? > Uuuhhhh, it's a contemporary topic and it's not something I could ever see myself doing, but I would be more than willing to help someone move and assist in making the gentrification process a success. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:33:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Mahoney Subject: Re: so................ didnt mean to post that one. just felt a bit snide after reading all of the posts. On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, GSS wrote: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Stephen Mahoney wrote: > > > ................how does everyone feel about gentrification? > > > > Uuuhhhh, it's a contemporary topic and it's not something I could ever see > myself doing, but I would be more than willing to help someone move and > assist in making the gentrification process a success. > > gSs ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:57:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Violence? [Wrote most of this yesterday, then work and play and catching up on the list prevented my finish.] I'll skip the baiting and illogical conclusions and cut to the part that I see as the heart. It is my wont. On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, The Great Quail wrote: > You know, what comes around goes around, and if you are prepared to > use violence and terror, be goddamn sure that you really want to live > with the result. And make no bones about it, what some people are > advocating on this list is terrorism. Bullshit. Terrorism is threatening the general public to make your plight known. The target of terrorism is the masses. What I'm advocating is essentially sabotage. It is directed action aimed at damaging that which is causing the problem. Burning a bunch of SUVs is not terrorism if they are burnt to keep them from getting out on the road. Burning a bunch of SUVs IS terrorism if people are in them and you're doing it to raise awareness of working conditions in Argentina. > Despite the occasional rants from ivory-tower, privileged bourgeois > hypocrites, we are not living in a Police State or some kind of Nazi > Amerika. You start deciding that burning down the local MacDonald's is > justifiable, I for one will not stand for it. In fact, the very idea > sickens me. Oh, please, Quail. You are the quintessential example of the complacent idealist. Come ride Critial Mass in Portland, Oregon (called the most bicycle friendly large city in America) and tell me we don't live in a police state. You're capable of understanding this, man, and I know it. We get cheap luxuries because the rest of the world lives in fear of our armies and our corporations control their local resources. So we live in luxury and are complacent. The cycle continues... until the resources are gone or the world is uninhabitable. The rest of the world tries all the time to fix this. They attempt to nationalize their resources (because they know that private ownership is just going to lead to selling out to American companies who can make outrageous offers in the short term) or they refuse our treaties. And then we bomb the shit out of them or twist the arms of other nations to cut off all external supplies and starve them out. > Violence escalates and gets out of control very quickly -- from the > last Woodstock to Kent State to the LA Riots and so on. Yet you supported Al Gore who vehemently supports the killing in Colombia, Iraq, and Bosnia? You support McDonald's and the violence against the people and land of South America? Oh, wait, I forgot. You don't care about global violence, just local violence... especially if it gets in the way of your supply of convenience items. Let's go here, then: You support Taco Bell and their rampant violence against farmers and the very fabric of life in their use of genetically modified corn? You support the MPAA and RIAA in their violent intimdation of all creative people. You say that violence begets violence and then point your finger at PROTESTORS. Did it ever occur to you that the violence of a protest is merely the begotten violence of our parasitic culture? The protestors aren't the initiatiors of violence. They are not taking arms against a passive-aggressive system, but a system that uses violence and only understands violence as a means of keeping power. > If you hate the system so much you don't feel you can work within it, > then by all means drop out, join a religious commune and attend to > your spiritual world, Again with the bullshit. This has nothing to do with religion or the spiritual world and you're just playing games with affections (or showing your preconceived notions). > but if you start claiming you have the "courage" to admit that the > time is ripe for a violent revolution, you just start sounding like > another dangerous fanatic to me. Dangerous to your bloated, destructive way of life? Yes. I'd love to be. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 13:59:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: I was an anar-CHIST! I was the anti-CHRIST! On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Christopher Gross wrote: > It's more like this (I'm speaking for myself here, not Pat): a person > who joins the "black bloc" and smashes the window of a Gap, thinking > that this is a good political tactic, probably has a predisposition to > violence. Persons with such a predisposition are not going to get it > out of their systems and spend the rest of their lives peacefully; > they're more likely to commit violence again, whether or not they have > a political excuse for it. NOTE: I don't claim *all* anarchists (or > other violent radical demonstrators) are predisposed to violence, > though I do suspect a good many of them are. And I don't think > everyone who has had violent tendencies will always be that way; some > of them probably do grow out of it. Again, Viv's sidelong analogy to "gateway drugs" holds. This is exactly the reasoning used. And it doesn't hold water here, either. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #154 ********************************