From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #212 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, July 1 2002 Volume 11 : Number 212 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: more Godtalk (delete at will) [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Lem vs. Dick [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: cleaning with pledge [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: Solaris and time [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: cleaning with pledge [drew ] Re: Solaris and time [Sebastian Hagedorn ] Re: Solaris and time [Ken Weingold ] RE:Who Tour ["SIMPSON,HAMISH (A-Sonoma,ex1)" ] a plastic spoon in my mouth ["Natalie Jane" ] Athiesm ["Rex.Broome" ] The Lord sayeth ["No Name" ] Re: cleaning with pledge [Michael R Godwin ] Take two... ["Rex.Broome" ] Another religion! ["Rex.Broome" ] stumbling, forward [gSs ] Re: a plastic spoon in my mouth [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: stumbling, forward ["FS Thomas" ] Re: Athiesm (no Robyn content, no, none ["Jonathan Fetter" ] RE: Camper Van Fleetwood ["Poole, R. Edward" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:01:04 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: more Godtalk (delete at will) On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Poole, R. Edward wrote: > I was all geared up to run with this one, until I reached: > > >> what evidence is there for the existence of > >> such a being, other than people's wanting it to be so? > > ...which I think understates, or overlooks, something interesting, something Guilty of oversimplifying, yes. > So, to bring god back into the story, if you assume that "faith" in god's > existence is no more than a matter of belief manufacturing based upon a > wished-for proposition, which one of the two methods do you think the > faithful employ to banish the doubts? If I were to speak at greater length (and call down yet more imprecations on my head from everyone *else* on the list), I would note something like: clearly, the tendency toward religious belief is as intrinsic to human behavior as anything can be said to be intrinsic. This is understandable: we have a tendency to want to understand things, and things are very hard to understand, so we posit (more oversimplification) a Super-Us who, while being very like us in many ways, has the power of infinitude in several respects, such explanation allowing us to "explain" (by naming) questions like "where did we come from? where did the universe come from?" and so forth. > bunch of thought experiments, I find myself thinking that god might be the > more reasonable explanation - so just why is it that the nuclear weak force > is set as a natural law just precisely where it must be for matter to exist? > Maybe there were a near infinite series of bangs & crunches until a nice, > stable universe was created that didn't wink itself out of existence within > the first 1/10(-264)th second of history. Sure, that coulda happened. Or, > maybe some designing force knew that was the right natural law to create and > just did it. I think questions like these - about the supposed unlikelihood of the universe existing exactly in the way it does, with razor-thin margins of certain properties which, if they differed at all, could not support life, etc. - are running in reverse. First, we need a sense of *scale* (as someone else suggested): as it happens, visiting with my sister's family in Chicago's Museum of Science & Industry yesterday, we saw again the Eames Brothers' famous film "Powers of Ten": even such a simple thing as that ought to suggest the huge scale in both time and space of the universe. So if the odds against something happening at any *one* throw of the dice (metaphorically) are a million to one, what are the odds of its happening once if you throw the dice several trillion times? Pretty damned good. Besides which: the universe happened. That the odds against its happening exactly this way seem high is irrelevant: for all we know, all those other ways *did* happen, but we weren't around to observe them. Or: what are the odds, given the huge expanse of the universe, that this particular rock I see out my window exists exactly where it does? Actually, 1:1 - the rock *does* exist there. It's not hypothetical; it just is - even though it could have existed billions of other plces and times. Besides (again as suggested elsewhere), "God" raises as many questions as it answers (as a hypothesis), really just punting them, so instead of asking "how did the universe come to be?" we have to ask "how did God come to be?" and so forth. To postulate "God" as self-originating will is as mysterious as postulating the universe as self-originating - more so, since very few people will claim the universe, in addition to existing, has will. Finally, re the Jupiter/barn thing: the point of that was only that in our daily, commonsensical life, we assume many things based on past experience, including our understanding of the laws of physics, to which we cannot empirically testify. I was suggesting that the question of "proof" (as in, "prove God doesn't exist") suddenly calls up a much more rigorous standard than we usually apply. And yeah, a lot of modern physics *does* seem rather Jupiter-behind-the-barn-ish...but a lot of it has been pretty strongly verified experimentally. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::Never drive a car when you're dead:: __Tom Waits__ np: Rocket from the Tombs _The Day the Earth Met the Rocket from the Tombs_ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:59:26 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V11 #208 On Sat, 29 Jun 2002, Michael Wells wrote: > And I'm not sure there's a finer rock record than "Who's Next." quadrophenia gSs ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 17:03:27 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Lem vs. Dick - --On Friday, June 28, 2002 09:29:46 -0700 Natalie Jane wrote: >> Absolutely. I can appreciate that, but in the case of Solaris it >didn't >> work for me. I prefer the Strugatsky brothers (the authors of >"Roadside >> Picnic", the novel "Stalker" is based on) to Lem for the >most part. > > I really like Lem's humorous, satirical books, like "The Futurological > Congress" (very similar to Dick, in some ways) and "The Cyberiad" - in > fact, a beloved and trusty stapler in my office has been dubbed "Trurl." > But his serious novels are so ponderous and weighty and dense that I've > only managed to get through one, "Fiasco." It's like he can't mix his > seriousness and humor. Right. I've only read "The Futurological Congress" (actually "The *First* Futurulogical Congress" in German), but it's really very funny and similar to PKD ... thanks for reminding me, I had forgotten about that. - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg|rtel 156 50823 Kvln http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ Being just contaminates the void - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 17:14:02 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: cleaning with pledge - --On Saturday, June 29, 2002 22:28:38 -0700 drew wrote: > Speaking of not believing in god, I find that there are > still four rather prominent figures in the history of white > rock 'n' roll by whom I own no records, whose canon I > have yet to crack. They are: > > The Rolling Stones, who have written several songs I > enjoy but have never moved me to purchase; I've got Beggar's Banquet, but rarely listen to it. > Neil Young, whose voice and manner annoy but who > must have done SOMETHING I'd like; He's one of my favorites. It's hard to tell where to start, because that depends on your taste. Usually I suggest "Rust Never Sleeps" for beginners, because it has an acoustic and an electric "side". > The Who -- and what happens here is that a song will > come on and I'll hate it and then later I'll find out it was > the Who, and I can't figure out why this supposedly > incendiary band leaves me so cold; I'm no expert, but I love the few albums that I have: Tommy, Who's Next, Face Value. Actually "You better you bet" introduced me to The Who. I know that the album isn't considered to be any good by Who standards, but that song remains among my favorites. Tommy is a bit on the pretentious side, but Who's Next is simply great. > and the Kinks, who have influenced approximately > 60% of my favorite bands at least but whose own > music just doesn't excite me in the least. Oh my! How can one *not* like "Waterloo Sunset", "Victoria", "Dead End Street", "Shangri-La", "Sunny Afternoon" ..... ??? I asked Ira Kaplan from Yo La Tengo where to start and he recommended the Kink Kronikles (sp?) to me. So I bought that and I still think it's a great compilation. Meanwhile I have gotten almost all the albums from that period separately ;-) > Comments? Advice? Recommendations? You got it. - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg|rtel 156 50823 Kvln http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ Being just contaminates the void - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:20:39 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: cleaning with pledge On Mon, Jul 1, 2002, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: > >The Rolling Stones, who have written several songs I > >enjoy but have never moved me to purchase; > > I've got Beggar's Banquet, but rarely listen to it. Try Exile on Main St. or Let It Bleed. The entire album of Exile is awesome. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 17:35:38 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: Solaris and time - --On Friday, June 28, 2002 23:58:05 +1200 James Dignan wrote: > AND I've just finished watching a (German) video that is anything but slow > moving - Run Lola Run (third time I've seen it, and I loved it just as > much this time as the first time!) I've only seen that film once, so I should definitely watch it again, but at this point I'd say that Tom Tykwer's other movies are even better. My favorite would be "Winterschlaefer", with "Der Krieger und die Kaiserin" and "Heaven" tied for second place. After that I'd pick "Lola rennt". Tykwer's first movie, "Die toedliche Maria", is interesting, but much weaker than his later offers. Has anybody else seen something other