From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V4 #397 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk JMDL Digest Friday, September 10 1999 Volume 04 : Number 397 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: -------- Sex (was What a Country and Lolita) NJC [evian ] "La Bottine Souriante" ["Paul Castle" ] Re: Lolita (NJC) [catman ] Re: Sex (was What a Country and Lolita) NJC [catman ] Just saying hi (NJC) [Deb Messling ] Re: NJC Re: Jonifest [philipf@tinet.ie] Re: Judee Sill (NJC) [philipf@tinet.ie] Re: Joni's Court and Spark [philipf@tinet.ie] Joni thought [MGVal@aol.com] Re: Lolita (NJC) [Jason Maloney ] Re: Bob, show thyself (NJC) ["Catherine McKay" ] Re: Happy to share in your delights. [RMuRocks@aol.com] Re: Movie soundtracks NJC [RMuRocks@aol.com] Re: Joni thought [RMuRocks@aol.com] Re: 'Quid' aka "A bit of bob" (NJC) ["Catherine McKay" ] Joe Cocker "You Can Keep You Hat On" ["Catherine McKay" ] Sountracks COrrection [lisa durfee ] RE: set lists, pictures, recording njc [Anne Sandstrom ] Re: phobias (it began with ssssssssssssnakes) NJC [luvart@snet.net] Re: Soundtracks (njc) [Jerry Notaro ] Re: bass and fest [luvart@snet.net] RE: Soundtracks (njc) [Janene Otten ] Re: bass and fest [RMuRocks@aol.com] River [Janene Otten ] Re: Lolita (NJC) [Jason Maloney ] Re: 'Quid' aka "A bit of bob" (NJC) ["Paul Castle" ] Re: Child abuse/precocious kids - NJC [Jason Maloney Subject: Sex (was What a Country and Lolita) NJC Jason Maloney wrote: > I feel sorry for these 12 > year olds who become pregannt and/or are very sexually > knowldegeable/active. > AND > The media, in > all its forms, has become so sexually explicit and sex-orientated, that > it is hardly surprising that younger and younger children (I'm talking > 11 and 12 yr olds upwards) are becoming more active and knowledgeble. > This is off-topic, but these words made the lyrics of the Goo-Goo Dolls, of all people, run through my head: "Grew up way too fast, now there's nothing to believe, reruns all become our history". It's just so true, especially for my generation. Everyone I grew up with was in such a hurry to grow up, and I remember the pressures of sex like it was yesterday -- I can still picture the conversation I had with a friend in Grade 9, and how happy he was that he lost his virginity because then he would no longer be teased by another friend of his for being a virgin. I mean, looking back on this, I am just absolutely repulsed that at the time, I thought nothing wrong with this, and I felt like the world's biggest freak because I was still a virgin at 14... and yes, I know that not everyone was screwing around, but this is just how saturated we all were with sexuality in junior high. The thing is, I can remember being 12 and thinking how glad I would be to get this virginity thing out of the way. It's like everyone I grew up with went from Scooby Doo to the pill in one fell swoop. I was always aware of my sexuality from early childhood, and I do believe that sexuality was in it's own way an integral part of my being for as long as I can remember. I have never thought of sex as dirty or shameful, and I think that our coming into our sexuality is joyous, but the ways in which kids seem to jump into sex totally freaks me out now. I can't quite seem to articulate my thoughts, but am I trying to say that there is a big distinction between sexuality and sex. I mean, when you start having sex at 12, it's like jumping into a diving tank when all you have is a set of water wings. So, I think this rambling recollection is trying to lead me into saying that I agree with Jason about how kids have waaaay more knowledge about sex than we think, and I feel sorry for kids who jump into sex too soon without even giving themselves the chance to come into their own sexuality. We grow up way to fast..... Evian ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:16:37 +0100 From: "Paul Castle" Subject: "La Bottine Souriante" Frances at teltrans@netscape.net wrote: >I recommend you guys checking out any of their cd's >> They seem to be really taking off over here in the UK, as well. There latest album (here, at least), 'Xieme' has been in the folk/roots charts for several months and I keep hearing them on the radio. Sounds just wonderful jazzy jigs and reels - brilliant musicianship! Must buy. This list is costing me a fortune. PaulC ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:11:55 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Lolita (NJC) Somehow, I think attitudes would be very different if Lolita had been a boy. I don't think people would then have difficulty seeing the abuse. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:12:49 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Sex (was What a Country and Lolita) NJC > So, I think this rambling recollection is trying to lead me into saying > that I agree with Jason about how kids have waaaay more knowledge about > sex than we think, and I feel sorry for kids who jump into sex too soon > without even giving themselves the chance to come into their own > sexuality. We grow up way to fast..... I don't disagree with this at all. The issue is age. if 12 year olds are doing with other 12 year olds fine(??). The issue tho is an adult taking advantage of a sexually aware 12 year old. > Evian - -- "It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not." TANTRA’S/ETHERIC PERSIANS AND HIMALAYANS http://www.ethericcats.