From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V4 #217 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk JMDL Digest Sunday, May 16 1999 Volume 04 : Number 217 TapeTree #8 is ready to roll. To sign up go to: http://www.jmdl.com/trading ------- Join the Joni Mitchell Internet Community Glossary project. Send a blank message to for all the details. ------- The Official Joni Mitchell Homepage is maintained by Wally Breese at http://www.jonimitchell.com and contains the latest news, a detailed bio, original interviews and essays, lyrics, and much more. ------- The JMDL website can be found at http://www.jmdl.com and contains interviews, articles, the member gallery, archives, and much more. ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: Saving Our List (NJC) [dsk ] Two Grey Rooms [Zapuppy@webtv.net (Rick & Penny Gibbons)] Re: Saving Our List (NJC) [dsk ] NJC: Save Our List (long but earnest!) [Kate Tarasenko ] Re: Two Grey Rooms [RMuRocks@aol.com] Re: Taming the Tiger (NJC Now) [RMuRocks@aol.com] Re: NJC: Save Our List (long but earnest!) [MGVal@aol.com] Re: Two Grey Rooms [MGVal@aol.com] Re: Taming the TigerNJC [catman ] Re: Two Grey Rooms [luvart@snet.net] Re: Save Our List (long but earnest!) ["Kakki" ] NJC: unsolicited and unwanted email [Diana Duncan ] Re: Two Grey Rooms [Zapuppy@webtv.net (Rick & Penny Gibbons)] Observations from a returning member [Phyliss Ward ] [Fwd: Where Did Our Love Go?] [Phyliss Ward ] Re: Saving Our List (NJC) [Jerry Notaro ] Re: Two Grey Rooms ["Mark or Travis" ] Re: Two Grey Rooms NJC [RMuRocks@aol.com] NATO drops bombs in the adriatic sea (NJC) ["Winfried Hühn" ] Re: Save Our List (still earnest!) NJC [dsk ] Re: Adriatic Sea (NJC) [Vince Lavieri ] Re: Save Our List (still earnest!) NJC ["Kakki" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 03:48:28 -0400 From: dsk Subject: Re: Saving Our List (NJC) Winfried Hühn wrote: > > Still, forwarding such messages to the list will do more harm than good > IMO. ... My thinking is that people would not write offensive private emails if they knew they could be made public (after being forewarned by the recipient). I'm not talking about just one email; everyone has their off days. It's been more of a cumulative effect and ignoring them is not working. I realized that a big part of my sudden recent lack of interest in the list is because of the private emails I've been receiving. It's easy for me to disregard offensive messages that are posted on the list; it's different when they're numerous and privately posted. It makes it not worth the trouble to post anything at all. > Private matters should be dealt with privately. ... > the way to handle this is to complain to that person's ISP > and/or to Les privately. Keeping things secret can just make it easier for destructive behavior to continue. I don't want to contact Les privately about this because I'm not looking for him to "scold" anyone. This seems like a community problem, since I'm not the only one who's ever had this experience, and one that calls for a community solution. In my wishful thinking, I'm picturing an "Offensive Emails" bulletin board, with maybe lots of messages at the start (probably from the same very few people), but within a few months no messages on this bulletin board at all. I'm also thinking that the messages would be forwarded to the list in full and without any comments by the recipient. And without expecting any comment from people on the list about it. To me, just the fact that this could be done (after warning the sender) would keep people from sending such emails. Of course, this may not be a deterrent at all and then the list would be loaded with nasty messages that people might feel compelled to comment on. That would be very destructive to the community spirit, I agree. So I don't know that this is an effective solution and probably sounds horrible, especially to the people who've never received such messages. Kakki wrote: > You can report the offender to his/her ISP and ideally they should intervene > for you to stop that person sending you email. There is also filters on > your own software where you can easily filter out email from the person. I'll probably go the software route for now, but can't see that I have any control over messages received using just Netscape. Is anyone else filtering out messages from particular senders? Do I need to purchase special email software, such as Eudora, in order to do this? I'd appreciate any information about this. And thank you, Kakki, for the legal info. That's very good to know about. Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 01:07:33 -0700 (PDT) From: Zapuppy@webtv.net (Rick & Penny Gibbons) Subject: Two Grey Rooms I get the digest form of the list and tonight's was very sobering. Looks like it's time for us all to pitch in, and post something somewhat pleasant and Joni!!! I'll start, OK? It's really pretty easy! :-) Another lister and I came to the surprizing realization the other day, that we share a common first take of the line from Two Grey Rooms, "And I took these two grey rooms up, with a view". We similarly took this line to be about how our brains have two hemisheres, being grey in color and the different views from of each side of the brain, left being logical and detail oriented, while the right, emotional and creative. Speaking only for myself here, I was a bit disappointed when I heard the actual storyline, because I liked the cerebral version much better. I thought it had a more powerful message with a much larger scope. Did anyone else error as I / we did? And if you did have that same first take, did you give up the larger view when you heard the real story behind it? anyone? anyone? Smiles, Penny ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 04:53:02 -0400 From: dsk Subject: Re: Saving Our List (NJC) Mark in Seattle wrote: > > I think we've probably lost a few people who were great contributors to > the list because of private spats being made public. I can recall only one big argument about emails that had been sent privately. From what I could tell, that was a mutually-enjoyable correspondence relationship that went sour, which is different than my current experience of receiving unwanted email. There are many reasons for people to leave the list, but my guess is that some people leave because of a situation similar to mine. Receiving offensive private email is a