From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2003 #116 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk Unsubscribe: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/joni Websites: http://www.jmdl.com http://www.jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Saturday, February 15 2003 Volume 2003 : Number 116 Sign up now for JoniFest 2003! http://www.jonifest.com ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: war (NJC) [Patti Haskins ] Broadband Inernet Connection (NJC) ["Eryl B Davies" ] Re: Chomsky (njc) ["Kate Bennett" ] Re: Larry and Joni [Bobsart48@aol.com] joni's piano music [bernard giordano ] Re: war (NJC) [dsk ] Re: Chomsky (njc) ["kakki" ] Re: Chomsky (njc) [vince ] Re: war (NJC) ["kakki" ] Re: Chomsky (njc) [dsk ] NJC [vince ] criticism - NJC ["patrick leader" ] Re: Chomsky (njc) ["kakki" ] Re: criticism - NJC ["kakki" ] RE: criticism - NJC ["patrick leader" ] Re: criticism - NJC ["kakki" ] Today in History: February 15 [ljirvin@jmdl.com] Re: JMDL Digest V2003 #111 - new Joni fans [BRYAN8847@aol.com] Re: JMDL Digest V2003 #113 - Cincinnati show [BRYAN8847@aol.com] Re: criticism - NJC ["courtandspark@earthlink.net" Subject: Re: war (NJC) I've been lurking and feel obligated to share this link concerning the last war in Iraq, especially after reading this line from Kakki Smart bombs targeted military and support installations, not masses of civilians. http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0211/sloyan.html Patti in Dallas ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 00:18:46 -0000 From: "Eryl B Davies" Subject: Broadband Inernet Connection (NJC) I wtched an interesting programme on TV last night about bringing broadband to remote communities by radio links. All you needed was a broadband connection connected to a central radio aerial and radio modems on each computer. Some of the modems shown used the memory slot on laptops and the presenter was shown walking around in a school playground sending an e-mail from his laptop. There is no reason why this system could be used to serve the whole of your block which could have it's own web address, so that the system was in fact a WAN (wide area network) linked by radio to the internet. The amazing thing is that the system could cover an EIGHT MILE RADIUS! so it could cover whole towns, and only needed around 40 subscribers to bring the costs down to conventional broadband connection costs. The trailblazer who was said to have pioneered this concept was said on the programme to be a Retd. Colonel Dave Hughes of Old Colorado Town and his internet address was given as dave@oldcolo.com . Why not look into this system? For people living beyond 8 miles from their nearest land based broadband connection it's possible to feed the central aerial from a satellite connection for a little extra cost. Eryl ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:20:32 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: senator byrd speaks NJC 2 recent senate remarks by senator byrd may be of interest to some here: 1) Senate Remarks: Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences- "I have learned from fifty years in Congress that it is unwise to insult one's adversaries, for tomorrow you may be in need of an ally. There will come the day when we will seek the assistance of those European allies with which we are now feuding. But serious rifts are threatening our close relationship with some of the great powers of Western Europe." Senate Remarks: The Administration's Dangerous Wartime Rhetoric- "To contemplate war is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. On this February day, as this nation stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be contemplating the horrors of war. Yet, this Chamber is, for the most part, silent -- ominously, dreadfully silent. There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing." http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_newsroom/byrd_newsroom.html ******************************************** Kate Bennett: www.katebennett.com "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world, indeed it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:27:34 -0800 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: Re: Chomsky (njc) kakki >>His viewpoints and postulations are diametrically opposed or completely foreign to those of the average American. Most Americans still do not think their government is evil... your beliefs probably conform with his. They don't with most Americans.