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:12:38 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: What A Country! (NJC) > I feel sorry for these 12 > year olds who become pregannt and/or are very sexually > knowldegeable/active. It isn't meant to be that way. However, my problem > is more with "respectable" society deeming those children (NOT those > subjected to incest/rape/abuse) as victims. OK, so some of them are > victims of their own recklessness, and their lack of responsibility and > self-control, but I don't think that is what they mean. But Jason they are! certainly so if they got pregnant by someone much older. You know, the amount of children abducted, battered and raped is very small compared with those molested iin their homes by their parents. They are every bit the victim too. > > > > > > > > . To me, a victim is someone harmed, abducted, > and made to suffer for no reason. The you need to review your definition of harm and abuse. > There is plenty of terrible things > going on in the world, and to teenagers, to just let people like that > BE. Besides, there is also more than enough abuse of postion and power > taking place on a daiy basis in other parts of society, yet we continue > to focus on anything linked to relationships like this one. I ceratinly > don't think it is front-page news, as it has been. I can see where you are coming from but still disagree with you. The 15 year old is minor. the teacher is the adult and it was his responsibilty to make sure this did not occur. What if the girl had been 14 or 13? If the pupil had been a 15 year old boy the teacher would be in jail!The girl is 15 and as such does not have the power her teacher has. he took advantage from a positoon of trust. that is really bad. > > - -- "It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not." TANTRA’S/ETHERIC PERSIANS AND HIMALAYANS http://www.ethericcats.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 06:46:04 -0400 From: Deb Messling Subject: Just saying hi (NJC) Just emerging from semi-lurkdom to say how much I enjoyed all the Jonifest posts and how much I wish I could have been there. I am in the last stages of planning my wedding - in the midst of a stressful job with long hours - so I haven't been posting much lately. Can't BELIEVE she's recording "A Case of You." I can die happy. Deb Messling messling@enter.net http://www.enter.net/~messling/ ~there are only three kinds of people: those who can count, and those who can't. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:45:52 +0100 From: philipf@tinet.ie Subject: Re: NJC Re: Jonifest Thanks party people for the reports. I'm honoured to get mentioned by a champion and reportedly handsome Joniphile like Bob Muller. Philip ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:46:38 +0100 From: philipf@tinet.ie Subject: Re: Judee Sill (NJC) Judee Sill's album was the first record I got on Asylum. It's nice to be reminded of what a true original she was. Looking back the Asylum label opened for business with some amazing albums including debut's from Tom Waits and Jackson Browne and Joni's FTR. I didn't like The Eagles much but had to admit that Bernie Leadon's My Man was a beautiful tribute to Gram Parsons. "How infuriating" (to quote my eight year old daughter) when when a band you hate makes a brilliant record. Philip ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 11:48:33 +0100 From: philipf@tinet.ie Subject: Re: Joni's Court and Spark The glossy cover you described was used in the UK. When the miles of aisles passed through London a man standing next to me shoved a stack of albums into Joni's hands for her to sign. When she saw the wrongness of colour and general flatness of C&S a look of horror crossed her face. "They fucked it up" or words to that effect was her comment. Philip Plug of the week - Sing It Back - Moloko This is the real plug of the week, not some dreary nobody who used to play tambourine with Bonnie Raitt. When Sing It Back comes on the radio I roll down the window so people in neighbouring cars can share it's poptastic brilliance. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 08:33:20 EDT From: MGVal@aol.com Subject: Joni thought Late last night, (oh, say, 8:38PM or so...), I was going through my Joni CDs in search of a comfort blanket. While listening to "Willie" on LOTC, I was reading the lyrics and thinking about the Harry Ditz photo of Graham and Joni in the backseat of car. Harry said that when he magnified the photo, he could see that she was sitting there writing the lyrics to that song. "Willie is my child, he is my father. I would be his lady all my life." And then I thought a bit more and hit on Nash's "Simple Man," which seems to be a companion piece, only in reverse: "Just want to hold you, don't want to hold you down. I hear what you say and it's spinning my head around...." Whew. When did the tables turn? And instead of a comforting stroll through the jonihood, my head pounded with trying to untangle the knots of love. It was too tough a job for me, so I went to bed. MG ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:19:58 +0100 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: Lolita (NJC) Mark or Travis wrote: > > Leaving aside the discussion of child abuse ...very wise :o) > I find this description of the Lolita remake very interesting. I > haven't seen it or read Nabokov's book but I did see the Stanley > Kubrick version with James Mason & Sue Lyon. Maybe I missed the point > entirely but to me the Kubrick version seemed to be a wicked exercise > in black humor. It's been probably close to 20 years since I saw it > (it was on a double bill with 'Dr. Strangelove' which may explain why > I saw it this way) but I seem to remember Mason's Humbert as being > intelligent but leeringly lecherous and Lyon's Lolita as being rather > vacuous and teasingly sexual. Humbert seemed to be in agony, yes, and > went to great lengths in rationalizing and justifying his lust for the > young Lolita. Shelley Winters was shrill and fluttery as Lolita's > unsuspecting mother. The whole film seemed to be meant as a satiric > view of society and the moral ambiguities of the time (it was made in > 1962). > > I remember laughing a lot when I saw this movie at a repertory movie > house in Seattle and getting some strange looks from other people in > the theatre. Was I totally off-base in the way I saw this film? Mark, No, I don't think you were. Like Bob, I haven't seen the Kubrick original, but from what I have read about that version in film books it would certainly seem that Kubrick's intended "take" on the Lolita story was exactly as you have just described. That is why I believe it is impossible for anyone who has not seen Lynne's "remake" (a misleading term in this case) to judge the new version's merits or content. Lynne sets the story in the 1940s, and adopts an evocative, "classical" approach, rather than a contemporary one. It does not satirise society, or use black humour at the expense of the charcters. There ARE some darkly comic moments, though, but a criticism of Lynne's version has been that he imbues the movie with perhaps more melancholy and poignancy than the source novel. Personally, taking the film on its own merits, I can find few faults with it. Irons is magnificent...pathetic, helpless, manipulative, cold, tragic...sometimes all at once. The girl is sensational. Only Anthony LaPaglia's character lends proceedings a slightly "perverted" edge at times, though again it is simply part of the story. Overall, the tale has a very moralistic message, and never resorts to sensationalism or voyeurism. As for how we would view it were Lolita about a boy, Colin, well....it isn't, but if it were I would have to watch it and judge it accordingly. Jason. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 12:50:14 GMT From: "Catherine McKay" Subject: Re: Bob, show thyself (NJC) Oh yeah?? That looks like me on a GOOD day! >From: "Paul Castle" >To: "jmdl" >CC: >Subject: Bob, show thyself (NJC) >Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 23:26:22 +0100 > >Catherine wrote: > > > I might be able to manage a type of stick-drawing > > using | \ and -, but don't hold your breath waiting for it. > >If you look carefully, this is me (having a bad hair day!) > > > /////// \\\\\\\ > / - - \ > < @ @ > > ( () ) > (----) > ``` > PaulC > > > > > > > > > > > cateri@hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 08:51:00 EDT From: RMuRocks@aol.com Subject: Re: Happy to share in your delights. In a message dated 9/9/99 10:05:11 PM US Central Standard Time, f40rmr1@corn.cso.niu.edu writes: << I just wanted to say hi to all. I'm John Calimee, finally making my presence known on the list. >> Well you sure said a LOT more than just "Hi" John - what a great letter!! ("Post" hardly does this piece justice) Welcome to the list! I look forward to the talents you bring to the forum. And I was glad to hear that ANOTHER Bob M. was instrumental in cementing your Joni jones! (Maybe it's a franchise!) :~) I have all the tape trees and some other Joni musical goodies (HOSL demos) if I can help in that regard; I can't burn CD's yet though, only cassettes. But I am composing my letter to Santa to bring a CD burner down the chimney this year... Bob NP: "Refuge of The Roads" from Tokyo '83 (I LOVE this show!) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 08:57:43 EDT From: RMuRocks@aol.com Subject: Re: Movie soundtracks NJC I'll chime in my .02 here: I'm generally not a huge Soundtrack fan/slut/whatever, but my first record purchase ever was the American Graffitti Soundtrack, which is a wonderful compilation of American Pop 1956-1963 with doo wop, Beach Boys, Chuck Berry, Dance songs, etc. I can sing that one from beginning to end! Joni content: "Why Do Fools Fall in Love" is the second song on the double LP, so the first record I ever bought has some Joni on it! Yippee!! :~) I also really like the Sling Blade soundtrack, most of which is essentially Daniel Lanois' 3rd solo record, with some very tasty tidbits by Booker T, Local H, etc. thrown in for good measure. Bob, taking a break from posing for those Calvin Klein ads to post...LOL!!! NP: You're So Square ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 08:59:49 EDT From: RMuRocks@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni thought In a message dated 9/10/99 6:36:20 AM US Central Standard Time, MGVal@aol.com writes: << Whew. When did the tables turn? And instead of a comforting stroll through the jonihood, my head pounded with trying to untangle the knots of love. It was too tough a job for me, so I went to bed. >> It's that "Thin Line Between Love & Hate", MG...I think we've all been there... Bob ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:00:10 GMT From: "Catherine McKay" Subject: Re: 'Quid' aka "A bit of bob" (NJC) I went home last night and checked my Ayto's origin of words book, and lo and behold - I was right. According to Ayto, they're fairly certain that "quid" does indeed come from the Latin "quid pro quo", so you're exchanging money (quid) for an item or service (quo.) At the same time, I decided to check on "buck" which is what Americans and Canadians call the dollar. That comes from "buckskin" which was used in trading - presumably a buckskin was worth a dollar. Sorry if I'm boring anyone, but I'm a bit of a word-nerd. >From: "Paul Castle" >To: "jmdl" >CC: >Subject: 'Quid' aka "A bit of bob" (NJC) >Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 19:30:41 +0100 > >Catherine at cateri@hotmail.com asked > >Any idea where the word "quid" came from? > >Not sure but I'll do what all us Brits do, doncha know. >Ask Jeeves! >http://www.askjeeves.com/ > >Typing in:- The origin of the word 'quid' >and clicking 'ask!' gets me to: > >1. Where can I find out the origins of a certain word or phrase? > >Clicking on Ask! again gets me to: > >The Archives of The Logical World of Etymology > >Selecting 'Q-S' gets me to: > >quart | quash | quest | quick | quiz | rage | raining cats and dogs| etc > >No 'quid' - 'raining cats and dogs' looks interesting though. > >Well you learn something new every day. Apparently in Northern >European mythology, it is believed that cats influence the weather >and dogs represent wind. > >Ooh, I could spend days in this archive - sorry, giving up on 'quid'. > >PaulC > > > > > > > > cateri@hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:01:17 -0400 From: luvart@snet.net Subject: Re: What A Country! (NJC) At 10:30 AM 9/9/99 -0400, Bob.Muller@fluordaniel.com wrote: > >Anyway, I saw "Lolita" and thought it was very well