From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2004 #404 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 Tuesday, October 5 2004 Volume 2004 : Number 404 ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: Science vs Religion, njc [colin ] Re: Science vs Religion, njc [colin ] Re: Aliens, njc ["Kakki" ] Re: Science vs Religion, njc ["Martin Giles" ] Re: njc remembering Janis [Smurfycopy@aol.com] Court & Spark [Deb Messling ] Re: Aliens, njc [Smurfycopy@aol.com] NJC Vote For Change - NJC [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] Re: Science vs Religion, njc [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] Re: Court & Spark [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] Re: NJC Vote For Change - NJC [Smurfycopy@aol.com] RE: [NortheastJonifest] Future Jonifests [Em ] Re: njc remembering Janis [Em ] Re: njc remembering Janis [Jerry Notaro ] Re: Science vs Religion, njc [Em ] Re: Future Jonifests (NJC) ["Steven Polifka" ] Re: Science vs Religion, njc [colin ] Re: Stop the Bleeding - NJC [Bobsart48@aol.com] RE: Stop the Bleeding - NJC ["Kate Bennett" ] Re: Our Kids & Joni ["Patti Parlette" ] Re: Science vs Religion, njc [colin ] Re: Aliens, njc ["Kakki" ] Re: Science vs Religion, njc ["Martin Giles" ] Fw: bestellung: cut all the strings NJC ["Ron" ] Re: Science vs Religion, njc ["Ron" ] Re: NJC Future Jonifests [Lori Fye ] Re: Science vs Religion, njc ["Martin Giles" ] Re: Science vs Religion, njc ["Martin Giles" ] Re: Stop the Bleeding - NJC PC [dsk ] Re: For the Roses is better than Blue [Scott Price ] Re: For the Roses is better than Blue ["Gerald A. Notaro" ] Re: NJC Future Jonifests [colin ] Re: Science vs Religion, njc [Smurfycopy@aol.com] Re: Science vs Religion, njc ["Ron" ] Future Jonifests ["Laurent Olszer" ] Re: Science vs Religion, njc [colin ] Re: Aliens, njc [Smurfycopy@aol.com] Re: Science vs Religion, njc [colin ] Re: Science vs Religion, njc [colin ] Re: Science vs Religion, njc ["Martin Giles" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:25:40 +0100 From: colin Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc Martin Giles wrote: > >How does saying God created everything explain anything? Inquiring minds >want to know .. > it doesn't. it just raises even more questions. but then the Big Bang explains nothing either. > >Martin. > > > - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:37:46 +0100 From: colin Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc hell wrote: >but if there >are breeds of dog that cannot reproduce (for more reasons than pure >logisitics!) then it may be that they've been OVER-bred, creating a new (and >different) species. That's how natural selection works - we've just helped >it along a little in this case! > > > Unfortunately, there are breeds of dog that left to their own devices would die out. they have been bred in such a way as to make them unviable without human intervention in their mating and whelping and rearing. This is outrageous and I get veyr angry about it. i cannot understand how people who say they love their dogs can breed such monstrosities and not see what they are doing. Whenever I see a bulldog, for an example of just one such breed, my heart hurtts for the poor wrtetched animal. Breeeds came about by selection. Over the genrations the breed can change dramatcially just by selection by the breeder. My own breed(Lhasa Apso) has beena round for 3000 years or so. The recent genome study of the dog reached the conclusion that they are most closely realted to wolves of the breeds of dog available now(along with a couple of other breeds) and were one of the most anceint breeds. i have had them since '73. Today people like me whose passion is for these hardy Tibetan mountain dogs have a fight on our hands to preserve them as they were. Mnay people ahve takne them and turned them into soft coated, short nosed, flashy handbag dpogs that do well in the show ring because they loook so galmourous. But these 'handbag' or 'Barbie' versions are not Lhasa apso even tho they are called that and have registrations to prove it. In in 25 years in this country we have gone from a rugged noraml dog, albeit with a very long coat, to this travesty of a Lhasa Apso. If anyone is interested in seeing the difference between the real thing and faux one, I can send you a pic that will show you. - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 00:31:22 -0700 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Aliens, njc Laurent wrote: > Actually trying to change someone's opinion is futile 99.99% of the time. So > for now I remain either optimistic or stupid. > Next I'll turn into a hermit and make a vow of silence. Don't do that! I have also found your input and the thread to be interesting reading. I didn't see it as you trying to change opinions - thought it was more of a patchwork of different ideas and beliefs being put forth. I hope you didn't think I was trying to be silly or somehow disrespectful to a religion talking about "extraterrestials." When talk gets started about religion, creation, science, evolution, origins, etc., it makes me think of the various cultures of the world and how many have a variation of the creation story, a great