than "Lola rennt"? - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg|rtel 156 50823 Kvln http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ Being just contaminates the void - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 08:36:31 -0700 From: drew Subject: Re: cleaning with pledge On Monday, July 1, 2002, at 08:14 AM, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: > --On Saturday, June 29, 2002 22:28:38 -0700 drew > wrote: > >> The Rolling Stones, who have written several songs I >> enjoy but have never moved me to purchase; > > I've got Beggar's Banquet, but rarely listen to it. Turns out I have access to Hot Rocks, so we'll see how that goes. It might be enough for me. >> Neil Young, whose voice and manner annoy but who >> must have done SOMETHING I'd like; > > He's one of my favorites. It's hard to tell where to start, because > that depends on your taste. Usually I suggest "Rust Never Sleeps" for > beginners, because it has an acoustic and an electric "side". I think my taste might just be diametrically opposed to Neil Young in general, but you never know. I suspect I might have access to some of his music as well, I just have to look. >> The Who -- and what happens here is that a song will > > I'm no expert, but I love the few albums that I have: Tommy, Who's > Next, Face Value. Actually "You better you bet" introduced me to The > Who. I know that the album isn't considered to be any good by Who > standards, but that song remains among my favorites. Tommy is a bit on > the pretentious side, but Who's Next is simply great. Hmmm..."You Better You Bet" was the song that most recently reminded me of this "oh, THAT'S the Who? I still don't get it" thing that I have with them. I've always been curious to hear Tommy, so maybe I'll try to borrow that sometime. >> and the Kinks, who have influenced approximately >> 60% of my favorite bands at least but whose own >> music just doesn't excite me in the least. > > Oh my! How can one *not* like "Waterloo Sunset", "Victoria", "Dead End > Street", "Shangri-La", "Sunny Afternoon" I have no idea, and I also can't put my finger on why I don't. It might just be too-high expectations, or maybe I just haven't acclimatised myself. >> Comments? Advice? Recommendations? > > You got it. Thank you! Drew ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 17:39:49 +0200 From: Sebastian Hagedorn Subject: Re: Solaris and time - --On Friday, June 28, 2002 09:27:27 -0400 Ken Weingold wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2002, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: >> I'm on an Ultra 1 myself. It's still got Solaris 2.6, because I'm too >> lazy to upgrade ... most of my work is on a SunFire 6800, though ;-) > > Wow, my SPARCstation 2 has Solaris 7. :) I bet it's slower than molasses in winter! My first Sun was a Sparc 2. I pushed it up to 2.5.1, but even that was barely usable. Well, it had only 24 MB of RAM ... ;-) It was *so* much faster under good, old Sun OS 4.1.3. > The Blade has 8. Update, > you lazy sod. ;-) I don't think it'd be worth the effort. The Ultra 1 is primarily a glorified X-Terminal. I do almost all of my work on other computers. What good would an update do me? - -- Sebastian Hagedorn Ehrenfeldg|rtel 156 50823 Kvln http://www.spinfo.uni-koeln.de/~hgd/ Being just contaminates the void - Robyn Hitchcock ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:43:16 -0400 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Solaris and time On Mon, Jul 1, 2002, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote: > >Wow, my SPARCstation 2 has Solaris 7. :) > > I bet it's slower than molasses in winter! My first Sun was a Sparc 2. I > pushed it up to 2.5.1, but even that was barely usable. Well, it had only > 24 MB of RAM ... ;-) Mine has I think 64 megs. The bays are maxed. Looks more impressive than it is. :) > >The Blade has 8. Update, > >you lazy sod. ;-) > > I don't think it'd be worth the effort. The Ultra 1 is primarily a > glorified X-Terminal. I do almost all of my work on other computers. What > good would an update do me? Probably not much. Just better tools that the later releases have, plus being able to say that you are running it. ;-) - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:57:58 -0600 From: "SIMPSON,HAMISH (A-Sonoma,ex1)" Subject: RE:Who Tour > I just hope the surviving Who members don't get a replacement bassist and > carry on where they left off. Pino fucking Palladino!!!!! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 09:17:29 -0700 From: "Natalie Jane" Subject: a plastic spoon in my mouth >Natalie Jane ti so oro; awa nkawe I did??? >The Who -- and what happens here is that a song will >come on and I'll hate it and then later I'll find out it was >the Who, and I can't figure out why this supposedly >incendiary band leaves me so cold; I like their early stuff the best - more straight pop rather than the heavy rawk they got into later (which I also like). There's plenty of "greatest hits" collections out there. When we were young 'uns, my sister had one with some sort of Union Jack design on the cover - we loved it. See "The Kids Are Alright" and watch Keith Moon blowing up his drum set with explosives. (This once sent a stoned friend of mine into hysterical gales of laughter.) And "Quadrophenia" which is one of my favorite movies of all time. (It amused me to note that there's a track on the new GBV album called "The Ids Are Alright.") >and the Kinks, who have influenced approximately >60% of my favorite bands at least but whose own >music just doesn't excite me in the least. I got started on the Kinks with "Something Else," but soon found I liked "Village Green Preservation Society" better. I love "Picture Book." I'm sure Jill Brand would have more suggestions. >Oh, I left out Elvis, whom I like but just don't listen to. Costello yes, Presley no. I just don't give a shit about him. What was that Public Enemy line... (re. godless-liberal-communist Multnomah County) >liberalism and communism are 180 degress apart. Not according to some people. >when i think of the communists and all the glory communism has brought this >world, the >first thing that comes to mind is stalin. the communists >worship the >man, still. how can such a person be so revered? Paging Eddie Tews... Paging Eddie Tews... My parents had some friends who were real old-school communists back in the 1940's, and still clung vehemently to their faith; my father often recounts the time that one of these people finally, reluctantly admitted that "Stalin was not a nice man." gnat "God is a place you will wait for the rest of your life" the gnatster _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:32:24 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Athiesm >>Atheism is foolish, philosophically untenable position, >>and I take it for >>granted that most people who say they are atheists mean >>to say they are >>agnostic. Now, I know this wasn't directly from anyone here, but I still take issue. I could call myself an agnostic, but why bother? When I have that great spiritual experience (ahem) I'll stop being an atheist. Until then, frankly, the alternative seems so silly that I don't ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 16:29:44 +0000 From: "No Name" Subject: The Lord sayeth With all this God talk I feel, as one of the few Fegs who has faith in a spiritual reality, that I should throw my own two cents in. I'm pleased with what Ive seen so far in the debate. Drew took on intelligent design and Ed did a nice job with the want/need bit and Runyon made good common sense. I don't tend to argue this issue cause I dont believe people believe for clear-cut, purely-intelectual reasons. In fact, I dont see how in, well, Gods name, one could. There is no intellectual argument which makes it imperative to believe in some sort of God, gods, etc. And vice versa. What there is is human experience and how we interpret that experience. And experience is a bit of a bedrock. Its the sort of thing you stubb your toe on. Now, if you only stubb your toe once, it may be a fluke. But if throughout your life you keep stubbing your toe in the same place, you know there's something there. Thats the first phase. The second phase is deciding - -whats- there. Some people have never stubbed their toe, some have occasionally(and only when drunk) and some have a knack for it. For the person who constantly stubbs their toe to communicate to the person who never has, there is a major diffuculty. there is the lack of a common vocabulary of sensations. If I had never stubbed my toe against spiritual reality, I would be an aithiest. Its the most reasonable, sane position. If I had only stubbed it once or twice, or may have stubbed it, Im not sure, I would be an agnostic as its the most resonable, sane position. But Ive stubbed my toe alot, and in enough ways for none of the arguments agaisnt spiritual belief to hold water. Therefore the most reasonable and sane position for me to hold is that of a "believer." But a believer in what? And that for me, is where it gets sticky. I guess Im a gnostic, episcopalian Christian. Gnostic for the idea of personal knowledge, episcopalian because thats the denomination I was born into and currently worship(Im talking -gret- church music here) within and Christian because my expereinces involve Jesus Christ. So thats the label thats the most accurate at this moment. But labels by nature are too limited for human consiousness, so please, dont hold me strictly to it. Who knows what tommorrow will bring? I know this much, it will bring some form of change. For me belief has not been static; its a journey not a destination. Its a question, not an answer. Its life lived, not life filed away. And its been an interesting and invigorating life that way. So, I can only hope, and pray, that by God's grace, it will continue as such. - ----------------- So now lets talk about something really shocking. Drew, you like Robyn but not the Rolling Stones, Who or Kinks!?! You heretic you;-) Kay, whose middle name is, yup Lord "Your hair is reminiscent of a digesting yak." Surrealist compliment generator. _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 17:33:31 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: cleaning with pledge On Mon, 1 Jul 2002, Ken Weingold wrote: > Try Exile on Main St. or Let It Bleed. The entire album of Exile is > awesome. 