done, certainly not >pornographic by any standards...the only thing I had a hard time believing >was that he was totally repulsed by Melanie Griffith, I thought she was >mighty fine myself! I mean, she's no curvaceous Heather or anything, but >she still had it goin' on...:~) > >Bob, proud member of the JMDL mutual admiration society... Yikes! Me being compared to Melanie Griffith!!?? [~~~blush~~] I think Melanie is prettier without her Mabeline (IMHO :-) Thank you, Bob :-) Heather - who is hoping this red disappears from her face before she gets to work :-) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 14:03:14 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Lolita (NJC) In this case, Jason, I don't think watching the film is necessary if one already knows the story, as you do.If the this film is not true to the book then it isn't the same story. if it had been about a boy/man realtionship it would never have been made and probably the book either not written or banned. My whole point has been not whether the film is has any artistic merit but that the subject matter, or rather the the way it is portrayed(as being the childs fault) is wrong. If the book and both films made it very clear that the adult was at fault, that this was a case of abuse, I would not have a problem with it. As it is, it blames the child. And it has succeeded in making otherwise sane people think that the child was precocious and responsible and that in such circumstances an adult man connot be held accountable for having a sexual rleationship with a child. It would seem this film, the Kubrick film and the book have caused damage rather than enlightenment. Damage in the sense that adults have come away believing this child (and by extension the possibilty of other children) was culpable in the situation. From the comment about the child having sex with another adult in the film, it would appear she was being abused by more than man. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:06:16 GMT From: "Catherine McKay" Subject: Joe Cocker "You Can Keep You Hat On" Don, you mentioned Joe Cocker singing "You Can Keep You Hat On". Is that the Randy Newman number with lines like: "Honey, take off your dress. Yes... but you can leave your hat on" ? Love that song. Sexy and funny. (Didn't see the movie - can't stand Mickey Rourke!) cateri@hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:19:44 -0400 From: lisa durfee Subject: Re: Soundtracks NJC Janet Hess wrote: > When I think of soundtracks, ......... oh, I love film music, I'm always looking for more, (email me with any suggests!) as I compile my own (nonvocals)Film music mixes that I label "Rochelle Rochelle" Soundtracks (see Seinfeld, episode 52)Just a few of my favorite soundtracks to borrow from that I recommend: Until the End of the World Wings of Desire PARiS TEXAS (ry cooder) BETTY BLUE (very sexy) La Femme Nikita (ditto above) Scent of a woman. 1984 (eurythmics) Sprinkle in some Coctaeu Twins, Tom Verlaine, Pat Metheny etc and I've got my own late night "strange erotic Journey" -esque radio station . I even have a little 4-trak for the segues. anyhoo, If anyone has a copy of the Soundtrak for NOTHING IN COMMON (sean penn, chris walken) I know it exists and want a tape of it! It has wonderful instrumental mixes of Madonnas LIVE TO TELL on it that I heard once on the radio many yrs ago and have pined for ever since. back to lurkdome, liså D NP: pat metheny: First circle ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:24:06 -0400 From: lisa durfee Subject: Sountracks COrrection RE my post 2 minutes ago::: no no no not NOTHING iN COMMON< (that was tom hanks), I meant to say AT CLOSE RANGE (cric walken and sean pennn) I want that soundtrack. liså D ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:29:53 -0400 From: Anne Sandstrom Subject: RE: set lists, pictures, recording njc I'd LOVE to see a set list too. All week, I've been remembering that someone did this song or that - but I don't always remember who did what. FWIW, here's my set: Summer Sky (the 'Chelsea Morning backwards song') Big Yellow Taxi Conversation Cactus Tree So, it's the weekend (well, close enough). Is it time to go back to Ashara's yet? Anne - -----Original Message----- From: Wally Kairuz [mailto:wallykai@interserver.com.ar] Sent: Thursday, September 09, 1999 8:34 PM To: Susan McNamara; joni@smoe.org Subject: set lists, pictures, recording njc that's a good idea! i remember most of the sets, but the idea of letting anything that happened at ashara's escape my memory terrifies me. will there be any tapes and videos too? i'm willing to buy the whole box set! wallyk - -----Original Message----- De: Susan McNamara Para: joni@smoe.org Fecha: Jueves 9 de Septiembre de 1999 17:11 Asunto: Re: Soundtracks (sjc) Did anyone type up a set list? I would love to see that. I did check out the pictures and saw some familiar faces from 8/15/98 (a day that is seared in my memory banks). Sue ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:28:07 -0400 From: luvart@snet.net Subject: Re: Soundtracks (njc) At 11:11 AM 9/9/99 -0700, Don Rowe wrote: > >To which list I shall add ... > >"9 1/2 Weeks" -- Just like Baywatch only >semi-sinister, this cheesy softcore has a GREAT >soundtrack including numbers from Bryan Ferry, Sade, >Joe Cocker "You Can Keep You Hat On" (this scene might >be the best music video EVER) ... > YES! This is a great one to have! I think CarltonCT mentioned Water World. If I'm not mistaken, this has O Fortuna (Carl Orff) on it which is fantastic. I have to add that the 'Get Shorty' soundtrack is good to listen to ..... especially in the car. I also like the soundtracks from 'Romeo & Juliet' and 'The Piano' Heather ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 13:37:55 GMT From: "Catherine McKay" Subject: Child abuse/precocious kids - NJC Jason, butting into your remarks to Colin that... >Too much is made of the pupil/teacher aspect, and also >the age gap as well. Colin, I am in a way rather surprised by your >attitude