From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V4 #399 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk JMDL Digest Saturday, September 11 1999 Volume 04 : Number 399 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: -------- Strangers [Bob.Muller@fluordaniel.com] NJC Why does it always go like this? [Jason Maloney ] Re: NJC Bob's lying! [catman ] Re: Strangers [David Wright ] Re: NJC - kids and sexuality [Siresorrow@aol.com] RE: Flours of Deep Feeling (NJC) ["Wally Kairuz" ] Re: NJC Bob's lying! [luvart@snet.net] Joni's grandson? [Vince Lavieri ] Re: Lolita (NJC) [Jason Maloney ] Banshee (NJC) [Mark Domyancich ] Re: Just saying hi (NJC) [catman ] Re: Banshee (NJC) [David Wright ] Re: Lolita (NJC) [catman ] Re: Lolita (NJC) [Jason Maloney ] Re: Lolita (NJC) [catman ] (NJC) Enough for now? [Vince Lavieri ] Re: NJC Bob's lying! [catman ] Joni moods [catman ] Re: Lolita (NJC) [Jason Maloney ] re: Flours of Deep Feeling (NJC) [Kate Tarasenko ] NJC: Where's the damn water bucket? [Kate Tarasenko ] RE: NJC kids and sexuality [Catherine Turley ] Re: Lolita (NJC) [catman ] Re: Flours of Deep Feeling (NJC) [RMuRocks@aol.com] Re: NJC Bob's lying! [RMuRocks@aol.com] Re: Lolita (NJC) [Jason Maloney ] Re: NJC Bob's lying! [catman ] Re: Joni moods [MGVal@aol.com] Re: Lolita (NJC) [catman ] Re: Joni moods [catman ] NJC shows [pattihaskins@mindspring.com] NJC: Super-cool songs with... [Kate Tarasenko ] Re: Lolita (NJC) [Jason Maloney ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1999 17:00:57 -0400 From: Bob.Muller@fluordaniel.com Subject: Strangers Anne quoted this line from Hejira: "Still sometimes the slightest touch of a stranger can set up trembling in my bones", And it reminded me of Joni's other "stranger" line from "Down to You": "You brush against a stranger and you both apologize" And it once again made me marvel at Joni's songwriting skills because she describes the same thing, brushing up against a stranger, but implies two totally different emotions....opposites almost. And it's all the more powerful because it's something we've all experienced, a stranger's touch being either thrilling or chilling. Bob -------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 01:04:48 +0100 From: Jason Maloney Subject: NJC Why does it always go like this? OK folks, Many of you probably saw this coming as soon as Colin first replied to my initial posting on the "Lolita" thread. What began as a fascinating and valid discussion over the merits of a much-maligned and misunderstood new version of the story has - inevitably, some might say - - ended up with me in the middle of a slanging match, with Colin and the enigmatic "ss" on the one side, and myself, Rachel, Don and anyone out there privately despairing at the price to be paid for having the balls to even comment on such a controversial subject on the other side. I think it's pretty obvious that at no point have I been trying to raise anyone heckles or stir up a hornet's nest. I am satisfied that I have always conducted myself in an appropriate manner, and always listened and respected the opinions of others. These latest 2 outbursts have shocked me, more by their unexpectedness than their admittedly aggressive tone. I've seen this kind of thing happen during other NJC discussions, and I suppose it's more fool me for even entering into this one. I will not be leaving the list or anyhting so dramatic, and I suspect there are those who do like to see a bit of a verbal scrap from time to time. The option is there for me to lower myself to their level, but I refuse to do so. Once again, many thanks to all those who have offered private words of appreciation and support to what I have said. I have no agenda here, nothing to gain or lose by speaking honestly. I value the members of this list, and the list as a whole, because it has a heart and is a wonderful source of positivity, knowledge and compassion. On a list this size, one cannot always gurantee those things all the time, and my love of this list will not be diminished by what has ended up a quite farcical affair. Jason. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 00:55:56 +0100 From: "Paul Castle" Subject: Yay! ROTR bass tab Chris Marshall's inspirational post about Hejira bass lines reminded me of this [from Bill Milkowski's book on Jaco] "During Joni's road show, Jaco was featured in a solo bass spot every night. Using the repeat function of an MXR digital delay, he would lay down an ostinato, loop it, and then play solo lines on top of the repeating riff. As he played, he would -of course- slide around the stage on the baby powder sprinkled beneath his feet, and he would often get the crowd to clap along with the beat while he danced and strutted his James Brown moves. As the solo gathered speed, Jaco would turn up the built-in fuzz tone of his Acoustic 360 amplifier full blast and launch into an explosion of feedback quoting from Jimi Hendrix's 'Third Stone from the Sun' and 'The Star Spangled Banner' along the way. He would then climax his showcase by laying his bass down on the stage (pickups still howling), climbing on top of his amp, and then jumping onto his instrument. Sometimes he would mockingly whip the bass into submission with his guitar strap like some sort of comical Marquis de Sade." Ooooh errr! Does anyone out there remember seeing this? Can you recommend a good brand of baby powder? I'm really in the mood to lay down an ostinato! PaulC ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 01:04:30 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: NJC Bob's lying! Bob.Muller@fluordaniel.com wrote: > Catman offers > > <> > > No, but thanks so much for the invitation... > > It would certainly put a new spin on the phrase "I've been to London to > visit the Queen"...:~D depends which queen you are planning to visit. this one doesn't live in London. we have a