<<<< i respond because this is an international list...i take offense at the notion that any one of us can presume to speak for the majority, most or the average american... there is no 'average' american ******************************************** Kate Bennett: www.katebennett.com "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world, indeed it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 21:40:58 EST From: Bobsart48@aol.com Subject: Re: Larry and Joni Bob Muller wrote (in reply to my defense of CMIAR) - : "I see a lot more commercial compromise on CMIARS than I do ambition. Let's look at the "stars" that were recruited to "play parts" in her songs, and how > obviously contrived and manipulative it was: > > Secret Place - Peter Gabriel (adult contemporary) > Dancin' Clown - Billy Idol/Steve Stevens/Tom Petty (the MTV crowd) > Cool Water - Willie Nelson (country pop) > Snakes & Ladders - Don Henley (adult contemporary)" > If you've forgotten, go look at where these artists were on the charts in 1988, and you can see that there was the hope of drawing from their audiences and assimilating them with Joni." I just do not get your point here, Bob. I could understand it better if you thought that Joni composed the songs cited above in order to fit the performers she eventually recruited. But I doubt that was so. Much more likely, she wrote the songs to her own standards, and then looked for some talents to round out the presentation. I love My Secret Place (and that there are two performers, although I find Gabriel's part a bit androgenous for my taste). You did not mention Lakota and Tea Leaf in this list, although they had (less famous) accompanists. But these works called for counterpoint and harmony, and she went looking for something other than her own overlays. In each case (except the truly dreadful S&L - ironic, those initials, eh ?), the fit was obviously natural and not at all contrived, IMO. As for manipulative, it would not surprise me if appearing on a JM album lent more artistic credibility as a payoff to those "recruits"" than it offered to joni in the form of potential additional sales or exposure. I could see Billy Idol, for example, thinking "well, everyone thinks I'm just a limited talent, whitehaired, S&M MTV pop star lightweight, but look, JM sees something of artistic worth in me, maybe y'all should pay attention too". > > > Then add to it the fact that most of the record has that dated 80's > synth-wash all over it, and I see it as Joni (with a big push from Klein) > trying to camouflage in with the zeitgeist instead of following the beat of > her own drummer (or the beat of black wings as the case may be). In the progression of things, I found CMIAR to be much more natural than DED, in this regard. Yes, there were a lot of tracks, but they were called for by the art. i do not think that a single song was written here with the thought that "here's one that could be a hit, and might help sell the album". That was not true of WTRF, for instance, which had two or three such cuts. Sorry, I think she was just trying to make good art here. Not a total success, to be sure, but not at all like you portayed it, IMO. I mean, Billy Idol and Tom Petty played bit parts, really. And even Willie Nelson and Gabriel were used sparingly - supporting actors, really. It's not like they were just pop duet singles. Bob S. > > Anyway, there are some highlights to be sure - and some outstanding songs > and moments, and hey, even some of the commercial duets work. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 18:45:33 -0800 (PST) From: bernard giordano Subject: joni's piano music Hi Everybody Anybody know where to find sheet music (piano)for these songs: Blue, Two Grey Rooms, Man From Mars, Rainy Night House,Ethiopia? Songbooks seem to be unavailable or out-of-print. Any leads will be appreciated: benwhitley2001@yahoo.com Thanks!!! Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 22:56:24 -0500 From: dsk Subject: Re: war (NJC) Fascinating, Patti. Thanks. Some of this information is really gruesome. Chilling. And believable regarding control of the press because the only photos I remember were always from afar and mostly of oil wells burning. I came through right after the lead company, said Army Col. Anthony Moreno, who commanded the lead brigade during the 1st Mechs assault. What you saw was a bunch of buried trenches with peoples arms and legs sticking out of them. For all I know, we could have killed thousands. Debra Shea Patti Haskins wrote: > > I've been lurking and feel obligated to share this link concerning the > last war in Iraq, especially after reading this line from Kakki > > Smart bombs targeted military and support > installations, not masses of civilians. > > http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0211/sloyan.html > Patti in Dallas > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 20:43:40 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: Chomsky (njc) Kate wrote: > i respond because this is an international list...i take offense at the > notion that any one of us can presume to speak for the majority, most or the > average american... there is no 'average' american I don't think you should take offense. I think I have a general enough idea of how most Americans would react to Chomsky's view to make the leap of assumption. Perhaps many here and in other rarefied circles would agree with him completely, but I stick with my opinion that outside such circles, there would not be agreement with him. Here are just a few of his viewpoints and you can tell me if he represents views that many, not only a lot of Americans, would not consider offensive: Dismissal and denial of the millions killed in Cambodian holocaust: "The Khmer Rouge? Back in 1977, Chomsky dismissed accounts of the Cambodian genocide as "tales of Communist atrocities" based on "unreliable" accounts. At most, the executions "numbered in the thousands" and were "aggravated by the threat of starvation