From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #18 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 018 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Poetic help [Aaron Mandel ] Re: hideous norah and the rolling jellies [Eb ] auteurs, avril [drew ] Re: OK, This Is the Guitar-Pops [Dolph Chaney ] Re: auteurs, avril [Ken Weingold ] Spam & sex [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Rainy Stage in Blowland [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: we were never being boring [hamish_simpson@agilent.com] until proven [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] food for thought [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: Rainy Stage in Blowland ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Eat y'self (and others) fitter ["Rex.Broome" ] The inevitable Miller vs. Morrissey showdown ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: The usual dribs n drabs [Eb ] Re: Tonight (Thursday) on Jay Leno [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Poetic help On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 brian@lazerlove5.com wrote: > I need some help finding 4 syllable words that end in 'ly.' > Like: > Absolutely > Positively > Subsequently > > Words like that. Know any? Can I get any help? ABASEDLY ABERRANTLY ABHORRENTLY ABIDINGLY ABLATIVELY ABNORMALLY ABORALLY ABORTIVELY ABRASIVELY ABSORBINGLY ABSTINENTLY ABSTRACTEDLY ABUNDANTLY ABUSIVELY ABYSMALLY ACCEPTABLY ACCEPTEDLY ACCEPTINGLY ACCESSIBLY ACCORDANTLY ACCORDINGLY ACCOUNTABLY ACCURATELY ACCURSEDLY ACCUSINGLY ACERBICALLY ACOUSTICALLY ACTIONABLY ADAMANTLY ADAPTIVELY ADDITIVELY ADEQUATELY ADHERENTLY ADHESIVELY Uh, that's the limit of my attention span, but if you really want all 5000 words of more than 8 letters ending in LY that my dictionary has (from which I weeded out the non-4-syllable ones) I can mail them to you. a ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:45:15 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: hideous norah and the rolling jellies > > some artists just don't change much from album to album. while they may be >> consistantly putting out great stuff, it can sound too samey to grab me. or >> rather, for me to grab them. > >I don't know how many Dinosaur, Jr. albums I bought before realizing this. Good example. I don't like Dinosaur Jr. nearly as much as I used to, and I think the sameyness of the albums is a big factor. It's pretty hard for me to even make distinctions between Where You Been, Without a Sound and Hand It Over anymore...my mind just mixes them together into one big hazy blob. I haven't heard the Norah Jones album, but I like the single well enough. I can't say she struck me as being particularly "hot," though.... Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:52:29 -0800 (PST) From: drew Subject: auteurs, avril Consistent Artist Syndrome: I never really thought of it as a syndrome, but I have noted that while all the Auteurs albums are more or less equal in terms of quality, _Now I'm A Cowboy_ holds a special place in my heart and CD player because it was the first one I bought. Avril Lavigne: unfortunately my next-cube neighbor likes to play his music loud (I think he thinks I always have headphones on, but I take them off when I really need to think, and of course then I hear *his* music), and "Sk8er Boi," Lavigne's terribly-plausible song about a poor unloved sk8er boi whose girlfriend dumps him and who gets scooped up by Avril herself, comes on all the time. Someone astutely commented that sk8er bois have NO trouble getting laid and have no need of a song lamenting anti-sk8er boi prejudice on the part of haughty uptown girls. Sample lyrics: "he was a boy [boi?] / she was a girl / could I make it any more obvious?" and "he was a sk8er boi / she said see ya later boi", which are the opening and chorus, respectively. My girlfriend tells me she read somewhere that Lavigne is supposed to be the new wave of quality pop or something, which if you've heard this song is complete and total shit. - -- drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/~drew/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:58:08 -0600 From: Dolph Chaney Subject: Re: OK, This Is the Guitar-Pops At 12:07 PM 1/17/2003, Rex.Broome wrote: >That's related to "American Music Club Syndrome"... every record is pretty >much equally good if not great so you end up thinking the first one you >heard is clearly the best. I am apparently immune to this one -- first time I heard them was their EVERCLEAR album, and I went "ugh!" then heard MERCURY and went 'aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah...' (subsequently, I heard and loved all their rekkids, including EVERCLEAR, which I now own and treasure on vinyl). but ah well. dolph who saw Eitzel live this year for the first time in the wee Hideout club, and oh my oh my! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:58:25 -0500 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: auteurs, avril On Fri, Jan 17, 2003, drew wrote: > Consistent Artist Syndrome: I never really thought of it as > a syndrome, but I have noted that while all the Auteurs albums > are more or less equal in terms of quality, _Now I'm A Cowboy_ > holds a special place in my heart and CD player because it was > the first one I bought. Same here. Luke Haines seems to give that album a lot of shit, too. - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:02:42 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Spam & sex >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? there is irony, no?, to spam telling you how to rid yourself of spam. - --- It's slowly dawning on me from all this conversation that if I was in the US I would have been labelled a sex offender. Age of consent in NZ is 16. James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:02:53 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Rainy Stage in Blowland >> > 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? > >From Fretboard Logic, by Bill Edwards: >"There are two primary classes of tunings for stringed instruments. >They are either symmetrical, meaning equal string to string >intervals, or chordal, meaning tuned to a specific chord. For >example, most of the string family, violins, violas, etc., are tuned >symmetrically in 5ths. The electric bass is likewise tuned in >straight 4ths. On the other hand, traditional five-string banjo >tuning is GDGBD, making an open stringed G Major chord, and a pedal >steel is tuned to either an E9th or a C6th chord. The guitar's >tuning system is neither symmetrical nor chordal. It is literally in >a class by itself. The notes EADGBE from bass to treble, result in >intervals of 4th, 4th, 4th, 3rd, and 4th." ah, but you're talking standard tunings. Who wants them? They're so limiting. I couldn't count the number of different tunings I've used on guitar, but it would be over 20. My current favourite (and one that it's virtually impossible not to get beautiful results with) is DADGAD. >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. not sure I agree with this. It does reduce the number of keys that can easily be played in, but most chords can still be played, again with the expedient of the barre chord. Also, the idea of chordally tuned instruments being played with all strings at once begs the question of why the banjo is tuned that way, since surely it's primarily a picking instrument. My guess is that the standard tuning of the guitar developed out of the tuning of other instruments which were symmetrical, like the mandolin. The mandolin's tuning is in 5ths, and as such its 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th pairs of strings are tuned the same (or at octave differences) from the guitar's 6th, 5th, 4th and 3rd strings respectively (G D A E). I believe that the violin's tuning is the same as this, but - never having been able to master the scratchy slidy thing - I don't know this for sure. >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. DADF#AD + 003300 = DAFAAD = Dm James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:07:50 -0700 From: hamish_simpson@agilent.com Subject: Re: we were never being boring TC sed >> I've always thought Ian Astbury is one of rock's >> biggest sh*theads, but he actually exceeded my expectations here. I >> never *dreamed* that he would actually "Doorsmania" up his appearance >> such that he superficially looks like Morrison. > Did you catch the "one-knee-in-the-air" jump he did for the final note? Me > thinks Ian has been studying the old films quite closely. To be fair Ian (along with lots of singers) has been aping Mr Mojo Risin for a long time, including the one knee jump. Is this going to be on again as I forgotted about it? I only want to see it for research purposes you understand! Southern Death Cult, Death Cult and first-two-albums Cult were good but now I agree, he's a big fat poopoohead! I was pissed off to find out there had been a Bauhaus reunion and no one told me. Now I find out Sex Gang Children are playing SF. Hmmmm, must look out my blackest clothing. (H) np goldiesaturnzreturn ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:10:52 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: until proven >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. you mean, like with Iraq? There are logical reasons why we use innocent until guilty - literally logical ones. It's the same reason that courts have verdicts of "guilty or not guilty" rather than "guilty or innocent". Innocence is impossible to prove. I actually had a spiel written about this that I posted to another group about the Iraq business - if anyone's interested I could send it to the list. It boils down to the philosophy of scientific method and the fallacy of attempting to prove a null hypothesis. It applies equally well to attempts to prove that someone was not using child porn for purposes of tittilation - actually even harder to prove (harder than impossible???) since it is impossible to prove what a person is thinking. James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:23:31 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: food for thought >> it is a bit strange that we >> ingest the flesh and milk of other animals; but not our own species. > >isn't oral sex cannabalism? stuff comes off, stuff comes out. you always >get at least a little bit. i wonder if it was ever or could ever become >common to slice off a small piece of your own flesh to give as a gift or >token of affection? And what about nail-biters like me? we're not slowly heading back to the great placenta debate of '99, are we? James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:15:25 -0500 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Rainy Stage in Blowland James Dignan wrote: > > ah, but you're talking standard tunings. Who > wants them? They're so > limiting. James, will you promise me you'll never take up B&W photography? You sound like you have Zonie tendencies. > why the banjo is > tuned that way, since surely it's primarily a > picking instrument. Not old style, which is strummed using, as Peter Stampfel so eloquently puts it, the "fuck you" finger. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 16:10:19 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Eat y'self (and others) fitter On Cannibalism: Taboos aside, isn't the main issue that carnivores/omnivores rarely eat the flesh of other carnivores/omnivores, and that's sort of the way it biologically goes? I'm sure there are exceptions-- most of us eat filter feeders or carnivorous fish-- but I think that's the crux of it. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:47:44 -0500 From: Steve Talkowski Subject: Making of Gollum for non-specialists http://www.lordoftherings.net/index_video_gollum.html This somewhat validates the best supporting actor campaign for Andy Serkis. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:48:14 -0500 From: Steve Talkowski Subject: Re: piece of arse On Friday, January 17, 2003, at 01:02 PM, gSs wrote: > isn't oral sex cannabalism? stuff comes off, stuff comes out. you > always > get at least a little bit. uhm... exactly what form of oral sex are you engaging in where "stuff" comes off?? nevermind, i don't wanna know. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 17:00:03 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: The inevitable Miller vs. Morrissey showdown Drew: >>"Undistinguished" is just WRONG WRONG WRONG, of course :), and I can't >>imagine anyone who liked the Smiths not liking at least *one* solo >>Morrissey song. I kinda do like some of his solo songs. Not enough to buy even a "Best of", but, you know, most folks love or hate him and I'm kinda lukewarm. But-- and here I'm in for it big time-- Morrissey himself was to my mind just THIS far from being a major liability to the Smiths. Oh shit... here it comes... See, Morrissey with the Smiths had the novelty of an original voice, but even by the end of their run his schtick had become really predictable. And the problem really is that he's not a musician. Now, I will cop to a mild (NOT severe) distaste for non-instrumental vocalist frontpersons, but I'm not about to say they are by definition not musicians. Both my wife and Blatzman, who filled such a role in one of my bands, would bitchslap me for that, and I love too many bands with that format. But Morrissey, now... You know Eb's gripe about Scott Miller and his short melodic attention span, and meandering recursive such-and-such? Doesn't bother me in Miller's case since he writes the music as well and it all reads as part of a single construction to me. And granted, Morrissey's voice is tons better than Miller's. But while I've never read much about Mozza's writing process, from what I hear I'd almost guarantee he usually has his lyrics (and song titles!) written before he even hears the musical piece they go with. So you get these awkward clustered logjams of words in the middle of the lines, or just as often some extraneous "ooh-oh ooooh-oohh"'s at the end of the line when the words run out. If the musical piece is really obviously structured you might get a chorus, but don't count on it. And I hear misplaced rhymes and all kinds of stuff like that. Some find it bracingly unpredictable, but I just as often hear it as sloppy. And the music to his solo material... it's odd to me that, when he doesn't write the music himself, he inevitably chooses collaborators who hew so closely to the model of his old band. I'm hard-pressed to think of a similar artist (non-instrumentalist songwriter) who has deviated less in style from record to record. And sadly, this has kind of dulled my appreciation for the Smiths over time. I have all their proper albums, but I'm much more likely to listen to (obviously) the Bunnymen or even old U2 than the Smiths. Blasphemy, I know, but of course I am a witch. >>If you were to have another look (which you shouldn't, since we've established our tastes as polar opposites :)) Not polar opposites, my friend... but perhap exactly 90 degrees apart? _____ Ken: >>I remember getting the self-titled Echo album when it came out and not >>thinking much of it. Many years later I listened to it again and it >>really started to like it a lot. And I still like it. I think the >>ending song, All My Life, is beautiful. Interesting thing-- that's the only song left over from the first time they recorded that album with Gil Norton. Half of the other rejected songs show up on the box set and they're only marginally more energetic than the final versions. It's telling, though, that they just recorded the same songs again... they really didn't care. Oddly "Porcupine" was apparently just as hard for them to finish, but the end result was quite passionate and gripping. Anyhow. _______ Eb: >>I thought Frosting on the Beater was a major, major disappointment (clearly, >>the Posies overstudied their reviews, and were exasperated by the >>formulaic band comparisons which Dear 23 