country residence. > > > Bob > > NP: Bonnie Raitt, "Tangled & Dark" - -- "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 20:16:22 -0400 (EDT) From: David Wright Subject: Re: Strangers On Thu, 9 Sep 1999 Bob.Muller@fluordaniel.com wrote: > And it's all the more powerful because it's something we've all > experienced, a stranger's touch being either thrilling or chilling. Or both at the same time? - --David ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:20:17 EDT From: Siresorrow@aol.com Subject: Re: NJC - kids and sexuality In a message dated 99-09-10 19:37:37 EDT, Jenaya@playnetwork.com writes: << I started having sex at 16 (which I think is about average, maybe slightly early among my peers, but I lived in a small conservative town), my boyfriend was 21. I can honestly say that it did me no harm. >> youre not old enough to know what has done you harm yet. come back to me in 20 years and let me know if you want your 16 year old having sex with a 21 year old. to the list, this is my last post on this issue. we're far far away from mind beauty. ss. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:18:33 -0300 From: "Wally Kairuz" Subject: RE: Flours of Deep Feeling (NJC) leslie, you're getting more wicked by the minute! wallyk - -----Original Message----- De: Leslie Mixon Para: stevemi@sco.com ; joni@smoe.org Fecha: Viernes 10 de Septiembre de 1999 16:36 Asunto: Flours of Deep Feeling (NJC) >Veteran Pillsbury spokesman Pop N. Fresh, died yesterday >of a severe yeast infection. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:28:33 -0400 From: luvart@snet.net Subject: Re: Just saying hi (NJC) At 06:46 AM 9/10/99 -0400, Deb Messling wrote: >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. > Good luck with the wedding plans, Deb! Don't let the job get to you. So ..... what Joni tunes will be played at the reception? ;-) Heather ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 01:31:45 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Lolita (NJC) Jason-what i wrote was this: Whilst I hope you do not intend this, I find this to be extremely offensive and patronizing. You don't know what you are talking about. Are you saying that if I had dealt with my own shit, I would keep my mouth shut?Why is it that when someone is honest about their experience, they are then defined as being unable to have anything but a suspect opinion? Does the fact I was abused mean my views on this subject are of less value than someone who wasn't? It's like being told 'you're are too sensitive' which is load of crap and said by those who have nothing left to argue their corner with. As for your situation, I would not dismiss your views on medicine because you are ill! What you wrote in response was this: to you, have made you THIS upset? Someone used the term "wacked in the head" to describe me earlier, but I think it surely must apply to you, my very unstable fellow JMDL-er. Why did you write this negative, illogical and ill-tempered post? So because i disagree with you and take exception to your comments about me, you feel it is alright to write the above and say I am very unstable. Of course, you must think you are qualified to say such a thing. i think it is a bit late to worry about writing something offensive, jason!!!! No where in any of what i wrote did I resort to name calling nor did I make any comment about your mental state. Do not confuse me with others. However, jason, you have ceratinly gone down in my estimation because you resorted to this. It is the cowards way. What started off pure;y as a statement about the child in Lolita rsulted in the rest because you could not lkeep to the point, kept insisting I was talking about something else, finally, cast doubt on my ability to think with your 'concern' over my feelings about the past and then, when you saw that wouldn't wash, you resort to being highly offensive. thank you. I also saw no need for your other mail, trying to appear the wronged party and thanking people for their private responses to you. Jason, this is foolish. The only time debate goes sour is when people resort to name calling and making offensive assumptions about others. I did not do this to you. you did. It is quite possible to doisagree with people and still like them and be friendly you know, even if the disagreement is heated. However, to get offensive and personal in this way, destroys any trust I have in that person. Until this mail, jason, i thought you were honourable and someone I could trust. I had thought after I wrote my paragraph stating my offense at what you wrote(still not name calling), maybe I was misreading. but then you write: Someone used the term "wacked in the head" to describe me earlier, but I think it surely must apply to you, my very unstable fellow JMDL-er. and I know I didn't misread a thing. this is an end to the matter. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:57:10 -0400 From: luvart@snet.net Subject: Re: NJC Bob's lying! At 01:04 AM 9/11/99 +0100, catman wrote: >.. >> >> It would certainly put a new spin on the phrase "I've been to London to >> visit the Queen"...:~D > >depends which queen you are planning to visit. this one doesn't live in >London. we have a country residence. > You wouldn't be Hyacinth's sister Violet who has a Mercedes', sauna and room for a pony ..... ;-) Heather - a 'Keeping Up Appearances' fan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:14:26 -0400 From: Vince Lavieri Subject: Joni's grandson? I am moving - well, I am moved - and tonight going through a pile of papers, I found a clipping from the 9 September 1998 'Chicago Tribune' that I saved, called "Joni's jazzed" by Greg Kot. Kot has always written well of Joni, as he does in this piece. For example, he says Blue raised the confessional to an art form, HOSL a landmark, Heijra as having haunting insight, TI a impressionist sound paintig, TTT