'Tumbling Dice' is one of those oddities that if you put it on on the right system at the right time sounds absolutely specatcular. Other times it just sounds like a lot of people going 'wooh'. 'Casino blues', 'Ventilator blues' and 'Sweet Virginia' are good too. And isn't that the album with Slim Harpo's 'Hip Shake' on it? I have a problem with the sound of 'Let it Bleed' - I'd rather listen to 'Get your ya ya's out': the version of 'Jumping Jack Flash' is the best recording the Stones ever made. Plus a nice arrangment of Robert Johnson's 'Love in vain'. And what's that other live album that's very good, the one with 'Start me up' and 'Shattered' on it? As songs _qua_ songs, I think 'Sticky Fingers' is one of the best: 'Wild Horses', 'Dead Flowers', 'Brown Sugar' etc. But as Glen(?) says, the Burritos' version of 'Wild Horses' has the edge. The last studio record they did that I liked was 'Some Girls', which had 'Beast of burden' on it. - - Mike "oop she dooby" Godwin PS Saw the 'Glastonbury 1971" film on TV over the w/e. Didn't spot myself, but I was only there for 3 or 4 hours during the time that Family were on. For some reason we had to go back home before Traffic came on, chiz chiz. Fascinating stuff, anyway. Commander Lang, have you got set lists for Family or Traffic? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:41:43 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Take two... Sorry, here's the whole thing: >>Atheism is foolish, philosophically untenable position, >>and I take it for >>granted that most people who say they are atheists mean >>to say they are >>agnostic. Now, I know this wasn't directly from anyone here, but I still take issue. I could call myself an agnostic, but why bother? When I have that great spiritual experience (ahem) I'll stop being an atheist. Until then, frankly, the alternative seems so silly that I don't spend much time on it. Look at it this way... if you grew up in a world where religion was unknown, up to and including the concept of a creator, and someone started spouting off about it, it would be grounds for committal. Personally, I find the term "atheist" itself kind of bothersome... it implies someone "without God". That's not how I think of myself. I seem to be just this guy, you know, who lives in a world where most other people have this bonus problem of wrestling with their often-contradictory beliefs. Like, I'm a Robyn Hitchcock fan, ergo "feg", which is my deal, but that doesn't mean I lable nonfans "afegists" or something else that implies a *lack*. Nitpickin', I know, but... Rex "and you will know him by the trail of typos" Broome ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:54:37 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Another religion! From James D: >>presumably so. Yoruba is probably the largest ethnic group within Nigeria. >>It certainly isn't a pan-African religion, unless one has been named after >>the ethnicity That's what happened. Karenga's Yoruba religion is an amalgam of a lotta old stuff, but is fairly recent in vintage itself (considering its founder is still alive)... like I said, the holiday of Kwanzaa has gotten a LOT more cultural traction than the religion itself. Although... does anyone do Kwanzaa outside the US? Ironic side note: Kwanzaa started getting mentions in TV ads about a decade ago (you know, the things where the stars of NBC wish you a happy Holiday season or whatever), but just last year for the first time we got wishes for a "Joyous (Merry? Happy? Rip-Roarin'?) Ramadan"... Cheerz, Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:14:44 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: stumbling, forward Judge: Federal executions unconstitutional NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A federal trial judge Monday became the first U.S. judge to declare the current federal death penalty unconstitutional, a ruling that is sure to set off fierce national debate over the issue. U.S. District Judge Rakoff said the federal death penalty act "deprives innocent people of a significant opportunity to prove their innocence" and "creates an undue risk of executing innocent people," thereby violating due process............ http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/07/01/rights.executions.reut/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:28:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: a plastic spoon in my mouth Natalie Jane wrote: > >Oh, I left out Elvis, whom I like but just don't listen to. > > Costello yes, Presley no. I just don't give a shit about him. What > was that Public Enemy line... the one about Presley being a racist? can't say i give a crap about his records one way or another (would rather listen to little richard or buddy holly any day), but all the evidence points towards elvis being very much not racist, though col. tom was. ===== "This week, the White House says President Bush meant no disrespect when he referred to the Pakistani people as 'Pakis.' But just to be on the safe side, White House staffers have cancelled his trip to Nigeria" -- Tina Fey, Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update" "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt . Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:29:23 -0400 From: "FS Thomas" Subject: Re: stumbling, forward - ----- Original Message ----- > > U.S. District Judge Rakoff said the federal death penalty act "deprives > innocent people of a significant opportunity to prove their innocence" Significant opportunity already exists. It's called the appeals process. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:37:28 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jonathan Fetter" Subject: Re: Athiesm (no Robyn content, no, none > >>Atheism is foolish, philosophically untenable position, > >>and I take it for > >>granted that most people who say they are atheists mean > >>to say they are > >>agnostic. My understanding of atheism is that you don't believe in the supernatural. I don't think it's any more foolish than believing in the supernatural. I assume the intent of the words "philosphically untenable" in reference to atheism (and thus theism) is that there is no way to disprove either belief. I helped my wife with a philosophy class recently, and I liked what Hume had to say (paraphrased) about truth: a belief is true if sense experience corroborates it, false if sense experience contradicts it, and meaningless if sense experience can do neither. To me, belief in god, gods, UFO's, ghosts, angels, astrology, ye grate olde ones, Bush's brain--is meaningless. So I go with the label of an agnostic materialist and live by Occam's Razor--I can't know about certain things, I think certain theories may be true, but what I'm going to believe is true will generally be the simplest explanation. Maybe someday God and all "his" angels will appear on the news and tell the world that they exist, created the world, made Celine Dion out of plastic, etc.--but till then, I'm not buying any of it. I wonder how large an effect the religion one is born under has on what religion an adult will subsequently subscribe to. I would guess that the percentage of those sticking with their birth religion would be pretty high. Yawn, Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 10:49:08 -0700 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Camper Van Fleetwood From Ed: >>Camper's "Tusk" -- is fun and frequently unrecognizable as either FM or CVb >>related. On the other hand, if you've listened to Camper Van Chadbourne >>material before, you'll be right at home here. First, man, the Pitch-A-Tent folks turned that order around fast, eh? I liked it a great deal-- I'll probably play it more than those discs with Chadbourne. I don't know the original LP at all (other than the title tune, and if I've ever heard any of the others they've been rendered unrecognizable) and that may help. There's still a blizzard of references to, um, Lennon, Eno, Pynchon, Spinal Tap, Melville etc. that I'm pretty sure weren't on the original. It's indulgent as hell and may have been a lot cooler in 1987 than it is today, but hey, that's Camper for ya, in precisely the way that Cracker isn't. Cheers, Rex ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 13:53:35 -0400 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: RE: Camper Van Fleetwood From Ed: >>Camper's "Tusk" -- is fun and frequently unrecognizable as either FM or CVb >>related. On the other hand, if you've listened to Camper Van Chadbourne >>material before, you'll be right at home here. Rex: >First, man, the Pitch-A-Tent folks turned that order around fast, eh? Yup. good, speedy folks down there. >There's still a blizzard of references to, um, Lennon, Eno, Pynchon, Spinal Tap, Melville etc. that I'm pretty sure weren't on the original. It's indulgent as hell and may have been a lot cooler in 1987 than it is today, but hey, that's Camper for ya, in precisely the way that Cracker isn't. from the Lowery interview that was posted here [sorry, forget who to credit, but I liked it] that mentions the Tusk project, it sounds like a lot of the samples and found sound inserts are, at least on one level, designed to cover up / make up for lost and/or damaged tracks from 1987 -- not unlike some of the re-creation on "CVB is Dead..." For my money, it's better that way, fresher. Kinda like the present-day ex-CVB'ers having a Natalie Cole-esque collaboration with the 1987 CVB band. Except not so creepy and unsettling to see on MTV. Nor as commercial. Much closer to auto-eroticism, however -- they're playing with themselves pretty much the whole time. (and this is the cue for anyone who doesn't like the Tusk project, and I could see that, to point out that the recordings do, indeed, represent these guys just wanking off while they waited for chris to heal a broken hand so they could record their next "real" album. but I wouldn't say that myself). ============================================================================This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@dsmo.com Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP http://www.legalinnovators.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #212 ********************************