problem that keeps popping up on the list and it's very destructive. Debra ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 04:10:05 +0000 From: Kate Tarasenko Subject: NJC: Save Our List (long but earnest!) Well, since I was the most recent offender of the "don't post private mails to the JMDL" rule, and discussion about this has ensued, I'd like to share my motivations behind my action, along with some of my opinions about the issue in general. (Most of these I've already communicated directly to Les.) I had been exchanging private mails with a few listers about this issue, and I'm weary to the point of being talked out, but I felt I would be remiss if I didn't post something about it to the JMDL, since it's through my recent action that things got stirred up. So here goes. First, just to get this out of the way, I didn't break this rule with flagrant disregard. I'm sure I read about it when I first joined the JMDL some two years ago or so, but I didn't know I was breaking any rules at the time that I did so. HOWEVER, that's no defense, it's just for the record. Having said that, I'm not so sure that I'd do anything differently had I been aware of my technical offense. And here's why. I agree with Patrick in his analogy about the hypothetical subway-groping incident. Personally, I felt like I was getting the e-mail equivalent of obscene phone calls. I indeed ignored the unsolicited posts (as someone recently suggested), hoping they'd stop, but they didn't. In fact, they continued on-list! And I did contact the offender's ISP to ask them how I could go about pursuing some deterrent action, a decision I hadn't actually made at that point (and will not take at THIS point), but it was an option I was certainly weighing in my mind. I don't consider Les the JMDL's babysitter, or the arbiter of what goes and what doesn't (outside of the general list rules he's posted). I also agree that not all people take all rules to heart, and some do consider themselves "anonymous" behind their computer screens. (I doubt that people who are in the habit of flaming others would do so in the flesh.) I find it completely stunning and gob-smacking that anyone would resort to any types of flames, ever. And I feel the same way when I get the finger while driving on the highway, or when some stranger walks by and makes a rude remark in a stage-whisper. But of course, it happens, and it makes my heart positively sink when I see it here on the JMDL. Yes, I used the JMDL as traffic court. I consider everyone here peers, and it is WE who are the arbiters of what goes, and what shouldn't. I was aware of my implied imposition on the list when I made the decision to post the private flame. Believe me, I was not comfortable doing so, and it wasn't an automatic or impetuous decision, either. But I was more comfortable doing that and exposing the abuse to our peers than I had been suffering it on my own. My attempts at conciliation on-list went unheeded and, frankly, I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone continue to mail me privately for the express purpose of abusing me, when the discussion, after all, started on-list. I had hoped that "outing" the post would result in better on-list conduct -- that was my sole intent. I did not want to humiliate anyone or demand that the list choose sides. I wanted the abuse to stop. Much to my astonishment, it didn't. But at least I didn't feel that I was under personal attack anymore with the eyes of the JMDL watching. I consider the JMDL an interactive democracy. As such, your delete button works no matter what the content or topic of a post is, so if you don't want to become involved in a private-situation-taken-public, don't. If you do, by golly, come on in, because it's fair game if it's on the JMDL. If you feel offense at having been asked (by implication of a post) to take sides, especially if you suspect that you've only received half the story, then you are always free to ask questions (privately or publicly), and become informed. And, as always, you have the option of simply doing nothing. There is a high degree of caring and intellect on this list, so I trust that people will not feel themselves manipulated into "taking sides"; and if they do, I trust that they will make their feelings or suspicions known, as they should. I know I felt tremendously supported as a result of outing the offending post/er, rather than staring at my computer screen, mouth hanging wide open, feeling violated and infuriated. No one here, NO ONE, should have to endure a fellow lister's private abuse, and it is my strong belief that it's up to us to censure or support each other. That's what my secondary hope was, that people WOULD form and voice their opinions, and things took their course. I trust you guys as a group, and I was, in effect, asking for your collective help. And it's not like this is a bad thing! That's why I stand by my action. I agree, obviously, that, as written, the "no-post" rule protects only the sender, and I'm glad that this rule is being questioned because it doesn't address the POV of the receiver of a flame. I'm not especially concerned about questions of legality which were raised, although surely they exist. But as we are a self-moderating list, Joni@Smoe-dot-Org is apparently staying out of our way. As far as outing someone who is pirating another person's e-mail account goes, I can only guess that such a person has far greater problems to worry about (legally- speaking) than being outed on-list as a flamer. (And if the person is using another person's account with the owner's consent, then the user has the same responsibilities as the owner with regard to conduct, IMO.) It's not that I'm thin-skinned, or that I petulantly ratted on a fellow lister to throw him to the lions, or outed him meekly because I can't stand up for myself and wanted protection. I took the deliberate action I did because I was OUTRAGED, and I will not allow myself to be violated this way by another JMDLer. And as fellow members of the JMDL, I believe (IMHO) that it is YOUR business, too. The tone of the JMDL is everyone's concern. I do realize that not everyone chooses to be concerned about it, however, especially if a post or thread doesn't affect or appeal to them directly. And each person has his/her own opinion and preference as to how they would deal with a private flame (given a choice), just as the level