to adult/teenager relationships, because in my opinion it is >another form of discrimination. Age and/or position in society >should no >more be a reason to forbid contact between two people who >are attracted to >(or in love with) each other, than if they were of >the same sex or >different ethnicity. I am veering away from the >original point about >the >Lolita syndrome, but I think it is a valid >point. You may have a point that there are exceptions to the rules (whatever they may be) but I think you need to be very sure of a few things. Just because a young girl, or boy for that matter, may be familiar with the language of love or sex, doesn't necessarily mean they have an understanding (how many of us do even as adults?). Even though they may initiate a relationship, IMHO it's still incumbent upon the older/more powerful person to resist and to be very honest with the child about how flattered they are and so on, but to put a stop to it. Without any interest in advocating censorship, a lot of the way kids (especially girls) dress these days comes from TV, rock videos, magazines and so on. Likewise, the makeup they wear, the way they talk and so on. Many of them talk and act that way out of peer pressure and because they want to be cool, but it doesn't mean they understand any of it. A young person may idolize an older person, or may develop a crush on them, but that shouldn't be mistaken for love. As far as age differences, this becomes less of a factor the older you get, but 15 and 30-something? C'mon! If they both wait 10-15 years, it's no longer an issue. If they wait 40 years, who the hell cares? And, even in a case where you're SURE your relationship (older person to child; teacher to student; doctor to patient) is THE different one and that it's equitable and all that, once the relationship ends and if the younger/weaker one gets to thinking about it, especially if they're bitter about it, the older/more powerful one had better watch his or her back, as many a law suit and/or suspension of license has shown. Not to mention statutory rape where willingness on the part of a younger person isn't even a factor. I agree that of late perhaps overmuch has been made of everyone's being a victim. While many of us have had an unpleasant experience of some kind, we haven't all been abused as children, and for some of us, these unpleasant experiences are just another learning experience and we get over it. It's not the same as someone having been constantly abused physically, mentally, sexually or emotionally. So stay away from kids, Jason, or there'll be one angry mama out to get you! ;) cateri@hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:37:22 -0400 From: luvart@snet.net Subject: Re: phobias (it began with ssssssssssssnakes) NJC At 06:37 PM 9/9/99 GMT, Catherine McKay wrote: <> >I also have a great fear of being any place where there's a lot of people, >whether this is being caught up in a crowd of people in the subway, taking >my kids to the Santa Claus parade, or going to a party of any kind >(including family ones). Well, I know of many folks who, as Christmas time comes around, get this intense fear everytime they see the Santa's standing on the streets or in department stores. They are diagnosed as having Claus-trophobia! (small joke) I'm sorry. I couldn't help myself :-) I'm not making slight at fears by no means! I have a terrible fear of roller coasters. My hands are getting all sweaty just writing that! I also have a hard time with confined spaces. I guess that is claustrophobic. Heather ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:42:12 -0400 From: Jerry Notaro Subject: Re: Soundtracks (njc) Two of my favorites are Blade Runner and Last of the Mohicans. Jerry np: Rubber Soul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:42:52 -0400 From: luvart@snet.net Subject: Re: bass and fest > >No, not a single one! (And please don't start with the 'Uh, Mark, we >didn't want to tell you this but you're a real.....') > Oh I'll finish this one ........'Uh, Mark, we didn't want to tell you this but you're a real..... SWEETHEART!!!!! And I AM telling you that! Heather PS - I think we ought to draft Kate and Chris to the next Jonifest. How interesting to have bass players too! > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:52:20 -0400 From: Janene Otten Subject: RE: Soundtracks (njc) - -----Original Message----- From: Janene Otten Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 9:51 AM To: 'notaro@bayflash.stpt.usf.edu' Subject: RE: Soundtracks (njc) I love that main theme from Last of the Mohicans!!! Wow, every theme that music swelled during the film, so did the tears in my eyes. Beautiful compliment to the cinematography as well. Blade Runner was great also. Just got director's cut on DVD. If you have a DVD player, definitely pick up Blade Runner first. Smiles, Janene - -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Notaro [mailto:notaro@bayflash.stpt.usf.edu] Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 9:42 AM To: luvart@snet.net Cc: Don Rowe; JaneneO@mji.com; joni@smoe.org Subject: Re: Soundtracks (njc) Two of my favorites are Blade Runner and Last of the Mohicans. Jerry np: Rubber Soul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 09:55:51 EDT From: RMuRocks@aol.com Subject: Re: bass and fest In a message dated 9/10/99 7:49:28 AM US Central Standard Time, Heather writes: << PS - I think we ought to draft Kate and Chris to the next Jonifest. How interesting to have bass players too! >> We were originally supposed to have Catgirl's husband there as well, and he is a terrific bassist/guitarist/musician. Ashara, looks like you need to call a building contractor...2000 looks like it's gonna be a whopper!! :~) Bob NP: Oleander, "Why I'm Here" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 10:01:45 -0400 From: Janene Otten Subject: River I once discussed this with Alan L. and River was also featured in the Wonder Years. It was a very touching scene about the loss of young, first