From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V12 #22 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, January 21 2003 Volume 12 : Number 022 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: The unsual dribs n drabs [gSs ] RIP [Tom Clark ] Stuff you wouldn't do in real life, ususally ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: Lavigne, Doors, tunings, et al. ["Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a point] Re: RIP ["Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" ] Re: RIP [Tom Clark ] Re: Lavigne, Doors, tunings, et al. [Eb ] Re: Lavigne, Doors, tunings, et al. [Eleanore Adams ] Re: RIP ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: The unsual dribs n drabs [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: rage on omnipotent [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] news you can use ["Michael Wells" ] Re: To the alterna-tuners (James et. al.) [rosso@videotron.ca] desire and action [drew ] Re: rage on omnipotent ["Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" ] Re: Morris***: Which one am I complaining about now? ["matt sewell" ] Re: desire and action [gSs ] Evaluating dribs n drabs ["Maurer Rose, Inverse Nome" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:08:45 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: The unsual dribs n drabs On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > i do not belief that is correct. if watching a child like jon-benet for > > instance, gives a man an erection, the only the think keeping him away > > from other children is the fear of being caught, nothing else. > > Bullshit. I do not try to seduce every woman thoughts of whom might in > some way stir me to an erection. This was true when I was single, of > single women, so there was no "getting caught" to be fearing. i think monogamy is naturally flawed as results have proven and is the result of myth and folkloric tradition kept floating by the invisible friend syndrome along with the hunter-gatherer dominant role mind-set that males have worked so hard at maintaining. if each of these women had tried to seduce you, you would have fallen prey. is it a woman or a child who stirs you to erection. do you not understand the difference? a woman who arouses you from whatever angle is a woman to whom you are sexually attracted. in the right situation, different from the one you happen to be in now, you would have had sex with that woman. a child who aroused you sexually from whatever angle is a child you are sexually attracted to. it is never right under any circumstances to have sex with the child. someone who masterbates while watching filmed adults freely and openly partake in sexual activity, deviant or otherwise, with other adults is a bit different than someone who is sexually aroused by children. people watch things they enjoy. people watch people doing things they enjoy doing themselves. though somewhat odd in my opinion, i see nothing wrong with adults watching adults do most anything to other adults with full consent. i understand the desires of these people because like myself they enjoy engaging in sexual activity, with a consenting adult, not a child. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:22:58 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: RIP Caricaturist Al Hirschfeld http://apnews.myway.com/article/20030120/D7OM4EPO0.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:29:35 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: Stuff you wouldn't do in real life, ususally gSs, then Jeffrey FF: >>>>if watching a child like jon-benet for >>>>instance, gives a man an erection, the only the think keeping him away >>>> from other children is the fear of being caught, nothing else. >>Bullshit. I do not try to seduce every woman thoughts of whom might in >>some way stir me to an erection. Pursuant to this point, doesn't almost all hardcore pornography feature an action that few people actually perform in real life-- withdrawal before male climax? I'm sure there are many other examples, but there's one thing that almost always happens in porn and at least substantially less often in real life. Not that that really advances any argument here, but it does seem glaringly obvious that people are willing if not eager to look at at some stuff they wouldn't do themselves. Videogames really underline this point, don't they? How does "Grand Theft Auto" sell... pretty well, right? Man, even normal porn is weird, though. Does anyone here either actively *like* it, or on the other hand, actively oppose adult consumption/production of this stuff? - -Rex, not holding his breath for a fluffy of proclamations of porn-love from the Feg community ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:32:14 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: And then, on the results of the procreative act Jon: >>Jon and Rani Fetter are happy to announce the birth of Nathaniel Jyunyian >>Fetter on Jan 17, 2003. Congratulations! You can solve the "does he like Robyn" problem shortly after he starts walking. My just-under-two daughter has been happily shaking her tailfeathers to his music for some time now. - -Rex, fegfather of two ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 17:40:27 -0500 From: HSatterfld@aol.com Subject: Re: that horrible 'lavigne' girl & some robyn <> Shh...it's much better this way, so I can continue to see Emm Gryner and Keith Glass shows in venues that seat less than 100 persons. Hollie ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 12:07:53 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: Lavigne, Doors, tunings, et