of offensiveness is a matter of personal degree. As fellow J-listers, I respect your decisions and choices, but I absolutely wanted the light of day shed on what I considered a problem -- I wanted the issue behind this problem to be fair game! And it's a problem that has affected many people here in the past (though I sincerely hope that private flame wars are the exception, rather than the standard). Does outing an offensive post have a chilling effect on "free speech"? If it's a post that attacks the person rather than the debate, that kind of speech deserves to be "chilled." Your rights end where mine begin. Tearing apart an issue is great; tearing apart a PERSON is not. The JMDL is indeed a sanctuary, and respect should flow in all directions, AT ALL TIMES. When it doesn't, I, for one, want to hear about it! I know there are many kinds of people here and just as many diverse ways of communicating. But I don't believe it's expecting too much to see that a certain level of good behavior is enforced, and I don't think it's asking too much to see that poor behavior, which is directed at someone PERSONALLY, is sanctioned. (Should this be done publicly? Perhaps that is not the best way, but perhaps it is the most fair way.) I feel like I've put you through a chore by "asking" you to read my long and windy post -- I'm sorry I didn't edit it better, so if you got this far, thanks. And thanks to those of you who have supported me or my views privately and/or publicly. Many of us will continue to disagree on this topic, but I hope that my own motives and intentions are clearer and less offensive to you now. A hit-and-run driver, no, no! I come for conversation... Kate in CO ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 12:46:49 +0100 From: "Paul Castle" Subject: Taming the Tiger God! You think this list has got problems - you should see what they're discussing over on HWY61-L (the Bobbydiddle). Somebody wrote: >>> As a conservative (more or less) I am more worried about gratuitous sex >>>than gratuitous violence Don't let's even go there!! So how has 'Taming the Tiger' been going down around the world? Anyone seen any reviews? Found this in the latest issue of Rock 'n' Reel - I hope she gets to see it too and it encourages her to come back to the UK for at least one more tour. Not likely I know but I hate the thought of never seeing her 'live' again. JONI MITCHELL - TAMING THE TIGER Throughout her remarkable career Joni Mitchell has vigorously maintained a personal and universal appeal without ever compromising her artistic vision. In this latest work, the poetic imagery and emotion which has charmed and dazzled listeners for over three decades is as rich and profound as we have come to expect from a unique singer-songwriter. It's usesless to compare previous albums. Each one, standing alone, reflects a time and place along her private road. Joni Mitchell has always been a moving light - shifting and changing and continually growing. The jazz feel she developed years ago is still evident in the album's style but, for me, the substance of her voice and words, maturing like vintage wine, have always been the hallmark of her class. Don't just listen to these new songs; read and study them at the same time, and allow the glory of a true poet to weave her spell. As ever, they contest and question and reveal the rigour and beauty of life with canny, striking observations. In my reckoning 'Keep in Touch', 'No Apology', 'Love Puts on a New Face', Taming the Tiger' and 'Face Lift' are classic creations. Abetted by quality musicians and arrangements, this is Joni Mitchell's 'best to you'. But then, what else would you expect? And indeed, what next on this great, long, shining road? Another corner, I pray! Noel Hodgson Rock 'n' Reel btw Rock 'n' Reel is a great little magazine for all interested in 'roots, rock, blues and beyond' with loads of reviews and, in the latest issue, interviews/features about artists as diverse as Taj Mahal, Nanci Griffith, Martin Carthy, Country Joe McDonald, Peter Green, Donal Lunny, Cherish the Ladies, The Levellers etc etc. I'd be happy to supply details to anyone interested. PaulC pdcmusic@freeuk.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 08:23:21 EDT From: RMuRocks@aol.com Subject: Re: Two Grey Rooms Penny spends her thoughts: << Speaking only for myself here, I was a bit disappointed when I heard the actual storyline, because I liked the cerebral version much better. I thought it had a more powerful message with a much larger scope. Did anyone else error as I / we did? And if you did have that same first take, did you give up the larger view when you heard the real story behind it? >> Penny, please don't think you "erred" because you give Two Grey Rooms more scope than the story behind it - Even Joni herself says that what matters is what YOU pull from the words and your application and interpretation, so there's no error, I don't think your "feelings" can be wrong...that's how you feel! The cerebral concept of the song has been discussed before as well, so others have thought the same. When I wrote a bit ago about C&S as a song cycle, others said that "Free Man" was a song about David Geffen, "Trouble Child" was about Crosby, etc. That all may be true, but it doesn't change the way I feel those songs. Same thing with "Man From Mars", knowing it's about a cat doesn't stop me from looking at the song through a much larger lens and seeing a person crying from ANY type of separation. That's the beauty of Joni's stuff; she supplies the frames and some color, and we get to put our own visions inside... Bob NP: Tom Waits, "Picture In A Frame" ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 08:30:48 EDT From: RMuRocks@aol.com Subject: Re: Taming the Tiger (NJC Now) In a message dated 5/16/99 6:48:42 AM Central Daylight Time, Paul says: << Rock 'n' Reel is a great little magazine for all interested in 'roots, rock, blues and beyond' with loads of reviews and, in the latest issue, interviews/features about artists as diverse as Taj Mahal, Nanci Griffith, Martin Carthy, Country Joe McDonald, Peter Green, Donal Lunny, Cherish the Ladies, The Levellers etc etc. I'd be happy to supply details to anyone interested. >> Thanks for this review, Paul...this guy is definitely one of us!!! ;~) And thanks for the details on the magazine - after 25 years or so of subscribing to Rolling Stone, I find I'm reading