drew) I came late to the Posies bandwagon, although I remember being surprised by the heavy vibe of "Dream All Day" when it came out ("Look, we've been from Seattle all along!"). However, when I worked my way backwards through their catalog I found "Frosting" to be my favorite. I like "Dear 23" but I feel the clean production throws some of the lyrical groaners into starker relief than I'd like... plus I can't look at the band photo on the sleeve without cringing. I agree with your take on "Disgrace", though, but I liked "Success" quite a bit. Anyhow, lemme know how much to send where for some Thin White Rope. Thanks! Rex ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 01:53:45 +0000 From: "Maurer Rose, Inverse Nome" Subject: Re: Challanging the World Stage Aaron: >So you figure, if Pete really was just doing research, he'll be able to >prove it? Well, I agree with Sabina that its better to talk about issues than people, but since you didnt properly hear what I'd previously said, I will repeat myself. Evidence would probobly support he was doing research if he has been telling the truth so far. The manuscript for his book, notes he's taken on all this, sworn testimony by others(like the personal assistent he says he told to call the police, the police person who received that call, etc) letters, no trace of his having payed for any similar sites. It might not prove he was doing research but would support it, and that would make a difference. 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. He has admitted to paying for a site it was illegal to pay for. The police have a record of him paying for this site. By the letter of the law he is guilty. But almost no law is just its letter. Extenuating circumstances are recognized to exist, and should be recognized to exist, because reality will always be full of more possibiblities than the law can pre-determine. Hence the phrase, extenuating circumstances. If there are extenuating circumastances then yes, his defense needs to present them in court. >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. If you read my long message carefully, you will see I support a fine for a first offense, with rapidly escalating penalties for further offenses. 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". If you had read me more carefully, you would have seen that I support him being fined if he only went on this one site one time. One can't count on the morally deserving finding loopholes as a >safeguard in an otherwise overzealous system. Why not? Intention, as determined by evidence, does count legally. If it didnt 2nd and 1st degree murder would be considered more closely the same. - ---------------- Now on to Quail Quail, >I also feel that *some* "users" of >child porn are very likely mentally unbalanced, and more in need of >psychological help than chemical castration. Agreed. My guess is they all are in need of psychological help. As is true in many crimes. But like it or not, the way the Brit and American judicial systems work is to have an insanity defense, but nothing less global. Im not going to argue about whether this is just or stupid or what(I think its got biiig problems but one long argument at a time is enough for me;-) because this is the system that we have to work with. But the fact is that nothing this society can do seems to be able to derail people with a sexual yen for children. "Help" dosnt seem to help, hence the unusal amount of repeat offenders. If these people don't act on their desires, there is no crime. If they do act, either by paying for kid porn(notice I didnt say viewing) or by helping to create kid porn or by harming a kid, they have commited a crime. >and one that also strives to paint me as a "typical male" more >concerned >with my cock and balls than the innocent victims. Quail, this is weird, who -are- you talking to? I swear on, not only the Bible, but also Soft Boys(!?!)that that didn't even enter my mind. But again, I think, you're betraying a lack of knowledge on the subject. Woman are in the child porn business. Woman can be molesters. In fact, theres a whole sub-problem of boys inappropriatly seduced or played with by older woman that is not taken as seriously as it should be by our culture because it fits some of our culture's fantasies too well. But the reality is that it can be damaging for the boys involved. And besides, it would never occur to me that least of all you, or actually, most Feg dudes, are typical anything:-) >Your tone is unusually shrill, self-defensive, and sarcastic: and I >don't >think I deserve any of this. By my lights, my tone is only self-defensive because Ive been misread. Also, I'm sounding -less- emotional than you. Plus, I have only used sarcasm is response to sarcasm. What you're not used to from me is that Im not hedging my bets on this one. Usually I use alot of "sort ofs", "kind ofs" "maybes" etc when exploring a position. But Im not exploring a position here. Im stating it and stating it strongly. I'm sorry you're taking it personally, I have no ill will towards you, quite the opposite in fact. I am arguing with you as a worthy opponant with whom I would hope to have a beer with afterwards. This is something I know alot about, and yes, probobly more than most people. The novel Ive been working on for the last year is about two cousins