From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #16 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, January 17 2003 Volume 12 : Number 016 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Tonight (Thursday) on Jay Leno [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: went to a party / didn't say a word [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: c'mon ugly Norah ["Gene Hopstetter, Jr." ] Re: Tonight (Thursday) on Jay Leno [Ken Weingold ] Re: Tonight (Thursday) on Jay Leno [Mike Swedene ] Re: The usual dribs n drabs ["matt sewell" ] Re: went to a party / didn't say a word ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: Tonight (Thursday) on Jay Leno [steve ] Re: The usual dribs n drabs [gSs ] Re: Tonight (Thursday) on Jay Leno ["matt sewell" ] Challanging the World Stage ["Maurer Rose, Inverse Nome" ] Re: Challanging the World Stage ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Challanging the Rainland Stage ["Maurer Rose, Inverse Nome" ] Cannibalism [The Great Quail ] Re: Challanging the World Stage [The Great Quail ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 21:47:38 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Tonight (Thursday) on Jay Leno Quoting Alfred Masciocchi : > And then, I've heard, on Conan O'Brien are The Jimi Hendrix Experience > with Noel Redding, Mitch Mitchell, & Danny Bonaduce. The difference is, Hendrix was that band's strength - Morrison, with his dorky, pretentious "poetry" and too-dramatic declaiming, was the Doors' weak link. However, Ian Astbury? Wrong Ian, if we needed an Ian (McCulloch). > Tom Clark wrote: > > >The Doors > >Perform "Light My Fire" -- featuring Ray Manzarek, Robby Krieger, Ian > >Astbury and Stewart Copeland. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: sex, drugs, revolt, Eskimos, atheism ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:07:26 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: The usual dribs n drabs Quoting Jeff Dwarf : > Given that castration doesn't even really work -- it just forces the > rapist to move on to less attatched tools of the trade -- knives, > bottles, etc -- why not (and I know this is a radical idea) NOT LET > RAPISTS OUT OF JAIL! You know, actually give sexual predators harsh > prison sentences. I know it means that we might have to let out a few > guys who were trying to buy acid at a Grateful Dead show or other such > people bizarrely considered dangerous by our societies. If we'd > actually take rape -- whether of adults or childen (statutory rape is > another kettle of fish) -- seriously as a crime, we wouldn't need > bullshit like Megan's Law because the rapists would still be in prison. Hey, we Jeffs sure are smart. One thing that pisses me off: in many US states, including mine (Wisconsin), we have laws whereby sex offenders are required to notify the community whenever they move. A couple problems here: first, "sex offenders" is very loosely defined (the law was passed in reaction to a particularly horrific child abuse/murder case), such that a few years back, a man whose "crime" was only being 18, sleeping with and impregnating his 16-year-old girlfriend (entirely consensual, and he was willing to marry her and support the child), and pissing off her parents who threw the law at him, ended up on the state's "sex offender" list. Second, such public notification only frees up everyone else to harass these people - perhaps violently so. (Okay, I honestly can't get *too* worked up about that one.) Finally, as The Other Jeff implies above, in the case of actual sex offenders, if we as a society really feel that they cannot be reformed such that they're a danger to the community even after release from prison...well duh, reform the laws so that such offenders spend life in prison without parole. A person who's done his time should *not* suffer further penalties: if we think the penalties aren't enough as they stand, increase them. > Jesus, it feels weird being on the Law and Order side of something. Yeah, me too. I mean, I'm not saying "throw them in a hole and toss the key": if it's truly the case that these people are in a hell-like compulsive grip, then treat them compassionately - but *don't* let them out where they can continue to hurt people. Re Kay's comments: I'm sorry, but to me there's a huge moral difference between actually committing a crime that directly harms people (i.e., abusing children) and paying to see images. By the same logic you use, anyone who buys Coca-Cola should suffer the same penalties as would be applied to the dictatorial regime in Myanmar (Burma), since Coke was doing business with them - and to anyone who buys an SUV, say, since the money they pay for gas supports nations that pay for terrorism. For that matter, anyone who doesn't make their own clothes...since few if any clothing brands you can buy at stores are not at some point involved in sweatshop labor. Transitive guilt is a very iffy concept, I'd say. It's not *the same* - certainly, people who purchase child porn are helping support those pornographers, and in a more direct way than my examples suggest (I exaggerate the similarities to make a point), but just as yelling abusively at someone is not the same as punching them in the face or shooting them, there need to be degrees of guilt and punishment here. (Not at all in the same category as above - but here's a lovely example of guilt by association: the police dept. in a city half an hour south of here, Racine, recently busted a rave and found three people with illegal drugs. To make a point, they then arrested *everyone* else at the party - 900 people - and charged them with "frequenting a known drug house." Why do I think that if, by some miracle, the police had busted a debutante ball and found a couple wealthy scions tooting coke in the bathroom, that all the other folks at the party would *not* be arrested?) ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: This album is dedicated to anyone who started out as an animal and :: winds up as a processing unit. :: --Soft Boys, note, _Can of Bees_ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:41:39 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: went to a party / didn't say a word Quoting rosso@videotron.ca: > On 16 Jan 2003 at 17:01, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > > > drew wrote: > > > > > > it's tuned(or can be tuned?) to a major chord. > > > It seemed like a brilliant and obvious idea. > > > > not having played any other stringed instrument, why would anyone > > do otherwise? > To paraphrase what follows, symmetrically tuned instruments are meant > to be played primarily one or two notes at a time. Chordally tuned > instruments are meant to be played with all strings at a time. If > you tuned a guitar to a chord (often done, but not standard tuning), > you reduce the number of chords that can be played without having to > mute out non-chordal notes on some strings. Standard guitar tuning > is optimised for playing 6-string barre chords. Another answer: if you tune a guitar to a major chord (say, D), it then becomes very difficult to play many minor chords - most particularly, D minor. To explain why would quickly become more complex and technical than I'd want even to attempt, or probably be capable of understanding. ..Jeff, not really replying to every post today, just seeming like it. J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: This album is dedicated to anyone who started out as an animal and :: winds up as a processing unit. :: --Soft Boys, note, _Can of Bees_ np: Feckless Beast s/t ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:49:18 -0600 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Re: talk talk >From: Dolph Chaney >Subject: Re: talk talk > >>I believe Hollis has a few other solo CDs available but they're tough to >>come by. > >Never seen any of these -- if you have, LET ME KNOW. He's apparently >retired from music. Well, it seems I have the only Hollis solo CD, according to this site: . Tragic, really. Guess I should just buy more David Sylvain and Steve Tibbetts albums to make up for it. Come to think of it, though, Roger Eno's albums really rank up there with Hollis's work. Rachel's albums do too. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:54:57 -0600 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Re: c'mon ugly Norah >From: Tom Clark >Subject: Re: c'mon ugly Norah > >She's hot? She's not ugly, but I would hardly classify her as hot. I saw >her on SNL recently and I was impressed with her performance. She seems >very sincere about her music. I bought Norah Jones's album after hearing her cover of Cold Cold Heart in a thrift store in Austin and have enjoyed it immensely since. It's just a lovely record, and I've never felt much need to label it as jazz or pop or whatever. Heck, most people nowadays think Diana Krall is The Jazz Singer nowadays anyway, and I think Krall's playing and singing are rather pedestrian. And if Norah Jones's success gets more people to buy records by Holly Cole or Patricia Barber, then more power to her. I never really gave a second thought to her looks. Ella Fitzgerald wasn't exactly a beauty queen, but the woman could sing, which is fine with me. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 00:42:40 -0500 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Tonight (Thursday) on Jay Leno Tom, thanks so much for the heads up. I just saw it and thought it sounded great, though I'm not sure a reunion is even necessary. Robbie and Ray sounded great, Copeland is, well, Copeland, IOW incredible whatever he does, and Ian is great. I have been a huge Cult fan since the mid-'80s, so in my eyes Ian can do no wrong. The only person I could say who could do Morrison's role so perfectly that it's scary is Jeff Martin from The Tea Party. Visually AND vocally. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 22:49:04 -0800 (PST) From: Mike Swedene Subject: Re: Tonight (Thursday) on Jay Leno - --- Ken Weingold wrote: > Tom, thanks so much for the heads up. I just saw it > and thought it > sounded great, though I'm not sure a reunion is even > necessary. > Robbie and Ray sounded great, Copeland is, well, > Copeland, ** I agree.... love Copeland.... even the goofy faces.... IOW > incredible whatever he does, and Ian is great. I > have been a huge > Cult fan since the mid-'80s, so in my eyes Ian can > do no wrong. Ian looked a lot like morrison, I almost wonder if he is too much like him (looks-wise). Oh well... Herbie np-> Kermit The frog "rainbow connection" Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:01:03 +0000 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: The usual dribs n drabs It's not really an intention-reading helmet, having just two settings: "Decent sort of chap" and "Bounder"... would certainly work in this case, though. I've got my fingers crossed for "Decent sort of chap". Cheers Matt >From: Aaron Mandel >On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Maurer Rose, Inverse Nome wrote: > > > If Townshend can proove he did this -only- for reasons that could be > > considered contibuting to a greater good, then I think he should be let > > off with a fine and community service. > >Good thing the Brits have that intention-reading helmet to use in cases >like this. > >a - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 07:22:17 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: went to a party / didn't say a word rosso@videotron.ca wrote: > >>From Fretboard Logic, by Bill Edwards: ... erm, thanks. All this tells me is that musical notation was invented by a maniac. Things got a bit easier when I found out that going up an octave doubled the frequency. Now banjo tab makes sense, 'cos there are five lines to a staff, and five strings on the 'jo, so just plunk the line at the numbered fret, and all is well. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:44:40 -0500 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Tonight (Thursday) on Jay Leno On Thu, Jan 16, 2003, Mike Swedene wrote: > Ian looked a lot like morrison, I almost wonder if he > is too much like him (looks-wise). Oh well... Ah, here's good support (or lack thereof) for the constant Morrison / Jeff Martin (The Tea Party) comparison: . - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:47:41 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: Tonight (Thursday) on Jay Leno On Thursday, January 16, 2003, at 09:47 PM, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > The difference is, Hendrix was that band's strength - Morrison, with > his > dorky, pretentious "poetry" and too-dramatic declaiming, was the Doors' > weak link. Even if Morrison was the least good, the other guys without him wouldn't have been The Doors. Possibly better, but something else. - - Steve __________ I know that it's cynical, but I feel that civil liberties-for a lot of these people in Congress-are either an inconvenience or a campaign slogan. They care only about money and power. - Wil Wheaton ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:49:44 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: The usual dribs n drabs On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > Transitive guilt is a very iffy concept, I'd say. It's not *the same* - > certainly, people who purchase child porn are helping support those > pornographers, and in a more direct way than my examples suggest (I > exaggerate the similarities to make a point), but just as yelling abusively > at someone is not the same as punching them in the face or shooting them, > there need to be degrees of guilt and punishment here. so should we classify each child molestation case as aggravated or non aggravated? i could have a hard time distinguishing the two unless obvious evidence existed like bruising, open wounds etc... But even so, should the perpetrator of the "aggravated" child molestation receive a tougher punishment than the "non-aggravated" child molestor? should we even attempt to distinguish the two? gSs ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:15:43 +0000 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: Tonight (Thursday) on Jay Leno Yeah right - the Morrison Doors albums pale in comparison to Full Circle... The Doors without Jim are just embarrassing. Cheers Matt >From: steve >>The difference is, Hendrix was that band's strength - Morrison, >>with his >>dorky, pretentious "poetry" and too-dramatic declaiming, was the >>Doors' >>weak link. > >Even if Morrison was the least good, the other guys without him >wouldn't have been The Doors. Possibly better, but something else. > > > >- Steve >__________ >I know that it's cynical, but I feel that civil liberties-for a lot >of these people in Congress-are either an inconvenience or a >campaign slogan. They care only about money and power. - Wil >Wheaton - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:32:56 -0500 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: daisy bomb anyone else going to march this weekend? http://www.internationalanswer.org/ "why bother?", you might ask http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14963 dare i ask whether we all think that pre-emptive war isn't terrorism? http://commondreams.org/views03/0116-09.htm and what about our weapons of mass destruction? if having such weapons and the propensity to use them is any measure, then isn't the united states the greatest threat the world has ever seen? http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=realimpact/moveon/DaisySS_gen.rm ken "give peace a chance" the kenster ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:10:38 +0000 From: "Maurer Rose, Inverse Nome" Subject: Challanging the World Stage Jason on Miss Feg Hottie, 2003: >I haven't heard her album yet, but she does appear on Charlie Hunter's latest album. They do a terrific jazzed-out version of Roxy's "More >Than This." (And another