love. BOO HOO... Also, I didn't think to add soundtrack *scores* to the thread but Mark Isham recently composed the soundtrack to Kiss the Girls as well as Afterglow (which is an incredible movie, BTW) There are just too many to list but I will say that I love the fact that soundtracks are now such big sellers. They give us the opportunity to hear many diverse artists on one CD. I make mixed tapes all the time and these tapes act as the soundtracks to my life story. I often go back & listen to old mixes I've made, remembering what I was going through at that particular time in my life and I love the way songs can bring back memories in such a vivid way. I love making mixed tapes (now CD's). Besides writing music, it's one of the most personal expressions of my feelings through music I can think of. Thanks for reading. Janene np: Richard Thompson - "Mock Tudor" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:17:23 +0100 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: Lolita (NJC) catman wrote: > > In this case, Jason, I don't think watching the film is necessary if one > already knows the story, as you do.If the this film is not true to the book > then it isn't the same story. Colin, you're getting confused! The whole point is that this latest version IS true to the book and NOT - as was the case with Kubrick's - interpreted to suit a particular social/intellectual viewpoint, or serve as the base material for a satirical/blackly humourous film. > if it had been about a boy/man realtionship it > would never have been made and probably the book either not written or > banned. Perhaps, but then we could talk forever about what "might" have been, and what "might" have happened had the situation been different. Certainly, in the 90s such a book could easily be written and published with the minmum of fuss. Anything goes these days, but granted a book like that would never have found an outlet in the 1940s. > My whole point has been not whether the film is has any artistic merit but > that the subject matter, or rather the the way it is portrayed(as being the > childs fault) is wrong. If the book and both films made it very clear that > the adult was at fault, that this was a case of abuse, I would not have a > problem with it. As it is, it blames the child. Colin, I do so wish you would at least SEE this newer version before you make all these statements. In Lynne's version, NOBODY is blameless, and Lolita herself is not shown to be any more to blame than anyone else. It is filmed as a modern-day (well, 1940s) tragedy, with the sexual aspect a catalyst for events, rather than a reason for some voyeuristic peek-a-boo. > And it has succeeded in > making otherwise sane people think that the child was precocious and > responsible and that in such circumstances an adult man connot be held > accountable for having a sexual rleationship with a child. She was precocious, but to think that does not automatically mean she is without blame. Humbert, and all the other protagonists, are all ultimately "held accountable", as I have said before (without wishing to give the plot away). I rank Lolita along with a film like Meet Joe Black.....Lolita is a film about sexual dysfunction which actually serves as a moralistic tale in some ways. You are probably LESS likely to think about getting invloved with a teenage girl after seeing it. Meet Joe Black, meanwhile, is also a film whose overall effect is quite opposite to its subject matter (in this case, death), being the most life-affirming experience I've had for some time. > It would seem this film, the Kubrick film and the book have caused damage > rather than enlightenment. Damage in the sense that adults have come away > believing this child (and by extension the possibilty of other children) was > culpable in the situation. This argument is like the "violence-breeds-violence" debate. What you are saying is the same as the people who claim watching extremely violent programmes/films make you similarily violent. Nonsense. If you're going to be affected negatively by something like Lolita or Reservoir Dogs, then there's something wrong in that person's psychological make-up in the first place. I have Reservoir Dogs, Taxi Driver, The Exorcist, Lolita and Se7en in my movie collection, to name just a few, and I am no worse for seeing them in any way. If people are sick, they are sick. Things might "stimulate" their dysfunction, but believe me they would still be that way without some film or other. Still, now we are heading into the whole censorship issue. > From the comment about the child having sex with > another adult in the film, it would appear she was being abused by more than > man. This is a very valid point. This aspect of the story, which is hinted at in Lynne's version via various cinematic devices and surreal "flashback/dream sequences", is the only part of the film I would admit has even the slightest dubious quality to it. However, this character who is frankly perverted is not portayed as anything other than what he is, and his fate is accordingly sordid. Also, it is almost a peripheral part of the movie, with very few minutes of screen time allocated to it, and absolutely NOTHING shown, and only referred to in the closing stages of the plot. Jason. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:24:19 +0100 From: "Paul Castle" Subject: Re: 'Quid' aka "A bit of bob" (NJC) Catherine wrote >Sorry if I'm boring anyone, but I'm a bit of a word-nerd.