he says Joni vocal lines intyertwine hypnotically with the saxophone. But what catches my eye is the line that Joni said 20 years ago that she hoped "to remain interested in the music." When asked by Kot if she has, she says she lost it, she intended to quit, and then "a few things have happened to give me new enthusiasm. And then I began spending time with my daughter and grandson." I thought Daisy Joan was her first garndchild - but what do I know? I am also pondering what the source of new enthusiasm is/was. So I throw this out... what do I not know? (Bob Floridation Man RMuRocks is specifically forbidden from responding to this line in this question as it is way to easy for him...) (the Rev) Vince ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 02:22:52 +0100 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: Lolita (NJC) I have just realised Colin's message has gone out to the whole list. I am surprised. This was intended to be a private response to him, but why should I worry about that now? Colin, You may want to end this, but I feel a reply is needed. You have once again selectively quoted me, and parried back everything I have said about you, and said the exact same thing about me! It is almost ridiculous. You may not have name-called in that post, but you used other means to aggresively state your anger. There are only 2 people here who DON'T believe yours was an uncalled-for attack. So, it's okay for you to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, that I am tellling you to keep yopur mouth shut, and that I think you have nothing of value to contribute. Excuse me for breathing, but for chrissakes where do you get all these impressions from? If you are trying to get a rise out of me, you succeeded. I am seriously pissed off. That make you feel better? Saying you are unstable is based upon your illogical and unprovoked outbursts of anger and a sense of injustice at people who have no intention of being hurtful. You brought about that comment through your own doing. You are a confrontational person, and I cannot change that. I am the opposite. I have no need to offend and challenge people. I like a good, intelligent discussion among adults, and enough people have told me that I have helped make this thread exactly that to make it worthwhile. > So because i disagree with you and take exception to your comments about me, you feel it is > alright to write the above and say I am very unstable. Of course, you must think you are > qualified to say such a thing. You pushed and pushed until I cracked. You got the ammunition you were looking for. Now you feel wounded, and justified for whatever it is that makes you act this way. > i think it is a bit late to worry about writing something offensive, jason!!!! > > No where in any of what i wrote did I resort to name calling nor did I make any comment about > your mental state. Do not confuse me with others. However, jason, you have ceratinly gone down > in my estimation because you resorted to this. It is the cowards way. What started off pure;y > as a statement about the child in Lolita rsulted in the rest because you could not lkeep to > the point, kept insisting I was talking about something else, finally, cast doubt on my > ability to think with your 'concern' over my feelings about the past and then, when you saw > that wouldn't wash, you resort to being highly offensive. thank you. You had an agenda here in this debate, of continually venting your anger and hatred of child abusers...for whatever reasons connected to your own experiences. Not keeping to the point in your eyes means not endlessly rehashing your outrage at the people who you so despise. I agreed with, and shared, your dislike and incomprehension of those people.....but the discussion was not about that. You wanted it to be, I could see that, but a thread like this is not a soapbox. You haven't even SEEN the film we are all talking about! > I also saw no need for your other mail, trying to appear the wronged party and thanking people > for their private responses to you. Jason, this is foolish. The only time debate goes sour is > when people resort to name calling and making offensive assumptions about others. I did not do > this to you. you did. Well, I'll be blowed! You know that isn't true....a certain "ss" ring any bells? > It is quite possible to doisagree with people and still like them and be > friendly you know, even if the disagreement is heated. However, to get offensive and personal > in this way, destroys any trust I have in that person. Until this mail, jason, i thought you > were honourable and someone I could trust. Oh, so you can write all that inaccurate and slanderous nonsense about what I am supposed to be saying to and about you, and I am supposed to accept that...and say "oh yeah, go right ahead"? Besides...this entire paragraph of yours is almost indentical to the one I wrote to YOU! > I had thought after I wrote my paragraph stating my offense at what you wrote(still not name > calling), maybe I was misreading. but then you write: > > Someone used the term "wacked in the > head" to describe me earlier, but I think it surely must apply to you, > my very unstable fellow JMDL-er. > > and I know I didn't misread a thing. depends what gets you...."name-calling"(which it wasn't, so again you are inaccurate) or implied and repeated accusations. > > this is an end to the matter. Oh, you've decided that? Funny how the person dishing out the accusations always wants to decide when the discussion is over. This can run and run....I don't mind either way. My conscience is clear, but I am deeply disappointed by your behaviour throughout this discussion. You have also broken the rules of netiquette by sending your reply to my private post out into the public domain. I've nothing to hide, so in that respect I am not bothered, but it's something worth remembering. Jason. (I have altered/toned down the language now that it is destined for the list). ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:19:27 -0500 From: Mark Domyancich Subject: Banshee (NJC) Hi everyone- You are all a bunch of intelligent folks and I hope you can help me out on this one. Big NJC. In 8th grade I heard this song around Halloween that my music teacher played for our class. It was a piano song (David Wright, please help!) but the composer plucked the strings *inside* the piano with his fingers. I think it was called The Banshee but I'm not sure. The result was a very spooky sound but very awesome. I've been wanting to hear this song again for several years! Any help, of course, would be greatly appreciated. ___________________________________ | Mark Domyancich | | Harpua@revealed.net | | http://home.revealed.net/Harpua | |_________________________________| ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 02:32:02 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Just saying hi (NJC) Hi Deb-congratulations on your upcoming wedding. bet you must be feeling excited. I wish you all the best and the same happiness John and I have experienced. bw colin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:37:14 -0400 (EDT) From: David Wright Subject: Re: Banshee (NJC) On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Mark Domyancich wrote: > In 8th grade I heard this song around > Halloween that my music teacher played for our class. It was a piano > song (David Wright, please help!) but the composer plucked the > strings *inside* the piano with his fingers. I think it was called > The Banshee but I'm not sure. Yes, it's "The Banshee," and it's by Henry Cowell, an innovative American composer from the first half of this century. Some of the eerie sounds are made by scraping the fingers or fingernails along the length of the bass strings while the pedal is held down. (Some of his other piano pieces involve strumming chords on the strings or playing chords or tone clusters on the keyboard with the fist or forearm.) There are many recordings of Cowell's piano pieces, including a recording on Smithsonian Folkways (on CD) of Cowell playing several of them himself and talking about them. He was influenced by Irish folk legends and music. - --David ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 02:39:44 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Lolita (NJC) Jason-your response to me went to the list. I therfore responded to the list. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 03:00:34 +0100 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: Lolita (NJC) I am now breaking netiquette codes myself, but by sending this I can rectify an error on my behalf. The mistake had gone unnoticed. catman wrote: > > Jason-your response to me went to the list. I therfore responded to the list. Yes, I have just noticed this. My apologies. I gladly retract the last statement about netiquette in that case. Jason. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 02:48:10 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Lolita (NJC) Oh, and just a small point, you know very little about me, tho you think you do. you do not know whether or not I am angry or what at. Actually, I get far more angry with people who defend people who abuse than i do with the abuser! I know it isn't acceptable to be angry, certainly not in the UK, and that people who have been vitcimized are supposed to take it on the chin, be quiet, forgive and forget. Just to make you comfortable. I hate to disappoint you but I have not been sitting here seething. i have been watching tv, reading, seein to the animals, having alugh, and stating how I feel on this subject. That is normal and acceptable. It seems to me that you are the one who has got all in a tizz and couldn't ressist getting abusive. I was very careful how I worded my respoinse to you. the closest i got to being downright rude was to say'you know nothing about it'. Judging from your further response, I have no reason to change my mind. I also think as it was ss who made the comment about your mind, your response would have been better directed at him rather than to make a worse retort to me. Sleep well, Jason. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 21:59:47 -0400 From: Vince Lavieri Subject: (NJC) Enough for now? You all may not know that for several years I worked for Catholic Family Services, in foster care, and we worked with any number of sexually abused children, some of whom I became quite attached to, all of whom I was quite concerned for as in every case you see the damage that is done by sexualizing a child. I have also just moved out of my my lover's house for the last time and forever in very large part because he was sexually abused as a child and has yet to deal in any rational way with it because of his fears. All the classic symptoms are there; you can look them up, I have lived with them, and enough is enough, I cannot be his surrogate psychiatrist and put up with all this in my personal life anymore as a protection for my own sanity. So I think I have something to say in this whole Lolita thing. I think Mark in Seattle came closest to what I understand Nababov's book was about. I think the Kubrick film was not a ode to child abuse, nor was the most recent film, nor, it bears saying, the book itself. All speak of obsession and the subject is very delicate... Nabakov, a refuge from Stalinism, chose the subject intentionally. I am offering no opinion as to the wisdom of that choice of focus, nor of his success with it as a writer, but again, I have never understood Nabakov to be in any way suggesting that adult/child sex is in any way legitimate. He was looking at culture and if you all don't think that the Nabakov critique may still apply, go to your local county fair and see the Jon Bonet Ramsey look-alikes