tune, but I can't remember which off-hand). Jason, thanks for reminding me. -That- was how I first heard her, on the local jazz station. And she and Hunter were doing the other tune, which blew me away (even thou I cant remember what it was. A standard.) It was one of those "who is this" moments. To put it lightly, her phrasing is too intelligent to land her in Jewel-land, unless she really really wants to go there for the bucks. - ----------------------------- Aaron: >Good thing the Brits have that intention-reading helmet to use in cases like this Exact same intention-reading helmet we Yanks have. Physical evidence, sworn testemony, reason. What other one is there? - ----------------------------- Quail: >Anyway, I don't think I deserved your trouncing, and I am afraid you >made >quite a lot of hay out of my single straw. You read a whole lot >into my >lone statement that I think castration is appropriate for >serial rape, but >not for a single instance of viewing child porn! Youre right, I did see alot in what you wrote. But that shows I was paying attention. And by paying attention I was able to see that you didn't know much about the effects of "kiddie porn" on the children involved (such a sweet phrase. Sounds like candy corn, dosn't it? How ever could people get so upset by something so inoquious-sounding?) And so I tried to remedy the situation. Now, if you had payed full attention, and carefully read the details of my last message, you would have seen that I also don't advocate castration for a single instance of viewing pictures of the rape of infants and small children either. But it seems the thing you're most intrested in is the castration theme. I used it partly cause I figured its one of those motifs that focuses the mind wonderfully. Perhps, I'm learning, too wonderfully. Its all some people take in and the rest of the message gets lost. Live and learn;-) - ---------------------------- Eb: >Mmm...everything you write below, you could also say about "adult >rape." Disagree. Perhaps about a small percentage, but not the majority. First and foremost, an adult knows they're raped. They have a name for it. Knowing what it is, they also usually know something about why it happened. It damages them bigtime but conceptually it is managable. Lets say someone is leaving a concert, can't find their car, wanders down the wrong deserted street and gets raped by a stranger. They don't know it as just a barrage of brand new horrible overwhelming sensations that happen for no reason and for which they assume they must be responsible for in some way. Why? Because they possess a level of reason which even if these childlike responses come up during the rape(and they probobly will, we still are what we have been) -- in the long run they can nevertheless conceptualize the event as below. Some evil hellhound has raped them. They didn't deserve it. They're not to blame (even thou they may choose to pay to park their car in a well-lit garage next time they go to that venue.) The fault lies with the hellhound. The sensations of pain, fear and arousal they may have felt was because they were being raped. Not because they were walking on the street or because they went to see a concert or because they did something naughty that afternoon. If they were aroused, or felt pain, or terror, it was not their "fault" but a component of their biology in that situation. They have choices about how they process the information. A child, who dosnt have words, dosnt have choices. And if afterwards, a child is subjected to something like -- "dont ever ever tell, nobody will believe you or even if they do, which they wouldnt, they will know how bad you are and throw you out on the street. You don't want everyone to know how bad you are, now do you? " Well, all the more damage. Nothing gets clarified and the sense of shame and blame becomes part of the child's identity. In an adult, usually the identity is pretty strongly formed already. The devastation is not so extreme or pervasive. And Im not trying to make less of the psychic and physical damage of adult rape. It also is horrible. And alot of its horror is because inside the adult still lives the child. But at least that child lives along side an adult. They are not utterly alone in the way an abused child is. - -------------- Jeff Dwarf: >why not (and I know this is a radical idea) NOT LET >RAPISTS OUT OF JAIL! You know, actually give sexual predators harsh >prison sentences. Agreed. >Jesus, it feels weird being on the Law and Order side of something I know. Really weird. >I'm not sure wat you mean by her *voice* sounding black - I can readily >imagine any number of singing *styles* that might sound black, >having >historically been performed primarily by black artists - but I can't quite >hear "black" (or anything else) solely in the *sound* of a >voice. But >maybe you meant style. I was hoping someone would call me on that. Because I don't mean style or accent or phrasing, shameful as that confession is. I mean something in the timber of the voice but beyond that Im not sure what I mean. And yes, I know that sounds racist, but its what my ear tells me. - ------------------ Drew: >I actually didn't know what chemical castration was, but apparently it's >just an injection that lowers testosterone levels, right? So that >guys >can still have sex but their sex drive is considerably lowered? There are different versions, but I was thinking of the one that makes you inoperative(no, not prozac;-). What I mean is a level that means you will never be capable of arousal again, you will never have another orgasm. To my mind, thats pretty drastic. - --------------------- Rex: Hmm, if Im allowed to play ... How about "Taking the Rainland Stage." If nothing else, its capable of at least 3 meanings, and probobly more if I actually, err, think. - ----------------------- James: >erm, excuse me - I always read through the entire lyric sheet of an album >between my first and second listens to it. Part of the 'new album >purchased' process for me: listen, read, listen, Im not as systematic as James, and I rarely get to the shelve stage. But I almost always look over the lyric sheet. Or, even geekier, look up lyrics on the net. I like knowing what they're singing. Crazy, huh;-? - ---------------- Sabina, Hillary Clinton drew alot of flack for wanting to see minors granted some civil rights during the 90s. Unfortunetly, there are many who think children are, and should be, almost their parent's chattel. Im not sure when children will be granted their rights, but I hope its in my lifetime. - ---------------- Kay _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:27:01 -0500 From: "ross taylor" Subject: top 10 etc For 2002, CDs -- 1) John Coltrane - A Love Supreme, deluxe edition 2) Rolling Stones - Singles Collection, the London Years, remaster 3) Soft Boys, Side Three 4) Soft Boys, Nextdoorland 5) Kimberley Rew, Great Central Revisited 6) Silos, Cuba 7) Go Betweens, After Hollywood & Rarities 8) Cellarful of Motown 9) Richard Lloyd, Alchemy (but thanks again to the person here whose tape this replaces) 10) The Moray Eels Eat the Holy Modal Rounders 11) The Hives, Vini Vidi Vicious Best out of print used find (legit, 4 CDs, just $14.99)-- REM, CD singles box set from time of Automatic for the People (incl. "Arms of Love") - --- Have said my say about Townsend, I give a big, very ernest salute to the FBI for busting that child porn ring. That was some good crime fighting. It stuns the mind what goes on right around us. H.P. Lovecraft was right. - --- Another vote for They Both Blow. I'm still sad I couldn't get the trio I was briefly in to call itself Screwed, Blewed and Tattooed (but we might have had to do some Pogues). - --- 1990 addendum-- The Connells, Fun and Games. Ross Taylor Need a new email address that people can remember Check out the new EudoraMail at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:34:12 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Challanging the World Stage Kay didn't write, but her e-mail provider added: > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 > months FREE* So what's on offer here? Two more months of spam? Some kind of sideshow challenge? A truncated telegram fragment? Stewart (really bummed that a very intelligent, absurdly well-read friend of his really, really likes Jewel. But today's Otis Fodder track made up for it.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:40:05 -0600 (CST) From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: top 10 etc >1990 addendum-- >The Connells, Fun and Games. Deliberate omission on my part - I still have an extreme dislike for the Connells. I only recently made the connection between the Connells and other Southern post-R.E.M. bands that I didn't enjoy very much, like Guadacanal Diary and Zeitgeist/Reivers -- there was something about the earnestness of those bands that drove me up the friggin' wall. OK, Guadacanal Diary would have one goofy song like "Watusi Rodeo" on thier albums, but it was like all the whimsy and humor that should have been spread around the other tracks and made Jack a well-balanced boy got distilled and relegated to that one song. All these bands seemed sorta awkward, stiff, and formalistic to me, too. (See also 10,000 Maniacs for non-Southern variant.) Plus I blame all of them for +Live+. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:56:39 +0000 From: "Maurer Rose, Inverse Nome" Subject: Challanging the Rainland Stage JeFF: >It's not *the same* - certainly, people who purchase child porn are helping support those >pornographers, and in a more direct way than my examples suggest (I exaggerate the similarities to make a point), but just as yelling >abusively at someone is not the same as punching them in the face or >shooting them, there need to be degrees of guilt and punishment here. Jeff, again, I recognize that and if you had read thru my long post carefully you would have seen that I assign -somewhat- lesser penelties to those viewing and paying for child porn. Perhaps not as lesser as you would like however. But I do grasp the concept that being on the same continium of responsiblity does not make for absolute identity, and my post did not say it did. - ---------------- Gene on Jones: >I never really gave a second thought to her looks. Ella Fitzgerald wasn't exactly a beauty queen, but the woman could sing, which is >fine with me. You know, I was keeping my mouth shut on purpose(Im shooting it off in enough other directions at the moment;-)hoping one of you guys would make this point. Thank you Gene. Holly Cole or Patricia Barber you