From: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org (jewel-digest) To: jewel-digest@smoe.org Subject: jewel-digest V14 #2 Reply-To: jewel@smoe.org Sender: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-jewel-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk jewel-digest Saturday, January 16 2010 Volume 14 : Number 002 * If you ever wish to unsubscribe from this digest, send an email to * jewel-digest-request@smoe.org with ONLY the word * unsubscribe in the BODY of the email * . * For the latest news on what Jewel is up to, go to * the OFFICIAL Jewel web site at http://www.jeweljk.com * and click on "calendar" * . * PLEASE :) when you reply to this digest to send a post TO the list, * change the subject to reflect what your post is about. A subject * of Re: jewel-digest V12 #___ gives fellow list readers * no clue as to what your message is about. Today's Subjects: ----------------- [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? [jewelblues@aol.com] Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? [Miguel Gonzalez ] RE: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? ["Pupecki, Stacy" ] Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? [Sasafrass452 ] Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? [EN ] Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? [mikasteve@mac.com] Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? [Larry Greenfield ] Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? [stuartndee@aol.com] Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? [Sasafrass452 ] Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? ["Kiera @ JKF" ] Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? ["Dave McGovern" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:21:50 EST From: jewelblues@aol.com Subject: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? Say it's NOT so. But according to PLAYBOY...JEWEL has agreed to do an issue. Whether she is doing this to donate the money to her Humanitarian Causes seems retro to her original psyche. I do not think adding to the exploitation in the mass media is a great idea even if it helps those with LESS. I could be wrong. But having to do Playboy to give people WATER seems quite pathetic in terms of Our Society. I do NOT blame Jewel,. I blame the indifference of MAN toward MAN. It is part of the current trend in Affluence. And if her doing Playboy is just for publicity ]she is free to do as she pleases. But my respect for her reaching as she has called it "Higher Consciousness" doesn't include a nude shoot. Unless she no longer is a private person and is now into exhibitionism/ Interesting. DAVE ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:31:55 -0500 (GMT-05:00) From: Miguel Gonzalez Subject: Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? While I don't know the veracity of Jewel's appearance, keep in mind that PLAYBOY seems to be willing to adjust to the wishes of their subjects. Chelsea Handler was on a recent cover, was the subject of an interview, but had no pictorial to speak of inside the issue. Similarly, Olivia Munn (G4TV) had a cover last summer and her pictorial was even tamer than most shoots one can find in MAXIM. So I would say the jury is still out until the issue actually is printed. - -----Original Message----- >From: jewelblues@aol.com >Sent: Jan 15, 2010 2:21 AM >To: jewel@smoe.org >Subject: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? > > >Say it's NOT so. But according to PLAYBOY...JEWEL has agreed to do an >issue. > >Whether she is doing this to donate the money to her Humanitarian Causes >seems retro to her original psyche. I do not think adding to the >exploitation in the mass media is a great idea even if it helps those >with LESS. >I could be wrong. But having to do Playboy to give people WATER >seems quite pathetic in terms of Our Society. I do NOT blame Jewel,. >I blame the indifference of MAN toward MAN. It is part of the current >trend in Affluence. And if her doing Playboy is just for publicity >]she is free to do as she pleases. But my respect for her >reaching as she has called it "Higher Consciousness" doesn't >include a nude shoot. Unless she no longer is a private >person and is now into exhibitionism/ Interesting. > >DAVE ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:23:50 -0800 From: "Pupecki, Stacy" Subject: RE: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? so I guess she's not pregnant. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-jewel@smoe.org [mailto:owner-jewel@smoe.org] On Behalf Of jewelblues@aol.com Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 2:22 AM To: jewel@smoe.org Subject: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? Say it's NOT so. But according to PLAYBOY...JEWEL has agreed to do an issue. Whether she is doing this to donate the money to her Humanitarian Causes seems retro to her original psyche. I do not think adding to the exploitation in the mass media is a great idea even if it helps those with LESS. I could be wrong. But having to do Playboy to give people WATER seems quite pathetic in terms of Our Society. I do NOT blame Jewel,. I blame the indifference of MAN toward MAN. It is part of the current trend in Affluence. And if her doing Playboy is just for publicity ]she is free to do as she pleases. But my respect for her reaching as she has called it "Higher Consciousness" doesn't include a nude shoot. Unless she no longer is a private person and is now into exhibitionism/ Interesting. DAVE Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or re-transmit this email. If you have received this email in error, please notify us by email by replying to the sender and by telephone (call us collect at +1 202-828-0850) and delete this message and any attachments. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance. In addition, Danaher and its subsidiaries disclaim that the content of this email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, any contract or agreement or any amendment thereto; provided that the foregoing disclaimer does not invalidate the binding effect of any digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is included in any attachment to this email. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:31:52 -0500 From: Sasafrass452 Subject: Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? Not YET, anyway.... ;) On 01/15/2010 11:23 AM, Pupecki, Stacy wrote: > so I guess she's not pregnant. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 10:06:07 -0800 From: EN Subject: Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? Lol. Well if she does it I may buy a playboy for the first time ever. I'll reserve my comments till we find out what kind of feature she will do. I really doubt she'll be nude. Elizabeth On Jan 15, 2010, at 9:31 AM, Sasafrass452 wrote: > Not YET, anyway.... ;) > > > > On 01/15/2010 11:23 AM, Pupecki, Stacy wrote: >> so I guess she's not pregnant. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:48:23 -0800 From: mikasteve@mac.com Subject: Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? I really hope this isn't true. I would feel embarrassed to be a fan effectively. I try not to be judgmental of others, but when your entire life and career has been about things that are very different, why do that? Surely this is not true? I can't find confirmation anywhere. I really hope it's not true. Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-jewel@smoe.org [mailto:owner-jewel@smoe.org] On Behalf Of > jewelblues@aol.com > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 2:22 AM > To: jewel@smoe.org > Subject: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? > > > Say it's NOT so. But according to PLAYBOY...JEWEL has agreed to do an > issue. > > Whether she is doing this to donate the money to her Humanitarian > Causes > seems retro to her original psyche. I do not think adding to the > exploitation in the mass media is a great idea even if it helps those > with LESS. > I could be wrong. But having to do Playboy to give people WATER > seems quite pathetic in terms of Our Society. I do NOT blame Jewel,. > I blame the indifference of MAN toward MAN. It is part of the current > trend in Affluence. And if her doing Playboy is just for publicity > ]she is free to do as she pleases. But my respect for her > reaching as she has called it "Higher Consciousness" doesn't > include a nude shoot. Unless she no longer is a private > person and is now into exhibitionism/ Interesting. > > DAVE > > > Please be advised that this email may contain confidential information. > If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or > re-transmit this email. If you have received this email in error, > please notify us by email by replying to the sender and by telephone > (call us collect at +1 202-828-0850) and delete this message and any > attachments. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and assistance. > > In addition, Danaher and its subsidiaries disclaim that the content of > this email constitutes an offer to enter into, or the acceptance of, > any > contract or agreement or any amendment thereto; provided that the > foregoing disclaimer does not invalidate the binding effect of any > digital or other electronic reproduction of a manual signature that is > included in any attachment to this email. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:22:58 -0800 From: Larry Greenfield Subject: Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? Yay! A thread! In my concededly limited personal perspective, I think that lighting a match in the darkest places can shed the most light. In other words, if Jewel can reach an audience that otherwise would just "look" objectively (i.e., lasciviously) at her (or other people) and would not care to know anything about her, and if she does not allow herself to be physically exploited by the presentation and layout of the proposed piece (excuse the bad puns), then she has a chance to raise consciousness. (A potentially BIG chance.) That is a good thing, I think. It's easy to appear in all the Yoga and New Age journals and get snaps from people who already agree with your message; it is quite another to open (or re-open) new or jaded eyes to greater and higher possibilities. I know nothing about her decision or the details of this "alleged" project, but I am not discouraged - YET - by what the EDAs have let us know so far. And I am willing to give Jewel the benefit of the doubt on this one, as usual (as almost always?). I know that Jewel's mom, Lenedra, had been exploring projects with Gloria Steinem a few years back; does the fact that "Ms." S -- a pioneer of human rights -- was once a Playboy Bunny disqualify her as a messenger of truth and light? (That's a rhetorical question.) Just my food-stamp two-cents' worth. Fire away. - -=-Larry-=- On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 9:48 AM, wrote: > > I really hope this isn't true. I would feel embarrassed to be a fan effectively. > > I try not to be judgmental of others, but when your entire life and career has > been about things that are very different, why do that? > > Surely this is not true? I can't find confirmation anywhere. I really hope it's not true. > > Steve ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:31:51 EST From: stuartndee@aol.com Subject: Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? Dave please show us where you found this news!! I cant find it anywhere In a message dated 1/15/10 11:02:43 AM, jewelblues@aol.com writes: > > Say it's NOT so. But according to PLAYBOY...JEWEL has agreed to do an > issue. > > Whether she is doing this to donate the money to her Humanitarian Causes > seems retro to her original psyche. I do not think adding to the > exploitation in the mass media is a great idea even if it helps those > with LESS. > I could be wrong. But having to do Playboy to give people WATER > seems quite pathetic in terms of Our Society. I do NOT blame Jewel,. > I blame the indifference of MAN toward MAN. It is part of the current > trend in Affluence. And if her doing Playboy is just for publicity > ]she is free to do as she pleases. But my respect for her > reaching as she has called it "Higher Consciousness" doesn't > include a nude shoot. Unless she no longer is a private > person and is now into exhibitionism/ Interesting. > > DAVE ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:17:12 -0500 From: Sasafrass452 Subject: Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? I asked Jewel about this on Twitter. Stay tuned.... On 01/15/2010 03:31 PM, stuartndee@aol.com wrote: > Dave please show us where you found this news!! I cant find it anywhere > > In a message dated 1/15/10 11:02:43 AM, jewelblues@aol.com writes: > > >> Say it's NOT so. But according to PLAYBOY...JEWEL has agreed to do an >> issue. >> >> Whether she is doing this to donate the money to her Humanitarian Causes >> seems retro to her original psyche. I do not think adding to the >> exploitation in the mass media is a great idea even if it helps those >> with LESS. >> I could be wrong. But having to do Playboy to give people WATER >> seems quite pathetic in terms of Our Society. I do NOT blame Jewel,. >> I blame the indifference of MAN toward MAN. It is part of the current >> trend in Affluence. And if her doing Playboy is just for publicity >> ]she is free to do as she pleases. But my respect for her >> reaching as she has called it "Higher Consciousness" doesn't >> include a nude shoot. Unless she no longer is a private >> person and is now into exhibitionism/ Interesting. >> >> DAVE ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 21:58:34 +0000 (GMT) From: "Kiera @ JKF" Subject: Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? I asked too so hopefully she'll answer one of us. ________________________________ From: Sasafrass452 To: stuartndee@aol.com Cc: jewel@smoe.org Sent: Fri, 15 January, 2010 21:17:12 Subject: Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? I asked Jewel about this on Twitter. Stay tuned.... On 01/15/2010 03:31 PM, stuartndee@aol.com wrote: > Dave please show us where you found this news!! I cant find it anywhere > > In a message dated 1/15/10 11:02:43 AM, jewelblues@aol.com writes: > > >> Say it's NOT so. But according to PLAYBOY...JEWEL has agreed to do an >> issue. >> >> Whether she is doing this to donate the money to her Humanitarian Causes >> seems retro to her original psyche. I do not think adding to the >> exploitation in the mass media is a great idea even if it helps those >> with LESS. >> I could be wrong. But having to do Playboy to give people WATER >> seems quite pathetic in terms of Our Society. I do NOT blame Jewel,. >> I blame the indifference of MAN toward MAN. It is part of the current >> trend in Affluence. And if her doing Playboy is just for publicity >> ]she is free to do as she pleases. But my respect for her >> reaching as she has called it "Higher Consciousness" doesn't >> include a nude shoot. Unless she no longer is a private >> person and is now into exhibitionism/ Interesting. >> >> DAVE ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:08:02 -0500 From: "Dave McGovern" Subject: Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? Maybe it was supposed to be a surprise for Ty? ;-) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kiera @ JKF" To: "EDA" Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? >I asked too so hopefully she'll answer one of us. > ________________________________ > From: Sasafrass452 > > To: stuartndee@aol.com > Cc: jewel@smoe.org > Sent: > Fri, 15 January, 2010 21:17:12 > Subject: Re: [EDA] Re: PLAYBOY? > > I asked Jewel > about this on Twitter. Stay tuned.... > > > > On 01/15/2010 03:31 PM, > stuartndee@aol.com wrote: >> Dave please show us where you found this news!! > I cant find it anywhere >> >> In a message dated 1/15/10 11:02:43 AM, > jewelblues@aol.com writes: >> >> >>> Say it's NOT so. But according to > PLAYBOY...JEWEL has agreed to do an >>> issue. >>> >>> Whether she is doing this > to donate the money to her Humanitarian Causes >>> seems retro to her original > psyche. I do not think adding to the >>> exploitation in the mass media is a > great idea even if it helps those >>> with LESS. >>> I could be wrong. But > having to do Playboy to give people WATER >>> seems quite pathetic in terms of > Our Society. I do NOT blame Jewel,. >>> I blame the indifference of MAN toward > MAN. It is part of the current >>> trend in Affluence. And if her doing Playboy > is just for publicity >>> ]she is free to do as she pleases. But my respect for > her >>> reaching as she has called it "Higher Consciousness" doesn't >>> include > a nude shoot. Unless she no longer is a private >>> person and is now into > exhibitionism/ Interesting. >>> >>> DAVE ------------------------------ End of jewel-digest V14 #2 **************************