flood story and so on. Even more fascinating to me is how archaeologists, anthropologists and researchers have discovered similar "ancient astronaut" type themes running through many diverse and sometimes isolated cultures. Many of these discoveries have long preceded the invention of television, movies, etc. so I don't believe they could all be hoaxes that have been made up to jump on some marketing bandwagon (though I wouldn't say none of them have - the credibility of the "crop circles" phenomenon comes to mind). You are right - there are no hard facts to prove the truth of these theories but I think there may be enough circumstantial evidence to at least leave a little doubt as to the certainty that they are only myths. I just think the anthropological aspect plays another part in understanding the whole. This thread has also reminded me of a former boyfriend's father who was a renowned astrophysicist and who insisted all his children study and excel in physics because, to him, it was the path to discovering God. I remember thinking that if that were true I'd certainly never know God, being a flunk out in Math and a bare pass in Science! ;-) Kakki - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 10:35:20 +0100 From: "Martin Giles" Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc Hi Colin! Of course - the 'Big Bang' is only as far as science has been able to figure out so far. (It actually explains a lot of the things we see in the universe now). As implied by my question, I don't think saying that everything was created by a divine being gets to the bottom of things. If it turns out that there is a 'creator', then I'd want to know how the creator came in to being. To me the important difference between a scientific and a religious 'explanation' for the universe is that science is trying to find out, while religion thinks it has the answer already. Martin. ----- Original Message ----- From: colin To: Martin Giles Cc: joni@smoe.org Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 8:25 AM Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc Martin Giles wrote: How does saying God created everything explain anything? Inquiring minds want to know ..it doesn't. it just raises even more questions. but then the Big Bang explains nothing either. Martin. - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:14:01 EDT From: Smurfycopy@aol.com Subject: Re: njc remembering Janis Vince writes: << damn, I miss her >> Then go see "Festival Express." There is a good deal of Janis content. Plus her "Cry Baby" is absolutely mesmerizing. The movie was shot in 1970, so it's footage from just months or weeks before her death. If Janis had lived she'd be Joni's age. What a loss. - --Smurf "I am a little teapot, gay and American." - --Gov. Jim McGreevey ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 06:26:46 -0400 From: Deb Messling Subject: Court & Spark I ran across a pop group called Court & Spark when I was aimlessly trolling Amazon.com. Has anyone heard of them? - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Deb Messling -^..^- messling@enter.net - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:26:32 EDT From: Smurfycopy@aol.com Subject: Re: Aliens, njc Kakki writes: << This thread has also reminded me of a former boyfriend's father who was a renowned astrophysicist and who insisted all his children study and excel in physics because, to him, it was the path to discovering God. I remember thinking that if that were true I'd certainly never know God, being a flunk out in Math and a bare pass in Science! ;-) >> There are many paths to God, Kakki, and I believe that martinis are one of them! - --Smurf, who also suffers from mathematics-static-in the-attic "I am proof that the politicians of this great land do indeed suck." - --Gov. Jim McGreevey ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:37:12 EDT From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: NJC Vote For Change - NJC **So we'll all get to see and hear what Bob M. is seeing in Cleveland. How was it? was Jackson Brown "over" Joni? Don't know about that...Jackson's not playing with Bruce, although it would be a good pairing to be sure. Hopefully you've read my review of the show - I'll add that before the E-Streeters burst into Born In The USA as their opener, Bruce came out and did a solo-riveting version of the Star Spangled Banner that was right up there with Jimi's imo. Bob NP: Ernie Watts, "Goodbye Pork Pie Hat" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:38:35 EDT From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc Thanks for sharing that piece, Julius - very insightful. I also like the way The Neville Brothers put it: "There's only ONE race...the HUMAN race." Bob ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:39:29 EDT From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Court & Spark **I ran across a pop group called Court & Spark when I was aimlessly trolling Amazon.com. Has anyone heard of them? Yeah, they're a west coast indie rock band - NJC. Bob ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 06:43:49 EDT From: Smurfycopy@aol.com Subject: Re: NJC Vote For Change - NJC I was wondering, Mr Muller, about something ... Was there political talk from the stage? Were performers telling the audience to vote for Kerry, or was it all generic "Get out and vote" talk? - --Smurf "I don't want to be governor anymore. I want to be Queen." - --Gov. Jim McGreevey ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 04:41:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Em Subject: RE: [NortheastJonifest] Future Jonifests If it were, for some reason, held in Tucson, AZ, I would bust butt to go, for the additional reason that I have some close friends there that I would love to see. Em ps: even Phoenix, but Tucson would ROCK. I know, lets take over the Hotel Congress...very cool place right in the old downtown http://www.hotcong.com/ - --- Kate Bennett wrote: > My 2 cents though I am not able to help be in charge due to my > dual(dueling?) careers these days. however I know it would be much > more > feasible for us & perhaps others in the west if the fest moved > towards this > direction. the ideas of new mexico, arizona & colorado all sound good > to me. > ===== - ---------- "But Mona Lisa musta had the highway blues You can tell by the way she smiles" Bob D. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 04:58:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Em Subject: Re: njc remembering Janis me too Vince. Just can't imagine that she's not here. I feel she is so "of us". And I always wonder, (and its very much like wondering about infinity), what she'd be doing, creating, singing if she *were* still down here. My heart feels sutured to Janis. Am just thankful for all the snippets and old recordings that have surfaced and been released. Big Brother is coming here in concert soon, with, some other chick, not sure who. Am thinking about going, but don't want to be left with a hollow feeling. hmmm.. Em - --- vince wrote: > Janis Joplin died 34 years ago > > October 4, 1970 > > damn, I miss her > ===== - ---------- "But Mona Lisa musta had the highway blues You can tell by the way she smiles" Bob D. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:11:58 -0500 From: Jerry Notaro Subject: Re: njc remembering Janis Janis rules this movie. She was unquestionably one of the greatest live performers ever. And even on film she is electrifying. Jerry > Vince writes: > > << damn, I miss her >> > > > Then go see "Festival Express." There is a good deal of Janis content. Plus > her "Cry Baby" is absolutely mesmerizing. The movie was shot in 1970, so it's > footage from just months or weeks before her death. If Janis had lived she'd > be > Joni's age. What a loss. > > --Smurf > > > "I am a little teapot, gay and American." > > --Gov. Jim McGreevey ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 05:11:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Em Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc - --- Martin Giles wrote: > I don't think saying that > everything was > created by a divine being gets to the bottom of things. If it turns > out that > there is a 'creator', then I'd want to know how the creator came in > to being. OOOH there it is again! "Infinity" raising up its head! That tickles!!! :P Em ===== - ---------- "But Mona Lisa musta had the highway blues You can tell by the way she smiles" Bob D. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 08:19:12 -0500 From: "Steven Polifka" Subject: Re: Future Jonifests (NJC) I didn't think it needed to be listed- i thought it was a given!! Steve, who LOVES Miller.... >>> Lori Fye 10/04/04 03:00PM >>> Quoting Steven Polifka : > 6. Ah, let me think about number six... 6. BEER!!! ; ) Lori ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:16:14 +0100 From: colin Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc Martin Giles wrote: > Hi Colin! > > Of course - the 'Big Bang' is only as far as science has been able to > figure out so far. (It actually explains a lot of the things we see in > the universe now). yes but it doesn't explain anything much. like How? The Big band theory (and that is all it is) is juts as unbelieveable as the God explanation. > As implied by my question, I don't think saying that everything was > created by a divine being gets to the bottom of things. If it turns > out that there is a 'creator', then I'd want to know how the creator > came in to being. me too. Just as I want to know how the there was nothing and then the Big bang. Non sensical to me. > To me the important difference between a scientific and a religious > 'explanation' for the universe is that science is trying to find out, > while religion thinks it has the answer already. > not entirely true. It is true abotu religion but not true abotu science. many scientists are just a s closed minded and likek all people come to it with a set of meanings already. Many scientists,( and you too) come to it having already made up theirr mind there is no Creator. to me one cannot prove there is a god and one cannot prove there isn't. So one should base the search for meaning on that. As human beings we find living wothout knowing, without certainty, very diffiuclt. but to be authentic and have integrity, one must accpet it and live with it. There is no certainty that we know of-except that we all die. Maybe in 50 years