it less & less and that the music they cover (Rob Zombie, Eminem, Brittney Spears, etc.) is stuff I couldn't care less about. The only thing I really enjoy is Peter Travers' movie column, so I may look for a music mag and a movie mag. If anybody has any other periodical recommendations, I'd be interested to hear... Bob ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 09:17:09 EDT From: MGVal@aol.com Subject: Re: NJC: Save Our List (long but earnest!) In a message dated 99-05-16 06:09:01 EDT, netgirl@ctos.com writes: >I feel like I've put you through a chore by "asking" you to read my long >and windy post -- I'm sorry I didn't edit it better, so if you got this >far, thanks. I think that some of the thanks goes to you: for this clear and concise post and for the rational way that you made your decision. I'm sure it could not have been easy. I've been a member for a long time and have always been amazed at the cycles of intense Joni content and intense NJC. I've seen the list "scraped flat by the roller of wars, wars, wars." For the latter, I've often read back towards the start to ponder how in the heck it could have been avoided and then felt that avoidance was not necessarily a good thing. The flames always brought me a lesson in tolerance, respect and the power of words. While talking with no one in particular about this recent discussion of posting private mail or not, I wondered about some sort of addendum to the "no posting private mail" rule. Something that would remind people that personal abuse stands the chance of being made public. For me, the clincher is that most mature and kind list members would instinctively know that one does not post private mail, thus making such a rule a bit unnecessary. Those that would need it, probably wouldn't pay attention to it anyway. And so you get someone like Kate or WallyK or Colin smack dab on the horns of a dilemma. I remember the last two problems quite well and I would have to say that each of them resolved it in the best possible manner because they both learned lessons from them. As did I in a peripheral way. A classic safety net for abusers is the security that they will not be exposed. There are different ways to say "No!" from the delete button to filters to public exposure. And I think that the self-governing qualities of the list would keep the latter from being used for petty wars. And like all flames, it requires food to continue. As a list, we can decide whether it gets the gravy, the gristle, the marrow bone or nothing. MG - working in both Slyvia Plath and Joni content..... (:-D ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 09:38:39 EDT From: MGVal@aol.com Subject: Re: Two Grey Rooms In a message dated 99-05-16 04:10:02 EDT, Zapuppy@webtv.net writes: >Speaking only for myself here, I was a bit disappointed when I heard the >actual storyline, because I liked the cerebral version much better. While listening to WTRF, I had a sudden thought not too dissimilar to Penny's "different" interpretation of "Two Grey Rooms." Within the concept of the two sides of the brain, I started thinking about two of the songs being about Joni herself: "Man to Man," (a bit more obvious) and then "Ladies' Man," (maybe not as obvious). Given her dual nature and her very strong and exclusive bonds to her muse, ("I feel like I'm married to this guy Art," I can remember reading in a cover story in Time or Newsweek way too many darn years ago), wouldn't she be in one in "Ladies' Man" who is not only "so hot," but "so cold, so cold," as well? Can't one side of her battle with the side that surrenders to love? Might she not always be at war with "what are you going to let love be?" (there's another song where I see Joni as the main subject of the song). The discussion of songs always reminds me of a James Taylor lyric: "painters use their eyes to tell us what they see, when that canvas dries we all see it differently." Lastly, before I hang it up for today, this bit from Van Morrion's new CD, "Back on Top" jumped out at me, vis-a-vis our many, many discussions on Joni and "what does she mean." The song is "New Biography" and it goes in part: "reinvented all the stories they know Give them all a different slant What is it that they're really looking for Just a hobby on the Internet" And I thought: "busted!" MG np: "Reminds Me of You" Van Morrison "I miss you so much, I can't stand it Seems like my heart, is breaking in two My head says no, but my soul demands it Everything I do, reminds me of you" What a tearjerker!!!!!!! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 15:32:33 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Taming the TigerNJC Paul Castle wrote: > God! You think this list has got problems - you should see what they're > discussing over on HWY61-L (the Bobbydiddle). Somebody wrote: > >>> As a conservative (more or less) I am more worried about gratuitous sex > >>>than gratuitous violence But isn't that a normal conservative stance? > ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 11:54:00 -0400 From: luvart@snet.net Subject: Re: Two Grey Rooms At 01:07 AM 5/16/99 -0700, Rick & Penny Gibbons wrote: >Another lister and I came to the surprizing realization the other day, >that we share a common first take of the line from Two Grey Rooms, "And >I took these two grey rooms up, with a view". We similarly took this >line to be about how our brains have two hemisheres, being grey in color >and the different views from of each side of the brain, left being >logical and detail oriented, while the right, emotional and creative. >Speaking only for myself here, I was a bit disappointed when I heard the >actual storyline, because I liked the cerebral version much better. I >thought it had a more powerful message with a much larger scope. Did >anyone else error as I / we did? And if you did have that same first >take, did you give up the larger view when you heard the real story >behind it? Ah ..... YES! I've been meaning to touch on this for some time now (I've been a bit on the lazy side lately :-) I agree with your take on this song and I don't think it is in error. I wasn't disappointed to hear the storyline. It just made more sense to me knowing how Joni approached this song. I think our Joni was showing her brilliance again! She took this story line and added more depth to it. The actuality of this man living in two bleak rooms .....and all his thoughts of