>> Not bored at all. Still buried in the 'Archives of The Logical World of Etymology' - here's one for all you 'word-nerds' "Nerd: A nerd is a person regarded as stupid, socially inept, or unattractive. The American Heritage Dictionary notes that the word first appears in 1950 in Dr. Seuss's If I Ran the Zoo: "And then, just to show them, I'll sail to Ka-Troo And Bring Back an It-Kutch a Preep and a Proo a Nerkle a Nerd and a Seersucker, too!" (The nerd itself is a small humanoid creature looking comically angry). Nerd next appears, with a gloss, in the February 10, 1957, issue of the Glasgow, Scotland Sunday Mail in a column entitled "ABC for SQUARES": "Nerd -- a square, any explanation needed?" Authorities disagree whether Dr. Seuss's nerd and the Glaswegian nerd are the same word. Some claim there is no semantic connection and the identity of the words is fortuitous. Others maintain that Dr. Seuss is the true originator of nerd and that the word was picked up by five- and six-year-olds of 1950 and passed on to their older siblings, who by 1957, as teenagers, had applied nerd to the most comically obnoxious creature of their own class, a "square." Oooh errr!! I think I'm more of a 'nerkle' really - although some kids have shouted 'seersucker' at me on occasions! PaulC - -----Original Message----- From: Catherine McKay To: pdcmusic@freeuk.com ; joni@smoe.org Date: 10 September 1999 14:00 Subject: Re: 'Quid' aka "A bit of bob" (NJC) >I went home last night and checked my Ayto's origin of words book, and lo >and behold - I was right. According to Ayto, they're fairly certain that >"quid" does indeed come from the Latin "quid pro quo", so you're exchanging >money (quid) for an item or service (quo.) > >At the same time, I decided to check on "buck" which is what Americans and >Canadians call the dollar. That comes from "buckskin" which was used in >trading - presumably a buckskin was worth a dollar. > >Sorry if I'm boring anyone, but I'm a bit of a word-nerd. > > >>From: "Paul Castle" >>To: "jmdl" >>CC: >>Subject: 'Quid' aka "A bit of bob" (NJC) >>Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 19:30:41 +0100 >> >>Catherine at cateri@hotmail.com asked >> >Any idea where the word "quid" came from? >> >>Not sure but I'll do what all us Brits do, doncha know. >>Ask Jeeves! >>http://www.askjeeves.com/ >> >>Typing in:- The origin of the word 'quid' >>and clicking 'ask!' gets me to: >> >>1. Where can I find out the origins of a certain word or phrase? >> >>Clicking on Ask! again gets me to: >> >>The Archives of The Logical World of Etymology >> >>Selecting 'Q-S' gets me to: >> >>quart | quash | quest | quick | quiz | rage | raining cats and dogs| etc >> >>No 'quid' - 'raining cats and dogs' looks interesting though. >> >>Well you learn something new every day. Apparently in Northern >>European mythology, it is believed that cats influence the weather >>and dogs represent wind. >> >>Ooh, I could spend days in this archive - sorry, giving up on 'quid'. >> >>PaulC >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >cateri@hotmail.com > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:44:59 +0100 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: Child abuse/precocious kids - NJC Catherine McKay wrote: > > Jason, butting into your remarks.... > > You may have a point that there are exceptions to the rules (whatever they > may be) but I think you need to be very sure of a few things. Just because > a young girl, or boy for that matter, may be familiar with the language of > love or sex, doesn't necessarily mean they have an understanding (how many > of us do even as adults?). Even though they may initiate a relationship, > IMHO it's still incumbent upon the older/more powerful person to resist and > to be very honest with the child about how flattered they are and so on, but > to put a stop to it. Without any interest in advocating censorship, a lot > of the way kids (especially girls) dress these days comes from TV, rock > videos, magazines and so on. Likewise, the makeup they wear, the way they > talk and so on. Many of them talk and act that way out of peer pressure and > because they want to be cool, but it doesn't mean they understand any of it. Catherine, you are so right. I am well aware of peer pressure, and like evian said earlier, it is an enormous burden when you are that age. However, in this country at least (I cannot speak for the US and the rest of the world) somewhere along the line the "boundary" between talking, thinking and being aware of one's emerging sexuality (and exploring it by oneself), and actually DOING and EXPERIENCING anything with another person, appears to have been eroded for many young people. I am sure most of the younger girls dressed up like TLC, Spice Girls, or whoever do not fully understand or realise much of what they are imitating, and that's how it's always been. There is more external stimualtion, knowledge and actual means to faciliate sexual activity amongst teenagers than there ever has been before. Our basic curiosity about sex has most definitely existed since the dawn of time, but in the past there was a period of time between the onset of puberty and coming of age sexually through relationships. > A young person may idolize an older person, or may develop a crush on them, > but that shouldn't be mistaken for love. Very true. Who hasn't had a crush of some sort on an older person when they were a teenager? In my case, at the time I wished she had made advances on me, but the passing of time and hindsight prove your point that ultimately young people don't always know best. That doesn't mean I remained "innocent" because nothing happened....I just fantasised about what I wanted to take place instead (as many do, I am sure). > As far as age differences, this becomes less of a factor the older you get, > but 15 and 30-something? C'mon! If they both wait 10-15 years, it's no > longer an issue. If they wait 40 years, who the hell cares? I have cited this particular case as in the UK it was front-page headlines. I agree that age becomes less important the older you get, and that - as I have said to Colin, this relationship may prove to be short-lived and looked upon as a "mistake" by both or either parties. My bone of contention, is that - in the great scheme of things - isn't there enough bad stuff going on in the world to just let these two continue their (potentially unwise) relationship? Why should it be of importance to the nation? The guy is not a serial seducer of his pupils, and she has not had crushes on every teacher