resulting from American distraction and killing." In fact, some 2 million perished on the killing fields of Cambodia because of genocidal war against the urban bourgeoisie and the educated, in which wearing a pair of glasses could mean a death sentence." Dismissal and denial of the Jewish holocaust: "The Chomskian rage hasn't confined itself to his native land. He has long nourished a special contempt for Israel, lone outpost of Western ideals in the Middle East. The hatred has been so intense that Zionists have called him a self-hating Jew. This is an unfair label. Clearly, Chomsky has no deficit in the self-love department, and his ability to stir up antagonism makes him even more pleased with himself. No doubt that was why he wrote the introduction to a book by French Holocaust-denier Robert Faurisson. Memoire en Defense maintains that Hitler's death camps and gas chambers, even Anne Frank's diary, are fictions, created to serve the cause of American Zionists. That was too much for Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who challenged fellow leftist Chomsky to a debate. In the debate, Dershowitz keyed in on the fact that Chomsky had described Faurisson's conclusions as "findings," and claimed that they grew out of "extensive historical research." But as numerous scholars had shown, Faurisson was not a serious scholar at all, but rather a sophist who simply ignored the mountain of documents, speeches, testimony, and other historical evidence that conflicted with his "argument." Dershowitz noted that Chomsky also wrote the following: "I see no anti-Semitic implication in the denial of the existence of gas chambers or even in the denial of the Holocaust." Some of his comments on 9/11: "That brings us to 9/11, an egregious insult to decency in general and to the citizens of New York in particular. True to form, in one of the interviews, Chomsky calls the United States "a leading terrorist state" and equates President Clinton's 1998 bombing of the Al-Shifa plant in Sudan with the horrors of September 11. In every way, Chomsky's comparison is obscene. The bombing was in response to attacks on two U.S. embassies that had resulted in the deaths and injuries of thousands. The U.S. made sure it took place at night, when the target was empty of civilians. U.S. intelligence, mistaken though it may have been, indicated that the pharmaceutical factory was producing weapons of mass destruction. The unprovoked attack on the World Trade Center, needless to say to anyone except Chomsky and his disciples, occurred in broad daylight, with the intention of inflicting maximum damage and death on innocents. Chomsky concedes that the WTC attack was unfortunate-not so much because of the deaths of Americans, but because "the atrocities of September 11 were a devastating blow to the Palestinians, as they instantly recognized." (Some other group, disguised as Palestinians, must have been dancing in the streets that day.) Israel, he adds, "is openly exulting in the 'window of opportunity' it now has to crush Palestinians with impunity." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:59:57 -0500 From: vince Subject: Re: Chomsky (njc) Kakki, I do not have an opinion on Chomsky, I haven't read enough to have an informed opinion. Since we often differ I want to make sure that you know I am not differing - or agreeing - with you here. I am thanking you for bringing up Cambodia. That mass murder is often forgotten. And several administrations and two political parties should be condemned for its abandoning of the Cambodian people to their incredible suffering. Nixon's invasion of Cambodia was a real help in undermining what government was there and allowing the Khmer Rouge to take power. And no nation did a damn thing when the killing fields began - and when Vietnam went in to oust the Khmer Rogue they were opposed, not supported, and not helped because we were mad at Vietnam for beating us - they were the ones who ousted the Khmer Rogue and put to a stop to the killing fields. they earned my gratitude for that and American policy (both parties, multi administrations) was very reprehensible in that matter. A lot of us in the church helped raise money for the American Friends Service Committee to illegally run medical and educational supplies to Vietnam for the use of Vietnamese and Cambodian children, the survivors of wars and killing. I always thought the the Carter administration never prosecuted because in his heart he knew we were doing the right thing, even though his official policy, like others before and after him, was criminal IMHO towards Cambodia - in part due to the American political climate that no one would go up against. The raising of money and sending medical and school supplies was certainly illegal but it was never hidden - it was very public, Christian Century and Sojourners magazines among others were very helpful in getting the word out to raise the money for what the AFSC sent. If Chomsky said what you quote, and why would you not quote correctly, then he with many, many others has blood on his hands. kakki wrote: > > >Dismissal and denial of the millions killed in Cambodian holocaust: > >"The Khmer Rouge? Back in 1977, Chomsky dismissed accounts of the Cambodian >genocide as "tales of Communist atrocities" based on "unreliable" accounts. >At most, the executions "numbered in the thousands" and were "aggravated by >the threat of starvation resulting from American distraction and killing." >In fact, some 2 million perished on the killing fields of Cambodia because >of genocidal war against the urban bourgeoisie and the educated, in which >wearing a pair of glasses could mean a death sentence." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 21:49:48 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: war (NJC) Thanks for the article, Patty but I'm not sure how it refutes my questioning to Randy (which he also questioned) that "hundreds of thousands of Iraqis" and that "masses of civilians" were killed in Iraq. I have never said that Iraqi soliders were not killed or that the war coverage was not sanitized. And your article does point this out (not that is makes war any less horrible): The president was very concerned about casualties," Horner recalled. "Not just our casualties but Iraqi casualties. He was very emphatic. He wanted casualties minimized on both sides. He went around the room and asked each military commander if his orders were understood. We all said we would do our best." According to Horner, he took a number of steps to limit the use of anti-personnel bombs used during more than 30 days of air attacks on Iraqi army positions. Schwarzkopf's psychological warfare experts littered Iraqi troops with leaflets that warned of imminent attacks by B52 Strategic Bombers. Arabic warnings told troops to avoid sleeping in tanks or near artillery positions which were prime targets for 400 sorties by allied aircraft attacking day and night. "We could have killed many more with cluster munitions," Horner said of bomblets that create lethal minefields around troop emplacements once they are dropped by aircraft. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 00:43:10 -0500 From: dsk Subject: Re: Chomsky (njc) Kakki, Where are you getting these quotes from? From your previous message where you said, "I cannot think of any enlightenment I would personally get from reading him", and your implication that he's a communist (really? a citizen of North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba or China?), and this one full of descriptions of Chomsky's supposed opinions rather than his actual words, my guess is that your information is filtered through right-wing writers. I suggest you go to the source and form your own opinions before you start tossing information around. It is completely dishonest of you to present his or anyone's views in this way. Since I have never read Chomsky's writings and don't know if I'd agree with him, the issue isn't about him. It's about once again passing along biased right-wing opinions as though you're presenting the truth. And, no, I absolutely do not like the idea of you speaking for anyone other than yourself. If you feel the need to include all Americans or all average Americans, whoever you consider them to be, to bolster some of your arguments, perhaps the more appropriate action would be to reconsider some of those arguments you feel so shaky about. And whether someone takes offense or not really isn't for you to decide. I do not want you speaking for me. I cringe at the thought, so please limit your opinions to what you know about and don't drag other people into them. Thank you. Debra Shea kakki wrote: > > Kate wrote: > > > i respond because this is an international list...i take offense at the > > notion that any one of us can presume to speak for the majority, most or > the > > average american... there is no 'average' american > > I don't think you should take offense. I think I have a general enough idea > of how most Americans would react to Chomsky's view to make the leap of > assumption. Perhaps many here and in other rarefied circles would agree > with him completely, but I stick with my opinion that outside such circles, > there would not be agreement with him. Here are just a few of his > viewpoints and you can tell me if he represents views that many, not only a > lot of Americans, would not consider offensive: > > "The Khmer Rouge? Back in 1977, Chomsky dismissed accounts of the Cambodian > genocide ... > > "The Chomskian rage hasn't confined itself to his native land. ... > > "That brings us to 9/11, an egregious insult to decency in general and to > the citizens of New York in particular. True to form, in one of the > interviews, Chomsky calls the United States "a leading terrorist state" ... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 00:42:05 -0500 From: vince Subject: NJC 1. On Friday Gage played his first game on the high school basketball court, one of two 2nd graders on the 3rd grader team, and he knows to get back on defense as well as have quick hands to go for the steals 2. He had his choice of places to go after the game and he chose to go with me - and it turned out he didn't even want me to buy him anything, he just wanted to hang with me!!!! 3. but we did go see Shanghai Knights (if you like Jackie Chan movies, it is ok) and you know there is a God when we got to the theater too late to see Kangaroo Jack again because they moved up the movie time!!!!!!! 4. and it all is more cool because the little boy sleeping on my futon right now just turned 8 years old in his sleep - so choosing to spend tonight, his birthday eve, with me was way cool - 5. He is 8, half way to driving - wow. 6. He wants my jeep anyway and you know there are times I wish he could drive now. Vince Just got finished NP - Rufus Wainwright on Letterman singing My Funny Valentine - was it my ears or did he miss that many notes - I was surprised - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 00:53:58 -0500 From: "patrick leader" Subject: criticism - NJC quoting this re noam chomsky... >kakki: he is someone who has nothing but contempt for most Americans and their country for most Americans and their country. << randy: His main criticisms revolve around our foreign policy < kate: i've seen this issue come up here so many times- criticizing a gov'ts foreign policy is completely different than criticizing a citizen of a country...whether it is the usa, iraq, whatever...HUGE difference... it pains me to point this out, but these criticisms always come from kakki, our list-member kathryn herlity. EVERY post that includes any comments that could be considered critical of the united states' foreign policy eventually gets a comment that kakki is tired of all the anti-americanism on the list. it is especially obvious in bush 43 discussions. every single thread in which a jmdler says anything negative about our current president eventually draws a comment from kathryn about anti-americanism on the list. this is a particularly nasty form of mccarhyism. john ashcroft says "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" and quite frankly, so does kathryn, and i don't buy either person's bullshyt. patrick [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type application/ms-tnef which had a name of winmail.dat] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 22:32:19 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: Chomsky (njc) Debra asked: > Where are you getting these quotes from? From the Manhattan Institute's City Journal. I don't know if the Manhattan Institute is right wing but it does seem to be capitalist friendly. Here is the link to it's board members http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/trustees.htm and to the full Chomsky article http://city-journal.org/html/12_3_urbanities-americas_dumbe.html > where you said, "I cannot think of any enlightenment I would personally > get from reading him", and your implication that he's a communist > (really? a citizen of North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba or China?), and this > one full of descriptions of Chomsky's supposed opinions rather than his > actual words, my guess is that your information is filtered through > right-wing writers. I have read that he describes himself as a "libertarian socialist/anarchist." I have read lots of his words first hand. Normally, I would have just brushed him off, but his offensive words right after 9/11 left an enduring emnity with me. And my opinion is not filtered through right wing writers. I have filtered his own words myself through, perhaps my right wing brain. >I suggest you go to the source and form your own > opinions before you start tossing information around. I have. I was just giving a sampling of his position in the briefest way I can. If you dispute what I have interpreted of his opinions, you can always go read him yourself and tell me I have it all wrong. I distinctly remember his debate with Alan Desrshowitz regarding the denial of the Jewish holocaust. Here is the full story from Dershowitz from the left wing perspective: http://www-tech.mit.edu/V122/N25/col25dersh.25c.html Chomsky was adamantly opposed to the war in Afghanistan - here's an exceprt from his article in the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1844041.stm "Mr Chomsky believes he can take Osama Bin Laden at his word Mr Chomsky said it was "entirely possible" that Bin Laden did not know about the 11 September attacks and that he could have just been boasting in a videotape released by the US in December 2001 which links the Saudi-born militant to the atrocities. He also claimed that Bin Laden could be taken at his word because his statements had been "consistent over time and very consistent with his actions over a long period". As I recall, the majority of "average" Americans supported that action and believed Bin Laden was behind them. For another opinion, here from the left libertarian antiwar.com really attacking Chomsky http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j011802.html > It is completely dishonest of you to present his or anyone's views in > this way. No it is not. It was obvious that the views were presented through the filter of someone else. > If you feel the need to include all Americans or all average Americans, > whoever you consider them to be, to bolster some of your arguments, > perhaps the more appropriate action would be to reconsider some of those > arguments you feel so shaky about. Go back to my original question. Do you think many Americans would not be offended by the viewpoint that the Cambodian and Jewish holocausts did not exist and were fictionalized? > And whether someone takes offense or not really isn't for you to decide. > I do not want you speaking for me. I cringe at the thought, so please > limit your opinions to what you know about and don't drag other people > into them. Thank you. I am not claiming to speak for you or Kate at all. Obviously it is only my opinion, (which holds no value to you anyway so why does it matter?) but one I feel the right to give amongst all other varying opinions stated here. And recall it was Mike who attacked my opinion of Chomsky and it was Mike to whom I replied. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 22:36:20 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: criticism - NJC Oh come on Patrick! I'm sorry that I am not as nuanced as some of the rest of you intellectuals. Chomsky says things that offend me. I don't think I'm in some strange "Ashcroft" minority to be offended. If I somehow don't "get" the great Chomsky, what do you care? You all attack me much more than is warranted, I do believe. You want to disparage me so that I will change my mind about Chomsky's views? It won't work. I go by what he says, not by your disparagement of my opinion of him. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 01:39:27 -0500 From: "patrick leader" Subject: RE: criticism - NJC i repeat. people that you disagree with, you call anti-american. over and over again. that's wrong. i don't care whether you agree with chomsky or anyone else, i just want you to stop calling people anti-american for disagreeing with you. is that clear enough for you kakki? patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 23:15:51 -0800 From: "kakki" Subject: Re: criticism - NJC I am sorry for being dense Patrick, but it is not clear to me. But I'll let it go. Kakki ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 02:02:54 -0500 From: ljirvin@jmdl.com Subject: Today in History: February 15 1966: Chuck and Joni Mitchell began a week-long nightly performance engagement at the Chess Mate in Detroit. - ---- For a comprehensive reference to Joni's appearances, consult Joni Mitchell ~ A Chronology of Appearances: http://www.jonimitchell.com/appearances.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 02:31:07 EST From: BRYAN8847@aol.com Subject: Re: JMDL Digest V2003 #111 - new Joni fans i have just discovered that the best way to convert joni haters into joni fans is to use BSN and travelogue. amazing! i don't even like those two, but i've been trying them out on friends who before would have run out of the room if i mentioned joni, and it works! it makes me wonder. is it because bsn and t'log are NOT mitchellesque enough? when i play the original versions of the tracks on t'log, the subjects of my experiment say they prefer the new versions, particularly amelia and love. so i wonder if i'm doing joni a service or quite the opposite. do you get what i mean? A (sort-of) similar experience: I learned last night a friend of mine has become a Joni fan recently, through Both Sides Now and Hits/Misses. Actually it started when he heard Magdalene Laundries on the Chieftains' Tears of Stone album. Anyway, he has long been a fan of 'divas' ("all divas, all the time," he says), so BSN was a pretty good entry port for him. I want to hook him no Hejira next. Bryan ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 02:45:30 EST From: BRYAN8847@aol.com Subject: Re: JMDL Digest V2003 #113 - Cincinnati show One of the articles Les passed along this AM was a review of Joni's 76 show in Cincy: http://www.jmdl.com/articles/view.cfm?id=721 It was a mixed review...I thought I recalled that Bree or maybe some other JMDLer's were there...was just wondering if they read it and had any thoughts or comments. Bob Well, that was a kick to read because I was at that show and because I was later the editor of that student newspaper while going to school there. But anyway, to answer your question, I think it's a pretty accurate review. As I mentioned in my account of that show here a while back, Joni barely said six words to the audience that night. Yes, she seemed removed and icy, but as I wrote earlier, it just added to the mystique (for me). I will disagree on one point - I don't think the audience went begging for boogie or toe-tapping tunes. I think Joni and the band rocked that night (if with a smooth, LA Express, jazz-rock sheen). What was missing was warmth and words from Joni, and I think people really missed that whether they realized it or not. Bryan ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 02:49:12 -0500 From: "courtandspark@earthlink.net" Subject: Re: criticism - NJC Kakki wrote: You all attack me much more than is warranted, I do believe. - --Well, Kakki, I don't always agree with your political views, though do as often as not, but always enjoy reading them and find them honest and well written. One thing I can agree on wholeheartedly is that I think the comments to you are unwarranted as well and have never read your responses to be anything that would approach being similar in tone. Don't stop. Different perspective is always welcome here, with me. mack - -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2003 #116 ***************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe ------- Siquomb, isn't she? (http://www.siquomb.com/siquomb.cfm)