al. >> And Rex, I PROMISE that you've heard at least one song by Avril >Lavigne (I >> thought her name was probably April Levine and that she changed it >until I >> found out that her parents were fundamental Christians somewhere in >> Ontario). It's the one that goes "DA da DA da DA da DA da DA da DA >da >> complicated." She is a truly great lyricist. Lavigne: anagram of "leaving", which is what I tend to do to a room when I hear her music coming from it. >That girl has made it so embarrassing for some of us to be Canadian. whereas you were quite happy to own up to Celine Dion? - --- >Check out the first chapter of "Please Kill Me", the "oral *heh heh* >history" of early punk by Legs McNeill et. al. Series of interviews and >quotes from the participants. There's a long quote by, I think, Gerard >Malanga about Morrison, then a little bullet by Manzarek: "Jim was a >shaman." Next quote starts "Morrison was an asshole"... can't remember who >said that, though. well Malanga's probably still sore that Morrison nicked his style (have a look at photos of GM around '65 and of Morrison circa '68). But yeah, Manzarek seems to be in the minority. Now, to join the threads: I'm surprised no-one's mentioned that Manzarek contributed to "Bedbugs and Ballyhoo" on the "Echo & the Bunnymen" album! >Other than the boneheaded drop-D, I mess around with alternate tuning >occasionally but rarely commit to them sheerly because you really need to >buy the right string guages to keep the tension consistent, and I have >trouble keeping track of what strings I'm low on for my guitars anyway. How >d'you handle this, James? Dedicated guitars for certain tunings? sadly no - I have one resilient and sturdy Ovation, and make sure I keep a whole spare set of strings and extra spares of the three high strings. It can be a problem performing live (ever tried using five different tunings in a one-hour set?), but it is worth it. Admittedly I have the advantage of near-perfect pitch, so tuning takes no time flat. My favourite tunings, FWIW, are standard, dropped D, DADGBD, DADGAB, DGDGBD, EADGAE, DADF#AD, DADDAD, and AAEGAE (weird and drony, but only useful in one key), and I've also been trying DGDGBbD and DAEGBE recently. James PS - thanks to whoever reminded me about Ultra Vivid Scene. np - Rev PPS - congrats to the Fetters! 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: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:52:16 -0800 (PST) From: drew Subject: rage on omnipotent > From: rosso@videotron.ca [Avril L.] > OK, just a bit more. Compared to most of what my 14 year old > daughter and her friends think of as good music she's Janis Joplin. Yeah, I guess, but when I was 14 I was getting into the Cure and Bauhaus and Depeche Mode and Morrissey and some guy named Robyn Hitchcock. Maybe not *Janis Joplin*, but my point is that 14 is plenty old enough to have decent taste in music. > Actual band, not session musicians (though thrust together like Elton > & Bernie), writes (like a 17 year old) her own stuff, didn't succumb > to Arista's initial requests to market herself like Jenny from the > Block, or Brittney. So how is she "marketing herself"? Because she looks and sounds exactly like the bland "modern rock" flavor of BristinaLo to me. > From: "* randi / twofangs.productions *" > > ... Drew, useless trivia perhaps, but did you know Jewel used to go out > with the lead singer of the Rugburns? Oh yes, of course! My girlfriend is from San Diego and really liked the Rugburns, which is why we went to that show in the first place. > From: Ken Weingold [Haines on the Auteurs albums] > I honestly don't remember. I just rememeber him saying something to > the effect that it was crap, and After Murder Park was great. I agree > on the latter, and totally disagree on the former. As I'm sure you do > too. Yeah, pretty much! > - -Ken, almost missed this because of the changed subject Sorry -- when I reply to digests a single subject line seems inadequate. > From: HSatterfld@aol.com > [Lavigne again] > I think this is a fantastic pop album, if you don't like bubble gum pop > then you won't agree. (Then again I always liked "The Pina Colada Song" > so what do I know.) I like bubble gum pop just fine, and for what it's worth I think that Hit Me Baby One More Time song and "Oops I Did It Again" are just fine as bubblegum goes. I find them considerably less annoying than "Sk8er Boi", and at least they never appear to be anything other than thinly veiled songs about sex from a thinly veiled Lolita. But I wouldn't buy records by either "artist." I'll stick to my Olivia Newton-John and my ABBA. I went to see The Hours last night. Some of the script and acting seemed awfully stilted (who says "meant to" instead of "supposed to" in America?), but the supporting cast in particular was terrific (Jeff Daniels was incredibly authentic!), and overall...wow. I can't wait to read the graphic novel adaptation in which Gandalf shows up and exorcises Virginia Woolf! Drew - -- drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/~drew/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 15:58:21 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: Lavigne, Doors, tunings, et al. At 12:07 PM +1300 1/21/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "James Dignan" and whispered: >>quotes from the participants. There's a long quote by, I think, Gerard >>Malanga about Morrison, then a little bullet by Manzarek: "Jim was a >>shaman." Next quote starts "Morrison was an asshole"... can't remember >>who >>said that, though. > >well Malanga's probably still sore that Morrison nicked his style (have a >look at photos of GM around '65 and of Morrison circa '68). But yeah, >Manzarek seems to be in the minority. I just got the ubiquitous Hendrix NYC '68 bootleg where Jim Morrison got on stage. Everything you've heard about it is true. Morrison is stone drunk, and certainly comes off like more of a cretin than a visionary. I'm sorry, drunkenly shouting about wanting to fuck is not poetry. MK (w/a PH) - -- ======== We need love, expression, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to believe that we can fill the round hole of our spirit with the square peg of objective rationale. - Paul Eppinger At non effugies meos iambos - Gaius Valerius Catallus ("...but you won't get away from my poems.") "Moderation in all things, except Wild Turkey." - Evel Knievel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:05:50 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: RIP At 1:22 PM -0800 1/20/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "Tom Clark" and whispered: >Caricaturist Al Hirschfeld > >http://apnews.myway.com/article/20030120/D7OM4EPO0.html Oh, man. That's sad. Part of my childhood was looking for "Nina"s in the Hirschfelds in every Sunday Times Arts & Leisure section. Mike - -- ======== We need love, expression, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to believe that we can fill the round hole of our spirit with the square peg of objective rationale. - Paul Eppinger At non effugies meos iambos - Gaius Valerius Catallus ("...but you won't get away from my poems.") "Moderation in all things, except Wild Turkey." - Evel Knievel ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:19:35 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: RIP on 1/20/03 4:05 PM, Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat at plinth@kupietz.com wrote: > At 1:22 PM -0800 1/20/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is > around called themselves "Tom Clark" and whispered: >> Caricaturist Al Hirschfeld >> >> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20030120/D7OM4EPO0.html > > Oh, man. That's sad. Part of my childhood was looking for "Nina"s in the > Hirschfelds in every Sunday Times Arts & Leisure section. > Ditto. It was always a lot easier than the crossword! - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:25:32 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: Lavigne, Doors, tunings, et al. >Morrison is stone drunk, >and certainly comes off like more of a cretin than a visionary. I'm sorry, >drunkenly shouting about wanting to fuck is not poetry. Ever heard that endless vamp "Rock is Dead," from the Doors rarities box? Oh man, is that dire. Almost listenable. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 16:45:48 -0800 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Re: Lavigne, Doors, tunings, et al. Wait..... drunken shouting about wanting to fuck IS poetry.........that is Most poetry, except drunk shouting about not wanting to die..... eleanore On Monday, January 20, 2003, at 04:25 PM, Eb wrote: >> Morrison is stone drunk, >> and certainly comes off like more of a cretin than a visionary. I'm >> sorry, >> drunkenly shouting about wanting to fuck is not poetry. > > Ever heard that endless vamp "Rock is Dead," from the Doors rarities > box? Oh man, is that dire. Almost listenable. > > Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:39:15 -0500 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Re: RIP >Caricaturist Al Hirschfeld Oddly for some reason I was thinking of him often this last weekend, maybe it's just because I was in NYC and I always think of him as very NY. I actually wondered if he weer still alive, how could I miss a death with all the REAP mongers here! Max _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:18:43 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: The unsual dribs n drabs Quoting gSs : > i think monogamy is naturally flawed as results have proven and is the > result of myth and folkloric tradition kept floating by the invisible > friend syndrome along with the hunter-gatherer dominant role mind-set > that > males have worked so hard at maintaining. Huh? First, who said anything about monogamy? Second, what the hell is "the invisible friend syndrome"? Third, why do you associate monogamy with male dominance? > if each of these women had > tried > to seduce you, you would have fallen prey. I see that Texas has the intention-reading helmet too... > is it a woman or a child who > stirs you to erection. do you not understand the difference? a woman > who > arouses you from whatever angle is a woman to whom you are sexually > attracted. in the right situation, different from the one you happen to > be > in now, you would have had sex with that woman. > it > is never right under any circumstances to have sex with the child. It's hard for me to respond because your replies go so far off from what they're responding to. Of course I understand the difference between a woman and a child - but who said I or anyone was confused on the issue? You claimed the only reason people who are aroused by child porn do not actually rape children is their fear of getting caught, and you implied that this is generally true: you believed the only reason people do not do things they have desires to do is their fear of getting caught or of social consequences. Anyway, you say "in the right situation...