all decked out like 5 year old hookers singing some torch song and think again about what Nabakov was saying about us all. Consider that English was not his first language and isn't it interesting that we call so often call the objects of our sexual fantasies "boys" or "girls" no matter their age. And last time I was in Chicago I went to Boystown and shopped in a store called Bad Boys and bought a Bad Boys tshirt. I have friends who love to look at the girls when we are at a restuarant.. In all these cases we are talking about people over 18. I think nakakov was trying to do something in this area, our very peculiar choice of language. I am saying that Jason and others are certainly not condoning child abuse, in no way. I agree that any sexualizing of any child is a crime, if not in a legal sense, certainly as a crime against that child. Colin, I do not hear Jason or anyone else offering an apology for child abuse. I think the subject is so nuanced that we need to set back for a while and leave it alone. I have flamed in here, I have been flamed. I am seeing people that are friends of mine tearing into each other. (the Rev) Vince ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 02:50:52 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: NJC Bob's lying! luvart@snet.net wrote: > At 01:04 AM 9/11/99 +0100, catman wrote: > >.. > >> > >> It would certainly put a new spin on the phrase "I've been to London to > >> visit the Queen"...:~D > > > >depends which queen you are planning to visit. this one doesn't live in > >London. we have a country residence. > > > > You wouldn't be Hyacinth's sister Violet who has a Mercedes', sauna and > room for a pony ..... ;-) room for a pony, yes. Mercedes? no. sauna, no. Hyacyth's sister? I wouldn't admit to it even if I was. What an awful woman. Tho I have to say my l mother is much better at being Hyacinth ! > > > Heather - a 'Keeping Up Appearances' fan - -- "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: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 02:55:14 +0100 From: catman Subject: Joni moods The weather here is cool and misty after a hot day. you can't see very far and the stars and moon are obscured by the mist. tho cool it is also balmy. Which joni album/tracks would best suit this ? - -- "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: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 03:14:11 +0100 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: Lolita (NJC) catman wrote: > > Oh, and just a small point, you know very little about me, tho you think you do. you do not know > whether or not I am angry or what at. Actually, I get far more angry with people who defend people > who abuse than i do with the abuser! Someone try and convince me this sentence is not a complete contradiction! And to be angrier at the person who you consider to be defending the abuser, than the abuser themselves...well, what on earth can I say in response to that kind of logic? I am speechless. > I know it isn't acceptable to be angry, certainly not in the UK, and that people who have been > vitcimized are supposed to take it on the chin, be quiet, forgive and forget. Just to make you > comfortable. > I hate to disappoint you but I have not been sitting here seething. i have been watching tv, > reading, seein to the animals, having alugh, and stating how I feel on this subject. That is normal > and acceptable. It seems to me that you are the one who has got all in a tizz and couldn't ressist > getting abusive. I was very careful how I worded my respoinse to you. the closest i got to being > downright rude was to say'you know nothing about it'. Your definitions are pretty out there....that WAS abusive, no "closest to" invloved. Yet again, you are happy to assume and tell me what I am feeling, saying and thinking, but anything I say is irrelevant. I'm not upset, it's all too nonsensical to do that to me. > I also think as it was ss who made the comment about your mind, your response would have been better > directed at him rather than to make a worse retort to me. Maybe it hurt because it's too close to the truth? Seems the only comment of mine that has got through to you. That says a lot. Jason. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:26:27 +0000 From: Kate Tarasenko Subject: re: Flours of Deep Feeling (NJC) I'm laughing so hard I have to write it all out -- no insufficient emoticons or acronyms -- I AM LAUGHING MY ASS OFF OUT LOUD OVER THIS!!!!! Thanks, Leslie, you nut! Kate in CO (Okay, one or two: !^D) NP: Don Byron & Existential Dred -- "Nu Blaxploitation" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:34:31 +0000 From: Kate Tarasenko Subject: NJC: Where's the damn water bucket? "ss" ripped capriciously: "i don't think different things are being discussed at all. i think jason is wacked in the head. i think rachael is young and naieve..." NOT COOL, BROTHER!!!!!!! You want to attack the idea or the concept or the stance, ATTACK IT, and back it up if you want to advance any engaging debate... But DO NOT attack my fellow list members in person or in character! If you need to count to ten to make your arguments in a more reasonable and tolerant voice, DO IT. DO NOT ATTACK my list-brothers and -sisters. Kate in CO (this pattern of lower-case shit is starting to creep me out...!