his past lover. In this, Two Grey Rooms takes on a duality. Listen to the lyrics: No one knows I'm here One day I just disappeared And I took these two grey rooms up here How often does one get so lost in their thoughts? Retreating to our *two grey rooms*? No one knows your there, right? Just you and your thoughts. Then Joni does something that gives me goosebumps .... she sings: With a view Those three words with an airy, dreamlike vastness to it. The way she uses harmonies and echo as one just drifts off into thought. Then she adds: When you walk by Below my window Joni captures the vision in the minds eye (window). This is where she ties two actual grey rooms with the two grey sides of ones brain in an interfenestral way. IMO Joni has taken someone's lifelong sadness and tied it to all of us. Joni's impeccable insight at work again. Heather ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 08:59:43 -0700 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Save Our List (long but earnest!) Kate, thanks for your viewpoints. It takes courage for people like you and Debra to bring these issues to the list. I've been in your shoes and know how it feels - horrific. I do not disagree with you wanting to expose the issue but feel compelled to elaborate on the pitfalls of posting private email to the list as a solution. (I'm really not a cold-hearted legalist - in fact I'm most often accused of being "too nice" and "too idealistic"). Probably the main reason not to post private email to a discussion list is that it violates the rights of the person whose mail is being forwarded. Now some may think that the person has given up their rights by sending an abusive email but legally they do not. In reality we cannot make up ALL our own rules here. The discussion list is owned and operated in the United States and is subject to U.S. law. Our JMDL community "laws" do not supercede Federal law, no matter how well-intentioned. We can try to split the governing law and say we will only allow the private posting exposed if it is abusive. That still does not exempt us from the real law. We can also decide to flout the law in an act of civil disobedience. Unfortunately, if the law is flouted on the "territory" and under the auspices of the discussion list, it definitely leaves the listowner, Smoe.org and possibly all the rest of the listmembers open to civil complaint at best, and civil liability at worst. Knowing that, is it still worth the cause to ignore the law? I know some of you reading this now are laughing and thinking there she goes again with her hypothetical legal arguments. Well, a similar situation actually happened to me on another internet group to which I subscribed a few years ago. Without getting into too many details (because legal issues are still outstanding on that case) - two people started flaming each other and attacking each other's integrity in their posts openly to the rest of the subscribers. Eventually, one person went to a lawyer and drafted a civil complaint for slander and libel against the other person. Fine, you say, that's their business, right? Unfortunately this person also named in his complaint every one of the 300 listmembers of the group, the moderator and the larger system that hosted the group and all its' principals. I had never even posted to this group one single time but this person somehow got ahold of all the names of the subscribers. Fine, you say, so what - I had not personally done anything wrong, so why was I worried? For one thing no one wants to see a potential lawsuit coming their way for any reason, especially when one has been innocently sucked into it. For another thing, no one wants to have to spend money and hire a lawyer to defend them, even if it is just to get the case dismissed against them. After three straight days (of lost work time) being put through an absolute nightmare in this situation, I was able to succesfully extricate myself from it. This is one good, if harrowing, example of why it is may not be fair or ultimately prudent to the whole internet group to get them involved in a dispute or expose them to liability that does not involve them. This discussion group involved a stock I owned. Another bad thing that came out of this dispute was that all the commotion rang bells at the SEC and other Federal agencies who shut down the discussion group, initiated an investigation and subpoened a few listmembers. Not fun. My stock also went from booming to worthless overnight, btw. Yes, this situation involved a different set of facts but my point is that we should be thoughtful and careful in our actions here, even if they sound good in theory. I'll reiterate that the appropriate place for complaint is with the offenders ISP or real law enforcement. If the offender is from another state in the U.S., then contact your local U.S. Attorney's Office. If the offender is from another country, I'm not sure what you can do, but contacting the ISP is a good start. Another benefit of going the legal route privately is that the law does not leave it up to other people to decide if the mail you've received is abusive. The law specifies that the test of whether it is offensive is solely the interpretation of the recipient (vs. the varying opinions of 500 listmembers). Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 11:37:47 -0500 From: Diana Duncan Subject: NJC: unsolicited and unwanted email Comments from a long time avid JMDL reader (I don't like the term lurker) I agree with Kakki and Mark when they mentioned sorting or deleting. I get spam that I delete without opening. Same as snail junk mail. I hang up on telemarketers. If I don't want to hear or speak to someone I do not choose to be in their company. There are some people on the list that I have found their posts to be irritating, so I delete. I agree with colin here: *I* am in control of my life. (But then I'm pretty thick skinned and easy going). As to this list being a democracy. It's not. I consider this a JMDL gathering in Les' home. He can throw us out if *he* feels we have misbehaved. And he has had to make some tough decisions. You don't have to continue to sit next to a person who is making you uncomfortable. If that person follows you with such a loud voice that you are having a horrible time at Les' party, tell the host. If this person is that obnoxious Les'll throw him/her out. However, I believe all human kind