[I] would have had sex with" women I'm aroused by. Aren't you forgetting something? They would have to be interested in me as well! Or are you so hung up in caveman/"hunter gatherer" world that you assume I'd just drag them by the hair to a cave somewhere? More importantly, dismissing the situation ("in the right situation...") is dismissing the point: my point was exactly that there are any number of situations - not only fear of getting caught because the action is socially disapproved of - that prevent one's arousal from leading directly to consummation - even if the other party is willing. You might as well have written, "in the right situation, different from the one you're in now, if the child that arouses you were an adult, you would have sex with her." That misses the point completely. And I'm wondering: if you say that that the only thing preventing people who are aroused by children from acting on their desires is their fear of getting caught, doesn't that rule out the whole area of what's right or wrong? How can you write, "it is never right under any circumstances to have sex with a child" when you've just dismissed the notion of ethical agency entirely (it doesn't exist - only fear of getting caught exists)? Or do you assume that if someone feels desire that, if fulfilled, would be wrong and illegal, the fact that they're feeling is at all means they have no sense of right and wrong? You know, you really should watch what you say: in claiming that anyone who *thinks* of doing something wrong *would* do it given the chance (not getting caught, not suffering social disapproval), you're pretty much telling anyone who can read between the lines not to trust you as far as they could throw Orson Welles' coffin...since you obviously apply that belief to yourself as well. ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: I feel that all movies should have things that happen in them :: --TV's Frank ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:53:44 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: rage on omnipotent Quoting drew : > So how is she "marketing herself"? Because she looks and sounds > exactly like the bland "modern rock" flavor of BristinaLo to me. Well, for one thing, she wears clothes. ..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: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 21:21:05 -0600 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: news you can use Yahoo News: "Canadian Avalanche Kills 8 U.S. Skiers" http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030121/ap_on_re_ca/canada _avalanche_3 Betcha it was actually one of them there Iraqi Avalanches of Mass Destruction. In disguise. So when do we invade? Canada, I mean. Hell, there's lots of advantages...it's much closer, for one. Oil derricks in Banff...free range elk...and we could get all those Rush bootlegs totally cheaper. Michael "they all talk funny" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 20:44:50 -0500 From: rosso@videotron.ca Subject: Re: To the alterna-tuners (James et. al.) On 20 Jan 2003 at 12:49, Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a wrote: > I play in open G (DGDGBG) about 70% of the time - no tension problems, but > I did eventually resigned myself to having two guitars just to avoid having > to retune constantly. I keep my favorite guitar in open G, and the beater > in standard. Likewise. Favourite is in DADGAD, beater is in standard. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 23:03:23 -0800 (PST) From: drew Subject: desire and action > From: gSs > > that is a direct contribution. i have to disagree with the seperation. i > believe the makers of these films would love to be partakers and in > addition probably watch these films when they are not involved in the > production. on the other side if there is another side, the buyers and > viewers of these films I believe would just as soon participate activity, > with a camera or without. i see no difference in these people and > therefore see no reason to vary the punishment. Um, except that civilized societies don't punish people for what they _want_ to do, just for what they actually _do_. - -- drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/~drew/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:27:17 -0800 From: "Michael E. Kupietz, wearing a pointy hat" Subject: Re: rage on omnipotent At 8:53 PM -0600 1/20/03, those funny voices I hear when no one else is around called themselves "Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey" and whispered: >Quoting drew : > >> So how is she "marketing herself"? Because she looks and sounds >> exactly like the bland "modern rock" flavor of BristinaLo to me. > >Well, for one thing, she wears clothes. Makeup, too. MK (w/a PH) - -- ======== We need love, expression, and truth. We must not allow ourselves to believe that we can fill the round hole of our spirit with the square peg of objective rationale. - Paul Eppinger At non effugies meos iambos - Gaius Valerius Catallus ("...but you won't get away from my poems.") "Moderation in all things, except Wild Turkey." - Evel Knievel ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:42:25 -0800 From: Eb Subject: re: what else? young naked boys Speaking of musical guests on late-night talk shows, god DAMN did Solomon Burke just rip it up on the Leno show. Wow. Actually gave me goosepimples. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:02:26 +0000 From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: Morris***: Which one am I complaining about now? Couldn't agree more - I got the Nuggets box set for my b'day in Nov, and it hasn't been out of my CD player yet! Matt >From: "Rex.Broome" >Well, I'm just now really realizing-- and largely due to exchanges with >Drew-- that really love '60's bands much, much more than their worthy '80's >followers: you may take my Icicle Works if you must, but you will pry my >Byrds reissues from my cold, dead hands. So the '80's bands I like the most >seem to be the ones that follow most directly from the >garage/folkrock/psych/garage/prepunk blueprint, and yet expand on the >legacy. Thus "Do It Clean" is like "Modern Lovers plus" to me-- a sheer >rock rush that can get by without a whole lot of "melody". Maybe that's my >deal. I dunno. That paints my tastes as more conventional than I think >they are, in a way, but there it is. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ get 2 months FREE* ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 03:01:24 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Lavigne, Doors, tunings, et al. James Dignan wrote: > Now, to join the threads: I'm surprised no-one's mentioned that > Manzarek contributed to "Bedbugs and Ballyhoo" on the "Echo & the > Bunnymen" album! Not to mention producing their version of "People are Strange." I think we just settled for saying that McCulloch would be a better Ian to play Morrison than Astbury. Besides, everyone knows the original version of "B&B" kicks the grey album's versions ass. ===== "Propaganda is that branch of the art of lying which consists in very nearly deceiving your friends without quite deceiving your enemies." -- F.M. Cornford "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! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:25:30 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: desire and action On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, drew wrote: > Um, except that civilized societies don't punish people for > what they _want_ to do, that is not correct. you can be thrown in jail in most of the world including the us for simply making threats against certain individuals, even without truly knowing what they _want_ to do. in addition, people to whom it is determined are a threat to the well being of the general population are often incarcerated. this happens in most if not all the world. i guess earth is composed entirely of uncivilized people who are completely unnatural. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:49:02 +0000 From: "Maurer Rose, Inverse Nome" Subject: Evaluating dribs n drabs Stuff I have learned or hope to learn: !)Sensationalism is its own reward. It dosn't focus the reader's mind on the gist of the argument, it focuses it on the attention-getting item only. So, next time I decide I've come up with interesting bait, I'll remember that most fish will snare the bait but swim off without taking the hook. @)Don't say I know more than others, cause I might not. Sorry all. #)On a LS, is it problomatic if one steps out of character? I wonder if someone who has a habitually forceful persona had advanced my argument if it would have discobaobulated people as much? I don't know. $)So how does one stop people from paying for images of a child being raped or abused? The more people who pay for it, the more children will be hurt. And if it is easily available, there are many cowards who will pay for it, who would never otherwise act on their desires. Some, true, would go out and make their own, but not all are that active and guilt/same-free. The Internet does make it very, very easy. So what measures do Fegs who didn't like mine, advocate? I mentioned perhaps someway of getting the ISPs or credit card companies to do something. No one picked up on that. Or is there some other stradegy that would be more effective. I'm open to ideas here. My ego is smaller than my interest in finding and advocating a workable and effective solutuion. So if anyone has one, I'd love to hear. The demand effects the supply, and the supply involves active child abuse, so discouraging paying, I think, is something we all agree on? - --------------- Brian Hoare: >Did I tell you about the time I was taken up the valley >of the queens by a >tootless guide called Mohammed? And a rooty toot toot thru missing teeth to you. No, --But if we're lucky, you will. R.A. Schwaller De Lubicz, on of the more interesting crankiana authors has written alot about Luxor. Seems its the key to it all, or something like that. And Godwin, awhile ago I had a dream about being in a place called Abydos where said key was. Only, I didn't know what Abydos was and had to do a websearch on it when I woke up. I gather the friezes cover the Isis, Osiris, Horus cycle, which I have always found very compelling. Lordy Id love to travel thru the Middle East. - ------------------ Rex: >Does anyone else find it ironic that one of the few non->pedophile-related >threads on Feg right now concerns the >return of the Sex Gang Children? Me. - ------------- Kay, over her cold, she thinks x _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:54:07 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: The unsual dribs n drabs On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > Quoting gSs : > > > i think monogamy is naturally flawed as results have proven and is the > > result of myth and folkloric tradition kept floating by the invisible > > friend syndrome along with the hunter-gatherer dominant role mind-set > > that > > males have worked so hard at maintaining. > > Huh? First, who said anything about monogamy? i did. it is related entirely to "women to whom thoughts of might give you an erection" or whatever you wrote and why didn't express your these feelings towards the woman, marriage and the single partner complex, and the difference between what is acceptable for an adult to do with or towrards a child and what is not acceptable. it all revolves around sexuality and the unnatural base and means by which it is has been taught and executed in the "civilized