^) NP: Don Byron..."If 6 Were 9" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 20:13:14 -0700 From: Catherine Turley Subject: RE: NJC kids and sexuality I'm surprised that I'm coming out of deepest lurkdom to weigh in on this thread, but it has touched on a topic that has been on my mind in the last few days. I went to a tiny high school, and there were about thirty girls in my class. Our sophomore year we had seven pregnancies, which of course caused a bit of a stir in our small town. The daddies of those babies were also 16 and 17 year old high school boys. Last week I got an email from a friend from home informing me that our dubious achievement has at last been surpassed by the current class of seventh graders (12 and 13 year olds), who boast eight pregancies. I half jokingly asked my friend if she was going to have a long talk with her son, a twelve year old who is in that very class, about the dangerous wiles of the seventh grade girl. She replied that she had talked with him, and most of the boys in the class are kind of mystified about the whole thing, since the fathers of this crop of babies (as far as they can pin down) are all 17 and 18 year old high school boys, one is 19 and out of school and and a couple are are in their early 20s. Now I certainly agree that sexuality is an important part of everyone's life, and that like it or not, kids will experiment sexually--its just a part of growing up, and if this were a case of twelve year olds run sexually amok together, that would be one thing. But we're talking 20 year olds and 12 years olds. IMO, this is one of the tragic consquences of the oversexualization of children in our pop culture. Not only do children get distorted messages about themselves and healthy sexuality, it also seems to encourage some adults to justify what is, in the end, predatory behavior. I will grudgingly concede (and only for the sake of argument) that some young teens may be ready for a sexual relationship, but the vast majority of children that young, no matter how sexual they appear in dress or behavior, just don't have the judgement or emotional stability to make that kind of choice and deal with the consequences. Its not a hard call for me at all. It seems to me that one of the basic functions of parents and teachers and friends and family is to protect those 12 year olds as best we can until they do develop appropriate judgement and stability, and when they're mature enough (the judgement of a 15 or 16 year old can be worlds away from that of a 12 year old), they can make their own choices and live with them for good or ill. I share Colin's opinion 100 percent--it is up to adults to act responsibly no matter how the child behaves or what he or she appears to or explicitly "asks for." I am very comfortable drawing a hard line in this department. I can't imagine what harm will befall a twelve year old by NOT having sex with an adult, while the opposite invites the possibilty of immeasureable heartache and damage. Anyway--that's my .02. I'll now go collect my Joni thoughts for some future JC posts. Adios, Catherine T. in AZ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 03:39:38 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Lolita (NJC) jason wrote: 'Someone try and convince me this sentence is not a complete contradiction! And to be angrier at the person who you consider to be defending the abuser, than the abuser themselves...well, what on earth can I say in response to that kind of logic? I am speechless. (and there you go again bringing doubt into my ability to think logically) It isn't contradictory at all. the vast majority of abuse would not be able to happen without people defending/enabling the abuser. Jason if it makes you feel better, as you appear to need it so, yes I am very unstable so much so that i live under a 24 hr watch, am only occasionally allowed out and then not without my straightjacket and muzzle. Oh and yes it wounded me deeply to read your opinon that i am unstable. so much so that i really think my life is just not worth living anymore. now you can rest in peace, knowing that you won, that I was well and truly poked by your sword, that you honour as man has been saved. As a final present: I hearby retract evrything I wrote and I humbly ask your forgiveness. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 23:09:15 EDT From: RMuRocks@aol.com Subject: Re: Flours of Deep Feeling (NJC) In a message dated 9/10/99 6:43:21 PM US Central Standard Time, stevem@cruzio.com writes: << Veteran Pillsbury spokesman Pop N. Fresh, died yesterday of a severe yeast infection. >> Wonderful Leslie! Except I'm afraid you OD'ed on the nitrous oxide at the dentist's yesterday...:~) Thanks for the comic relief...I've been trying to configure a "Lolita" filter on my computer! :~) Bob NP: XTC, "Traffic Light Rock" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 23:18:18 EDT From: RMuRocks@aol.com Subject: Re: NJC Bob's lying! In a message dated 9/10/99 8:53:53 PM US Central Standard Time, catman@ethericcats.demon.co.uk writes: << "It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for what you are not." >> As many times as i've seen this today Colin, I feel compelled to add that it's best of all to be loved for what you are... Bob (Not lying about THAT one) NP: XTC: "I'm Bugged" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 04:50:21 +0100 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: Lolita (NJC) catman wrote: > > jason wrote: > 'Someone try and convince me this sentence is not a complete > contradiction! And to be angrier at the person who you consider to be > defending the abuser, than the abuser themselves...well, what on earth > can I say in response to that kind of logic? I am speechless. > > (and there you go again bringing doubt into my ability to think logically) > > It isn't contradictory at all. the vast majority of abuse would not be able to happen without people > defending/enabling the abuser. This line of thinking/discussion is so out of tune with my own views and knowledge of people and life that I simply cannot respond to it. > Jason if it makes you feel better, as you appear to need it so, yes I am very unstable so much so that i > live under a 24 hr watch, am only occasionally allowed out and then not without my straightjacket and > muzzle. > Oh and yes it wounded me deeply to read your opinon that i am unstable. so much so that i really think my > life