going. > And, even in a case where you're SURE your relationship (older person to > child; teacher to student; doctor to patient) is THE different one and that > it's equitable and all that, once the relationship ends and if the > younger/weaker one gets to thinking about it, especially if they're bitter > about it, the older/more powerful one had better watch his or her back, as > many a law suit and/or suspension of license has shown. Not to mention > statutory rape where willingness on the part of a younger person isn't even > a factor. This is also a vaild point. Once upon a time, this would only have applied to somewhere like the US, but the whole world is now moving more in the direction of court cases arising from these kind of situations and so forth. I expect we could conduct a major NJC thread on this topic alone. > I agree that of late perhaps overmuch has been made of everyone's being a > victim. While many of us have had an unpleasant experience of some kind, we > haven't all been abused as children, and for some of us, these unpleasant > experiences are just another learning experience and we get over it. It's > not the same as someone having been constantly abused physically, mentally, > sexually or emotionally. Thank you! I have continually acknowledged to Colin that I recognise the difference between what he has been through, and what I have often been talking about. > So stay away from kids, Jason, or there'll be one angry mama out to get you! > ;) LOL...is that a threat? ;-D Jason. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:14:13 GMT From: "Catherine McKay" Subject: Re: 'Quid' aka "A bit of bob" (NJC) I always thought "Seersucker" was actually kind of an ominous-sounding word, especially when thaid with a lithp like Thylvesther the Cat. What is a seer, I ask? but a quick glance in my Oxford concise tells me it comes from the Persian (Lord have mercy!) and means "milk and sugar", whereupon all ominousness vanishes like smoke. God, am I disappointed in that one... >From: "Paul Castle" >To: "Catherine McKay" >CC: "jmdl" >Subject: Re: 'Quid' aka "A bit of bob" (NJC) >Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:24:19 +0100 > > >Catherine wrote > >Sorry if I'm boring anyone, but I'm a bit of a word-nerd.>> > >Not bored at all. Still buried in the 'Archives of The Logical >World of Etymology' - here's one for all you 'word-nerds' > >"Nerd: A nerd is a person regarded as stupid, socially inept, or >unattractive. The American Heritage Dictionary notes that the >word first appears in 1950 in Dr. Seuss's If I Ran the Zoo: "And >then, just to show them, I'll sail to Ka-Troo And Bring Back an >It-Kutch a Preep and a Proo a Nerkle a Nerd and a Seersucker, >too!" (The nerd itself is a small humanoid creature looking >comically angry). Nerd next appears, with a gloss, in the >February 10, 1957, issue of the Glasgow, Scotland Sunday >Mail in a column entitled "ABC for SQUARES": "Nerd -- a >square, any explanation needed?" Authorities disagree >whether Dr. Seuss's nerd and the Glaswegian nerd are the >same word. Some claim there is no semantic connection >and the identity of the words is fortuitous. Others maintain that >Dr. Seuss is the true originator of nerd and that the word was >picked up by five- and six-year-olds of 1950 and passed on to >their older siblings, who by 1957, as teenagers, had applied >nerd to the most comically obnoxious creature of their own class, >a "square." > >Oooh errr!! I think I'm more of a 'nerkle' really - although some >kids have shouted 'seersucker' at me on occasions! > >PaulC > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Catherine McKay >To: pdcmusic@freeuk.com ; joni@smoe.org > >Date: 10 September 1999 14:00 >Subject: Re: 'Quid' aka "A bit of bob" (NJC) > > > >I went home last night and checked my Ayto's origin of words book, and lo > >and behold - I was right. According to Ayto, they're fairly certain that > >"quid" does indeed come from the Latin "quid pro quo", so you're >exchanging > >money (quid) for an item or service (quo.) > > > >At the same time, I decided to check on "buck" which is what Americans >and > >Canadians call the dollar. That comes from "buckskin" which was used in > >trading - presumably a buckskin was worth a dollar. > > > >Sorry if I'm boring anyone, but I'm a bit of a word-nerd. > > > > > >>From: "Paul Castle" > >>To: "jmdl" > >>CC: > >>Subject: 'Quid' aka "A bit of bob" (NJC) > >>Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 19:30:41 +0100 > >> > >>Catherine at cateri@hotmail.com asked > >> >Any idea where the word "quid" came from? > >> > >>Not sure but I'll do what all us Brits do, doncha know. > >>Ask Jeeves! > >>http://www.askjeeves.com/ > >> > >>Typing in:- The origin of the word 'quid' > >>and clicking 'ask!' gets me to: > >> > >>1. Where can I find out the origins of a certain word or phrase? > >> > >>Clicking on Ask! again gets me to: > >> > >>The Archives of The Logical World of Etymology > >> > >>Selecting 'Q-S' gets me to: > >> > >>quart | quash | quest | quick | quiz | rage | raining cats and dogs| etc > >> > >>No 'quid' - 'raining cats and dogs' looks interesting though. > >> > >>Well you learn something new every day. Apparently in Northern > >>European mythology, it is believed that cats influence the weather > >>and dogs represent wind. > >> > >>Ooh, I could spend days in this archive - sorry, giving up on 'quid'. > >> > >>PaulC > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >cateri@hotmail.com > > > >______________________________________________________ > >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > > > > cateri@hotmail.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V4 #397 ************************** The Song and Album Voting Booths are open! Cast your votes by clicking the links at http://www.jmdl.com/gallery username: jimdle password: siquomb ------- Don't forget about these ongoing projects: Glossary project: Send a blank message to for all the details. 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?