societies". > Second, what the hell is "the invisible friend syndrome"? christianity, islam, judaism, to name a few. there are many other besides these major monotheistic cults. > Third, why do you associate monogamy with male dominance? our society has for at least as long as I can remember had a double standard for male and female sexuality. and though it is fading, along with monogamy, there is still that weird pride associated with a father learning that his son has lost his virginity to the pretty girl down the street and the anger the pretty girl's father feels when he learns ralph's son plugged his daughter. and then to compound the whole thing, think about ralph's father, who also has a 15 year old daughter he just caught having sex. it is all related. > I see that Texas has the intention-reading helmet too... just like ya'll. > It's hard for me to respond because your replies go so far off from what > they're responding to. your replies have lead me to believe that you think someone sitting in their home masterbating to child pornography should be left well enough alone unless of course we find dead children buried in the field next to his home. if this is not true then please set it straight. watching child pornography in order to be sexually aroused is not acceptable behavior ever. if i ever witness an adult partaking in this activity in ANY manner, i will call the police and detain said individual until law enforecement arrives. i would hope that you would do the same. > You claimed the only reason people who are aroused by child porn do not > actually rape children is their fear of getting caught, and you implied > that this is generally true: you believed the only reason people do not do > things they have desires to do is their fear of getting caught or of social > consequences. different people have different desires. we could talk for the rest of our lives on this fact alone. some people can be taught and some cannot. wanting to avoid paying some taxes for instance and wanting to have sex with a 7 year old child are two completely different things. if cheating on your taxes is about the extent of your malcontentious thoughts, you can call me and maybe I can help you. if you want to have sex with or watch the 7 year old girl play in her yard as you masterbate, you can call me too and maybe I can help the little girl. > Anyway, you say "in the right situation...[I] would have had sex with" > women I'm aroused by. Aren't you forgetting something? They would have to > be interested in me as well! which of course would be all inclusive in the right situation. > Or are you so hung up in caveman/"hunter gatherer" world that you assume > I'd just drag them by the hair to a cave somewhere? absolutely, that is exactly what i thought you would do. > More importantly, dismissing the situation ("in the right situation...") is > dismissing the point: my point was exactly that there are any number of > situations - not only fear of getting caught because the action is > socially disapproved of - that prevent one's arousal from leading directly > to consummation - even if the other party is willing. that is not natural. or should i say naturally normal. there should be nothing to stop you from at least attempting to consumate your desires. you are defending your ideals using the very thing I believe is a problem. having sex or at least proposing this idea to any adult at any time is your right. "socially disapproved of", oh shit, be careful, someone might be watching and you know what they'll be saying about us at the bingo hall tonight, for example. consenting adults should be allowed to do anything to each other or themselves, without exception. > And I'm wondering: if you say that that the only thing preventing people > who are aroused by children from acting on their desires is their fear of > getting caught, doesn't that rule out the whole area of what's right or > wrong? people do things they believe are wrong all the time. > How can you write, "it is never right under any circumstances to > have sex with a child" when you've just dismissed the notion of ethical > agency entirely (it doesn't exist - only fear of getting caught exists)? my example i believe applied only to people masterbating while watching children. > Or do you assume that if someone feels desire that, if fulfilled, would be > wrong and illegal, the fact that they're feeling is at all means they have > no sense of right and wrong? good people do bad things, but there are certain actions, beyond monetary loss etc.. that have no excuse and deserve retribution and to which there is not an appropriate punishment short of permanent removal from society. child molestation, and child pornography are a couple of these things. if you catch your neighbor masterbating while looking out his window at your 7 year old daughter, what will you do? if you walk to your neighbors door and see him through the window watching child pornography, what will you do? i bet you'll be real confortable next time you see him talking to your daughter. > You know, you really should watch what you say: in claiming that anyone who > *thinks* of doing something wrong *would* do it given the chance (not > getting caught, you should watch more closely what i write. > not suffering social disapproval), you're pretty much > telling anyone who can read between the lines not to trust you as far as > they could throw Orson Welles' coffin...since you obviously apply that > belief to yourself as well. if that makes you more confortable, then so believe it. gSs ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V12 #22 *******************************