is just not worth living anymore. > now you can rest in peace, knowing that you won, that I was well and truly poked by your sword, that you > honour as man has been saved. > > As a final present : I hereby retract evrything I wrote and I humbly ask your forgiveness. Well, if we're talking about lowering of opinions by writing foolish posts (as you accused me of earlier), then this has done likewise regarding yourself. This is witless, silly and unnecessary. It has no relevance to anything that been written or any feelings that have been expressed on either side. I dearly wish you had not written it. This discussion was not about winning, and to suggest as much proves what I have said about your misconceptions throughout this discussion. The sad thing is, I do not disagree with your initial opnions, only with the style of your communications and continual misinterpretation and misrepresentations of my comments and character. Jason. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 04:58:20 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: NJC Bob's lying! RMuRocks@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 9/10/99 8:53:53 PM US Central Standard Time, > catman@ethericcats.demon.co.uk writes: > > << "It is better to be hated for what you are > than to be loved for what you are not." >> > > As many times as i've seen this today Colin, I feel compelled to add that > it's best of all to be loved for what you are... Too true Bob! In the long run i believe we are, at least by my God. Unfortunately people fall short of that. Often it is 'i love you but only if....'I like that quote because it is inspiring. There was a time I tried to be whatever my family/church wanted in order for them to love me. then i wised up and found freedom. To be more specific it is better for me to be hated for being gay than to be accepted and loved when pretending not be. Or it is better for me to be hated for speaking my truth than to be loved for living a lie. It speaks of being who you are and not being a people pleaser. The only real battle in life, that never ends, is the one to be who you are and that goes for all of us, you, me, and them. We have so much..tv, school, family, government, church etc all trying to get us to be what they want us to be! > > > Bob (Not lying about THAT one) > > NP: XTC: "I'm Bugged" - -- "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: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 00:04:36 EDT From: MGVal@aol.com Subject: Re: Joni moods In a message dated 9/10/99 8:55:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, catman@ethericcats.demon.co.uk writes: << he weather here is cool and misty after a hot day. you can't see very far and the stars and moon are obscured by the mist. tho cool it is also balmy. Which joni album/tracks would best suit this ? >> Wow! Colin, what a terrific thread idea! Right off the bat, "Blue Motel Room" comes to mind for me. While that song isn't foggy or misty, it's "pouring rain" enough to obscure the palm trees. MG ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 05:14:35 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Lolita (NJC) Jason Maloney wrote: > catman wrote: > > > > jason wrote: > > 'Someone try and convince me this sentence is not a complete > > contradiction! And to be angrier at the person who you consider to be > > defending the abuser, than the abuser themselves...well, what on earth > > can I say in response to that kind of logic? I am speechless. > > > > (and there you go again bringing doubt into my ability to think logically) > > > > It isn't contradictory at all. the vast majority of abuse would not be able to happen without people > > defending/enabling the abuser. > > This line of thinking/discussion is so out of tune with my own views and > knowledge of people and life that I simply cannot respond to it. Why? I don't understand this comment. It is a fact that people do aid and abet abusers. By denying the abuse, by denying the victim was a victim, by telling the victim it wasn't that bad, by telling the victim to be silent, not to make a fuss, by ignoring the warning signs because it makes them too uncomfortable. on a public level, because people who were known to have histories of abusing children were allowed to work with children, because children in childrens homes were ignored, because teachers didn't bother to enquire why a child was withdrawn or bruised, because neighbours ignored the childs screams they could hear, because people couldn't accept that a priest would harm a child, that a mother would, that a father would. By the courts letting child abusers off or only giving light sentences, by them letting child murderes and rapists out of prison to do it again. By giving huge publicity to cases such as the Wyman one and letting children know they are not really worth protecting. or by judges, when sentencing a man to a derisory term, sating that the 11 year old child concerned had contributed to the rape because she was prevoctive. And because people believe that some children are sexaully aware and mature enough to handle a sexual relationship with an adult. All of this makes child abuse possible. > > > > Jason if it makes you feel better, as you appear to need it so, yes I am very unstable so much so that i > > live under a 24 hr watch, am only occasionally allowed out and then not without my straightjacket and > > muzzle. > > Oh and yes it wounded me deeply to read your opinon that i am unstable. so much so that i really think my > > life is just not worth living anymore. > > now you can rest in peace, knowing that you won, that I was well and truly poked by your sword, that you > > honour as man has been saved. > > > > As a final present : I hereby retract evrything I wrote and I humbly ask your forgiveness. > > Well, if we're talking about lowering of opinions by writing foolish > posts (as you accused me of earlier), perhaps it was a foolish response. > It has no > relevance to anything that been written or any feelings that have been > expressed Oh then what was this: ' a very unstable...' etc and then this:Maybe it hurt because it's too close to the truth? Seems the only comment of mine that has got through to you. That says a lot. I agree it says a lot-about you. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 05:19:51 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Joni moods For me it brings to mind some tracks off DJRD and NRH, tho i have to agree it is a Blue Motel Room kind of night too. MGVal@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 9/10/99 8:55:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > catman@ethericcats.demon.co.uk writes: > > << he weather here is cool and misty after a hot day. you can't see very > far and the stars and moon are obscured by the mist. tho cool it is also > balmy. > Which joni album/tracks would best suit this ? > >> > > Wow! Colin, what a terrific thread idea! > > Right off the bat, "Blue Motel Room" comes to mind for me. While that song > isn't foggy or misty, it's "pouring rain" enough to obscure the palm trees. > > MG - -- "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 23:36:11 -0500 From: pattihaskins@mindspring.com Subject: NJC shows Hi all, Sounds like I missed a great time at Ashara's. Maybe next year, if there is one, I'll escape the Texas heat at join the fun. I just got home from seeing a great play, Dinah Was, a musical /jazz/ play about the life of Dinah Washington. Great singing, great acting, great character Dinah Washington. If the play shows up around where you live, do go. What a treat. And next month I have to tickets to hear Emmylou and Linda. Can't wait. But first, Kinky Friedman Monday night. Now that's entertainment. Patti Haskins Dallas, TX (almost in musical bliss, if only Ms M would come out and play ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 22:45:16 +0000 From: Kate Tarasenko Subject: NJC: Super-cool songs with... ...certain lines that super-suck: The Jackson 5, "ABC" -- Good lyrics: "...It's easy, it's like counting up to three, sing a simple melody -- That's how easy love can be..." Bad lyrics: "Tito's gonna show you (show-you, show-you, show-you) how to get a maa-ann..." N.P. Soundtrack to "Crooklyn" (excellent movie & soundtrk) P.S. Thank you, David Wright, for correcting my lapsed geography...! Excellent group, huh? ('huun-huur-tu' = rays of sunset-light through clouds +/-) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999 05:52:53 +0100 From: Jason Maloney Subject: Re: Lolita (NJC) catman wrote: > > This line of thinking/discussion is so out of tune with my own views and > > knowledge of people and life that I simply cannot respond to it. > > Why? I don't understand this comment. It is a fact that people do aid and abet abusers. By denying the abuse, > by denying the victim was a victim, by telling the victim it wasn't that bad, by telling the victim to be > silent, not to make a fuss, by ignoring the warning signs because it makes them too uncomfortable. on a public > level, because people who were known to have histories of abusing children were allowed to work with children, > because children in childrens homes were ignored, because teachers didn't bother to enquire why a child was > withdrawn or bruised, because neighbours ignored the childs screams they could hear, because people couldn't > accept that a priest would harm a child, that a mother would, that a father would. By the courts letting child > abusers off or only giving light sentences, by them letting child murderes and rapists out of prison to do it > again. By giving huge publicity to cases such as the Wyman one and letting children know they are not really > worth protecting. or by judges, when sentencing a man to a derisory term, sating that the 11 year old child > concerned had contributed to the rape because she was prevoctive. And because people believe that some children > are sexaully aware and mature enough to handle a sexual relationship with an adult. > > All of this makes child abuse possible. This is why I could not respond to your comment. I know all of this and more takes place, but it is so far from my own realm of experience that I did not feel it was in my ability to discuss it, for risk of being castigated. All of these dreadful and unjust things are so wrong, that I have trouble dealing with their existence while holed up here in my own struggle. If I were directly confronted with some form of child abuse, in whatever way, then obviously I would have to deal with it accordingly. I do not believe in pretending these things don't happen, but in my world...and I cannot change the outside world.....I can only know that I am aware that is very very wrong and if I found myself in a situation where abuse needed to be reported or confronted, then I would feel compelled to do so. > > Well, if we're talking about lowering of opinions by writing foolish > > posts (as you accused me of earlier), > > perhaps it was a foolish response. > > > It has no > > relevance to anything that been written or any feelings that have been > > expressed > > Oh then what was this: ' a very unstable...' etc and then this:Maybe it hurt because it's too close to the > truth? Seems the only > comment of mine that has got through to you. That says a lot. > I agree it says a lot-about you. It's up to you to answer my question. I don't know what it says about me. If it's you that decides that, then I suppose it's not going to be something I agree with. Lastly, I am lost as to why you are sending some posts privately, and some to the list. Is it just your mail software? Jason. ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V4 #399 ************************** 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?