should strive for tolerance. It's my major wish for our future. Sometimes some of our most interesting characters cross the line. I ignore it and move on. They are usually much more interesting than my babble here. Hey gang.. variety is the spice of life.. Let's *enjoy* the variety on this list. Diana ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 09:57:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Zapuppy@webtv.net (Rick & Penny Gibbons) Subject: Re: Two Grey Rooms Thanks Bob, for the correction of my choice of words. I errored for using the word "error" in relation to an interpretation of the line from Two Grey Rooms. After reading last night's list, I hastily posted the first "Joni thought" that popped into my head, so as to prompt and participate in, getting back to some pleasant Joni conversations. I enjoy this list very much, and was disheartened to think we may need "laws" to keep people respectful of others. Hey Bob, got a question? When you keep score at your son's little league games, is it "That's not an error! That's not an error!" LOL Blessings to all, Penny ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 10:14:49 -0700 From: Phyliss Ward Subject: Observations from a returning member Hi all I'm back from my trek to Indonesia and Micronesia and came back online with the JMDL Thursday. I've opted to do the "Joni only" list this time. It's interesting because I've noticed a couple of things like: 1. Not everybody is perfect about NJC in the title. ( I'm not complaining here, I've accidentally forgotten to do it myself before) 2. There is very little JC communication taking place. 3. It appears the flame wars have flared again! Come on you guys! As Les would say...Tolerance, Tolerance, Tolerance! I've met so many wonderful folks on this list. It can be a great experience! Let's not tarnish it! After this post I'm going to forward to the list a brilliant post/parody of Leslie Mixon's that was written 8 months ago for your perusal. I saved it for some reason, now I know why. Oh yeah, the JC... Being as I was in such exotic places as Bali and Palau for about 3 weeks, and traveling light. I heard absolutely no Joni music during that period. But almost everyday something I saw or heard brought a snippet of her lyrics into my head. In particular, after about 2 1/2 weeks of traveling and in the last 48 hours being in two different cars, planes, and ferries. One of my traveling partners said something about from a plane to a car to a ferry to a car and I couldn't get "Black Crow" out of my mind for the rest of the trip. Also, while in Ubud, Bali, I walked into a music store just to see what prices were like and actually saw a "Hits" CD on the shelf. What a pleasant surprise! It's great to be back and hear my Joni CDs again, fresher, and even more appreciated than before. Yesterday I was shopping at WalMart and, believe it or not, Here comes Joni singing "How Do You Stop"! I've never heard this one anywhere but on my own player. The minute I heard the intro I stopped dead in my tracks. Annoyingly, they kept breaking in on the loudspeaker saying things like "customer needs assistance in hardware". But I sang along quietly through the whole thing. Another Joni moment... - -- Phyliss pward@lightspeed.net http://www.bodywise.com/consultants/bpward ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 10:15:22 -0700 From: Phyliss Ward Subject: [Fwd: Where Did Our Love Go?] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - --------------59C2541DF80DEDBEE44D15D7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit enjoy! - -- Phyliss pward@lightspeed.net http://www.bodywise.com/consultants/bpward - --------------59C2541DF80DEDBEE44D15D7 Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: owner-joni@smoe.org Received: from lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (root@lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net [204.216.64.33]) by raiden.lightspeed.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA13800 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:25:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chmls06.mediaone.net (chmls06.mediaone.net [24.128.1.71]) by lsbsdi1.lightspeed.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA23434 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smoe.org (080020908e73.ne.mediaone.net [24.128.147.247]) by chmls06.mediaone.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA10400; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:22:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by smoe.org (8.8.7/8.8.7/listq-jane) with SMTP id VAA26358; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:21:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by smoe.org (bulk_mailer v1.10); Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:21:31 -0400 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by smoe.org (8.8.7/8.8.7/listq-jane) id VAA26347 for joni-outgoing; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:20:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.cruzio.com (root@mail.cruzio.com [208.226.92.37]) by smoe.org (8.8.7/8.8.7/daemon-mode-relay2) with ESMTP id VAA26341 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 21:20:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from stevem (sa-208-226-93-77.cruzio.com [208.226.93.77]) by mail.cruzio.com with SMTP id SAA02181 for ; Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19981008183820.006b67a4@mail.cruzio.com> X-Sender: stevem@mail.cruzio.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 18:38:20 -0700 To: joni@smoe.org From: Leslie Mixon Subject: Where Did Our Love Go? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-joni@smoe.org Reply-To: Leslie Mixon Precedence: bulk I read the morning JMDL on the screen It was full of messages, some were mean Wouldn't they like their peace Don't we get bored And we call for the three great stimulants Of the exhausted ones Honesty, tolerance and innocence Tolerance and innocence No pranks have ever rumbled through our list and the drone of the internet can make us clench our fist We logon for love, not to get pissed And we call for the three great stimulants Of the exhausted ones Honesty, tolerance and innocence Tolerance and innocence Oh and deep in the night Emails find us Hurt us and blind us Deep in the night While listers sit up writing posts We lose the members we like the most They'd like to slam free choice behind us I saw a little lister on the net He said, "I can nail someone I've never met" "Let me show you how these petty accusations can torment you!" Call for the three great stimulants Of the exhausted ones Honesty, tolerance and innocence Tolerance and innocence Oh and deep in the night Emails find us Hurt us and blind us Deep in the night While listers sit up writing posts We lose the members we like the most They'd like to slam free choice behind us Last night I dreamed I saw the monitor flicker The digests fell like buffalo Everything got sicker And to the bitter end The list members bickered And we call for the three great stimulants Of the exhausted ones Honesty, tolerance and innocence Tolerance and innocence Oh these times, these times Oh these changing times Change in the heart of JMDLkind Oh these troubled times "Anyone will tell you, just how hard it is to make and keep a friend..." Feeling a little melancholy today, missing the friendlier times here. Leslie Steve Mixon http://www.cruzio.com/~stevem - --------------59C2541DF80DEDBEE44D15D7-- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 12:24:12 -0500 From: Jerry Notaro Subject: Re: Saving Our List (NJC) Kakki wrote: > Some people > mistakenly think that their right to free speech under the First Amendment > protects them and allows them to write anything they please to someone in > email. They are very wrong. The law specifically states that rights under > the First Amendment are not a defense to sending harassing or threatening > mail. Under the law email is considered exactly the same as a letter in > your regular mailbox. I think some people participating in internet groups > tend to assume it is all like some big chat room (which is different than > mail). They let their worse impulses and thoughts have free rein and spill > over into email sent to people they meet on the internet and never have a > clue that they are putting themselves at a real risk for a legal action or > prosecution. They think they are safe behind their computer screens, > self-indulgently shooting off all kinds of content to some unwilling victim. > > On the other side of the coin, I'm not quite sure about the legality of > forwarding private email without someone's permission. Since it is also the > offender's own "mail", the offender may have some of his/her own rights > under the law. If it is illegal, then the forwarder could potentially > involve the listowner in certain liability. How right Kakki is. Though it may sound convoluted, it is illegal under copyright laws to post a private correspondence to a list. The precedent was set by J.D. Salinger in court. If someone sends you mail, whether electronically, or on paper, the receiver owns the correspondence, but not the right to publish the contents. To post to a listserv is to "publish" (commit to the public) the contents, and therefore, illegal. So why I sympathize with some views and frustrations expressed here, Les is correct in asking that private posts not be resent to the list. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 10:33:26 -0700 From: "Mark or Travis" Subject: Re: Two Grey Rooms And if you did have that same first > take, did you give up the larger view when you heard the real story > behind it? Penny, Somebody has brought up this theory about Two Grey Rooms before. It had not occurred to me at the time but I found it very intriguing. Joni is very well read, as we all know, and very intelligent. I think it's very possible that the 'two grey rooms up here with a view' could be symbolic. Literary images can certainly function on more than one level, particularly in the hands of someone as skilled as Joni. Maybe the person speaking in this song has formed the habit of watching his former lover in his mind's eye, mentally checking out, so to speak, while indulging his fantasy (no-one knows I'm here/one day I just disappeared). At some point the urge to actually see the object of his obsession finally compels him to seek the man out. Although it just now occurs to me that the line 'you look so youthful/time has been untruthful' is rather ambiguous. Maybe he really is only fantasizing still and has never actually found the guy. Joni has said that she doesn't like to give out hard and fast interpretations of her songs. She feels that the listener should bring their own meaning to the lyrics. So I would say don't give up your take on it. When I first heard it I imagined that Joni was fantasizing about finding the location of her child after giving her up all those years ago and that she was afraid of approaching her so she just watched her from a distance. I still wonder if that feeling was there on some sub-conscious level when she wrote Two Grey Rooms. I agree with MG's post that she sent a few days ago. I think giving up that baby affected Joni in a profound way and that a lot of her writing is influenced by it on some level. Mark in Seattle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 14:27:29 EDT From: RMuRocks@aol.com Subject: Re: Two Grey Rooms NJC In a message dated 5/16/99 11:57:21 AM Central Daylight Time, Zapuppy@webtv.net writes: << Hey Bob, got a question? When you keep score at your son's little league games, is it "That's not an error! That's not an error!" LOL >> Funny you ask, Penny - I usually always score an "error" as a hit, that way the batter feels better about it, and the fielder doesn't feel like he's made an "error". Kind of win-win, I think. And my scorecard ain't the official book, anyway... And since you brought it up, my Nathan was 4 for 4 with a Homerun, 5 RBI, was the winning pitcher, threw 7 strikeouts in 3 innings, what a guy...:~) Working on a college scholarship I hope... Bob ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 20:33:40 +0200 From: "Winfried Hühn" Subject: NATO drops bombs in the adriatic sea (NJC) > Nato has admitted dumping unexploded bombs into the Adriatic Sea after fishermen found several in their >nets off the coast of Venice. >... > The incident has stirred further anti-Nato sentiment in Italy, which has seen several demonstrations against > the Kosovo campaign. > I don't know what they complain about! Actually, they should think of the touristic possibilities this new situation offers... I imagine touristic slogans for coastal Adriatic resorts such as: "You're guaranteed to have a BOMBASTIC vacation!" or: "Our surf will truly BLOW YOU AWAY!!!" or: "PYROTECHNICAL EXTRAVAGANZA in Venice -- now every single day of the week!" - -- The first time Italian tourist brochures actually would contain some truth ;-) Sorry for being politically incorrect again -- I simply couldn't resist! Winfried, who once booked a "centrally located" hotel room there -- right on the municipal freeway... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 20:45:03 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: [Fwd: Where Did Our Love Go?] Leslie-that was excellent! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 16:12:43 -0400 From: Vince Lavieri Subject: NJC Little League Rick & Penny Gibbons wrote: > When you keep score at your son's little > league games, is it "That's not an error! That's not an error!" Absolutely; there are NO errors in Little League! Everyone gets a hit and no fielder is penalized... it is a learning thing for kids, and it has to be fun! (the Rev) Vince remembering his years as Little League statistician ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 16:17:03 -0400 From: dsk Subject: Re: Save Our List (still earnest!) NJC Kakki wrote: > > Probably the main reason not to post private email to a discussion list is > that it violates the rights of the person whose mail is being forwarded. Kakki, Is this the case even if the person has been sent a request to stop sending any private emails? And told that any future ones may be made public? It seems such a warning should give some legal protection to the recipient of the unwanted email, other list members and the list owner, at least in the clearcut (to me anyway) situation I'm experiencing. As your story shows, though, actual situations can become much more complex, and I wouldn't ever want to cause harm to innocent list members. But isn't there something in between that and doing an individual avoidance routine? The bullies will just move on to beat someone else up, in private, and that disturbs me. > my point is that we should be thoughtful and careful in our actions here, > even if they sound good in theory. I agree and for now, other than avoidance, I don't know of an effective solution. (It just doesn't seem right to me to expect only Les to handle this.) And thank you, Kakki, for explaining more of the legal aspects. I would never have known otherwise that things could get so complicated. Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 16:31:34 -0400 From: Vince Lavieri Subject: Re: Adriatic Sea (NJC) "Winfried Hühn" wrote: > > -- The first time Italian tourist brochures actually would contain some > truth ;-) > > Sorry for being politically incorrect again -- I simply couldn't resist! > > Winfried, > who once booked a "centrally located" hotel room there -- right on the > municipal freeway... Then the room was centrally located! And as E J Forester would have written, you had a room with a view! Perhaps of the highway, but a view! While my grandfather born in Koblenz may have found your Italian tourist brochure comment funny, my grandfather born in Brindisi di Montagne wouldn't... fortunately for you we are Italians, not Sicilians, so you don't have to worry... and for everyone's reference, I am teasing Winfreid, not flaming at him... Did anyone else the latest apparently conclusive proof that Glenn Miller was killed by British planes dumping undelivered payloads over the channel; Miller's plane was flying much lower than the bombers, and that was that. (the Rev) Vince NP Mozart's Italian concertos, mixing the German and Italian again... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 13:16:40 -0700 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Save Our List (still earnest!) NJC Debra asked: > Is this the case even if the person has been sent a request to stop > sending any private emails? Yes, please see Jerry Notaro's further citing of the applicable law. > And told that any future ones may be made > public? It seems such a warning should give some legal protection to the > recipient of the unwanted email, other list members and the list owner, > at least in the clearcut (to me anyway) situation I'm experiencing. This is akin to taking the "law" into your own hands. It is not the appropriate or effective way to deal with the problem. Your only real options are to go through the appropriate legal channels - the ISP or law enforcement. It is more helpful to your case if you do give the person a simple warning of "Do not email me ever again" and leave it at that with no further warnings, threats or other commentary before you go to legal channels. The JMDL is not a legal channel. > But isn't there something in between that and doing an > individual avoidance routine? The bullies will just move on to beat > someone else up, in private, and that disturbs me. I've found it helpful to share such situations privately with trusted listmembers. It helps one feel less alone and victimized and they will no doubt be supportive of you. Sometimes word gets around offlist on who to watch out for. Especially if the bullies are striking all over the place - they are soon exposed to some degree. I totally agree with those who have suggested ignoring such people - it is a known fact that psychologically many people who do this thrive on the attention, sometimes even moreso when they receive negative attention from you. Unlike well-adjusted people, they usually tend to not take threats of exposure seriously, and indeed thrive on those threats, too. If you ignore them they will move on - yes, probably to the next victim, but if everyone ignores them and deletes them, eventually they may move on completely. ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V4 #217 ************************** There is now a JMDL tape trading list. Interested traders can get more details at http://www.jmdl.com/trading ------- The Song and Album Voting Booths are open again! Cast your votes by clicking the links at http://www.jmdl.com/gallery username: jimdle password: siquomb ------- Don't forget about these ongoing projects: FAQ Project: Help compile the JMDL FAQ. Do you have mailing list-related questions? -send them to Trivia Project: Send your Joni trivia questions and/or answers to Today in History Project: Know of a date-specific Joni fact? -send it to ------- Post messages to the list at Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe joni-digest" to ------- Siquomb, isn't she?