say. Care to say more? - ---------------- Rex Its now morphed into "Challanging the Rainland Stage." Kay _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:01:37 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: Challanging the World Stage On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Maurer Rose, Inverse Nome wrote: > Exact same intention-reading helmet we Yanks have. Physical evidence, > sworn testemony, reason. What other one is there? So you figure, if Pete really was just doing research, he'll be able to prove it? Forcing people to prove their innocence is a crappy way for a system of justice to run, which is why, in theory, we do things the other way around. If you support massive criminal penalties for people who look at child porn once (whether or not they report it to the authorities immediately) that's fine. But don't think that you can then shrug and say "of course, if he's actually doing it for the good of society he should find his way out". One can't count on the morally deserving finding loopholes as a safeguard in an otherwise overzealous system. a ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:35:19 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Cannibalism Ken "I'm No Queequeg" Kenster writes, > cannibalism seem equally intolerable to me. Man, unless you are butchering someone just to eat them, I have never seen the big deal about cannibalism. And yes, I understand the social taboo aspects, the health aspect, the gross-out factor, the Darwinian angle, and so on. I just don't feel this particular taboo deep in my bones.... If I died, I'd have no problems with my friends dining respectfully on roasted quail. - --The Great "Valentine Michael Smith" Quail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:56:40 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Challanging the World Stage Kay continues her trouncing, > Youre right, I did see alot in what you wrote. But that shows I was paying > attention. And by paying attention I was able to see that you didn't know > much about the effects of "kiddie porn" on the children involved This is just illogical and untrue. You are creating something from nothing, and then running at it full tilt! I merely indicated that chemical castration was not an acceptable solution to one instance of viewing child porn. I used an extreme example -- serial rape -- for a case where I, personally, might find it justified. The fact that you fabricated an entire structure of my knowledge and lack of knowledge in between the two poles, well, that seems to me an overly emotional response. I assume I triggered a few trip wires, entirely by accident. Not to mention the fact that you make the assumption that were I to know the effects of child porn on children, I would naturally agree with your statement. Which I do not! While not undervaluing the devastating effects of child pornography on the children involved, I can still posit and support a different structure of response and punishment than yours. I feel that the perpetrators bear more responsibility than the end-product users; especially when you place these consumers across a spectrum of "disturbingly curious" to "inveterate and sick psychopath." I also feel that *some* "users" of child porn are very likely mentally unbalanced, and more in need of psychological help than chemical castration. Of course, some might be dangerously criminal, and locking them up might be a good solution -- all on a case-by-case basis, and all with due process. There is a subtle but delicate balance between producers and consumers, and it is the responsibility of the law to define it as much as possible. > Now, if you had payed full attention, and carefully read the details of my > last message, you would have seen that I also don't advocate castration for > a single instance of viewing pictures of the rape of infants and small > children either. ??? Child porn may not be rapine or overtly sexual, it might also just be "just" titillating. There's a spectrum there, too. (Not that differing degrees allow for justification! I feel that pre-pubescent humans should not be placed in any sexual contexts within our Western society.) >But it seems the thing you're most intrested in is the > castration theme. I used it partly cause I figured its one of those motifs > that focuses the mind wonderfully. Perhps, I'm learning, too wonderfully. > Its all some people take in and the rest of the message gets lost. Wow. Kay, I find this a very heated and emotional response on your part, and one that also strives to paint me as a "typical male" more concerned with my cock and balls than the innocent victims. Your tone is unusually shrill, self-defensive, and sarcastic: and I don't think I deserve any of this. If you recall, I weighed in rather early that viewing images of child porn was very different than viewing images of an objective, spontaneous event. Hold back, Kay. I am not against you, I just have a different appreciation of the nuances of the argument, and a different notion of the spectrum of applied justice. It does not mean that I am oblivious to the children involved, that I only care about castration, or that I am not listening to you. Respectfully, - --Quail ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #16 *******************************