who were both molested as children by a common grandfather. I've done my homework. I would wager I know more about all this than most. >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. I never said that you were oblivious to the children, nor ever would. I repect you too much for that. I choose my words carefully. And if someone misreads what I have said, I consider it kosher to tell them to go back and look at the message they have misread. I don't see that as an over-the-top or emotional response, I see it as a rational one. >Yes, I do know that you did not advocate castration for one instance. It >was your seemingly cavalier attitude that prompted my response. Thank you for clarifying that. I guess one man's cavalier is just another's roundhead, since I could also be accused of being puritanical;-p And we agree about cannabalism. If I had died and those around me were starving, I would hope they'd help themselves. I mean, Im dead. What do I care? And what about boogies? Peace and a beer Kay _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 20:33:37 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: The usual dribs n drabs Quoting gSs : > 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 > > 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? I was distinguishing between someone actually abusing a physical person, and someone contributing indirectly to that abuse by paying to view images of that abuse. I was not attempting to draw degrees of child abuse per se. Can we talk about something else now? ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: it's not your meat :: --Mr. Toad ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 18:46:19 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: The usual dribs n drabs >Can we talk about something else now? Please. :( Eb ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 20:48:42 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Tonight (Thursday) on Jay Leno Quoting matt sewell : > Yeah right - the Morrison Doors albums pale in comparison to Full > Circle... > > The Doors without Jim are just embarrassing. Whereas "death and my cock are the world" isn't? The main problems I have with Morrison's lyrics are: (1) he seriously needed an editor: for every good line there are five to ten mediocre ones, with probably several outright awful lines like the above thrown in; (2) he took himself *way* too seriously. Or maybe I'm missing something, and it's his fans who take him way too seriously (or both. On the latter, though, everyone should hear "Doors" by Bruce McCulloch...). I've heard only a little of the post-Morrison Doors - and it seems Manzarek, at least, remains convinced to this day of Morrison's utter genius. But going back to the album I quote from above: a lot of the stuff on _American Prayer_ would work pretty well as instrumentals - but then Jimbo starts blathering on top and wrecks it. That said, I'll acknowledge he had two things going for him: he did have talent, both as a writer and a singer, although both would have been developed so much better in an era that prized craft to a higher degree than it did spontaneity. He also was undeniably charismatic. So there you go: the Doors without Morrison (from the beginning, I mean) probably would have produced some interesting music, and if they found another good singer, might have achieved some minor success. But they probably wouldn't have been huge. ..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: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 21:01:38 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: Challanging the World Stage Quoting "Maurer Rose, Inverse Nome" : > 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. But the problem (as Jeff Dwarf pointed out, or at least implied) is that rape is not a crime of arousal but a crime of violence, done from a desire to do or see damage to another person. Take away the specifically sexual component, and the rapist will still violate another. Chemical castration assumes that the problem is unconstrained sexuality - and at root, I think, assumes that sexuality is, unless constrained, inherently wrong or bad. Whereas almost anyone who's studied and treated rapists knows that while sex*ism* is often a huge component in the rapist's psyche, the problem is that his sexuality itself is warped and twisted and intertwined with power and violence and violation. I'm not sure that chemical castration wouldn't just frustrate the person further. I think rape should be treated as an extremely serious and violent crime. I no more favor chemical castration for rapists than I do amputation (or chemical paralysis) for muggers. The other comment I'd make regards your words about the adult being raped by the stranger in the alley, and that adult's presumed ability to process that crime. I suppose - but most rapes, of course, are committed by persons *known to* the victim, not by strangers - which means they also include an enormous violation of trust which is not present in the prototypical Creep in the Alleyway scenario. Still, your point that adults are better equipped to deal with such traumas than are children is certainly true. ..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_ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #18 *******************************