time or maybe in 50 seconds time. so make the most of it and don't close your mind to anything. at elast that is how i see it. - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 09:26:55 EDT From: Bobsart48@aol.com Subject: Re: Stop the Bleeding - NJC Kate replied: "Thirdly, I am sorry if I insulted you but if you read my words again you will see I said bit is hard for me (not be) to believeb&blah blah blahb& I did NOT say that anyone who votes for bush is lacking blah blah blahb& I hope you can see the difference because it is significantb& & yes I still find it hard for me to believe that anyone with critical thinking skills could vote for bush after seeing that debateb& I welcome you to please explain why after watching the debates you have come to the conclusion that he is a better candidate i" Kate, It is quite apparent that you did not take the trouble to read with sufficient critical thought what I had posted, or you would not have replied with your "Thirdly" above. I do not have the time at the moment to explain to you why, in what I view as a very difficult time for the country and the word, I prefer George Bush to John Kerry as candidate for president. I think it is apparent that any critical analysis would conclude that we must - now, and for quite some time to come - choose between (or perhaps among) unpalatable paths of evil, hoping and praying that we will have found the least evil and most constructive one at the end of the day. To that end, I will pray for and support John Kerry as our president should he be elected. I respect differing points of view. I have little respect for others who are not open minded enough to consider other points of view. I have no respect for the actions of those who persist in being openly and insultingly disrespectful of others, and ascribe motives and intents to their actions and even their beliefs that may be (and in some cases, almost certainly are) incorrect, in effect slandering or libeling them. In saying this, I intend no direct charge toward you or anyone individually , but encourage a more respectful tone in the JMDL's political discourse, in the interest of not offend others. For an insight into why I do not prefer Kerry as my candidate after having viewed the first debate, I would refer you to an outstanding op-ed piece in yesterday's WSJ written by Marty Peretz (editor in chief of The New Republic) entitled "Kerry Haters for Kerry". It also alludes to the tone of the current political climate on the left. I cannot provide a link, since I do not subscribe online - can anyone else on the list help out with that ? As for my reasons for preferring Bush after having heard the first debate, I would say that it had little to do with the debate itself (my vote rarely does). Perhaps at a later time I will let you know my thoughts, so that you can then decide whether I have any critical thinking skills. Bobsart ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 08:15:32 -0700 From: "Kate Bennett" Subject: RE: Stop the Bleeding - NJC >It is quite apparent that you did not take the trouble to read with sufficient critical thought what I had posted, or you would not have replied with your "Thirdly" above. You've lost me. I wrote what I wanted to say. Seems like you are angry & taking shots right now. >I respect differing points of view. I have little respect for others who are not open minded enough to consider other points of view. I have no respect for the actions of those who persist in being openly and insultingly disrespectful of others, and ascribe motives and intents to their actions and even their beliefs that may be (and in some cases, almost certainly are) incorrect, in effect slandering or libeling them. In saying this, I intend no direct charge toward you or anyone individually , but encourage a more respectful tone in the JMDL's political discourse, in the interest of not offend others. I chose my words carefully & I am sorry you did not understand me & I am sorry you felt insulted. you were not in my thoughts when I wrote what I did. I was remarking on my own inability to understand how anyone could support Bush after watching his unscripted performance at the debate. That was the whole point I was trying to make. I seem to be repeating myself in my frustration to try to get my point across. >For an insight into why I do not prefer Kerry as my candidate after having viewed the first debate, I would refer you to an outstanding op-ed piece in yesterday's WSJ written by Marty Peretz (editor in chief of The New Republic) entitled "Kerry Haters for Kerry". It also alludes to the tone of the current political climate on the left. I cannot provide a link, since I do not subscribe online - can anyone else on the list help out with that ? I was asking for you to put into your own words why you still would vote for bush. You offered that you were able to do so. Why not just do it then? . however, I'd be happy to read what you offered if there is a link >As for my reasons for preferring Bush after having heard the first debate, I would say that it had little to do with the debate itself (my vote rarely does). Perhaps at a later time I will let you know my thoughts, so that you can then decide whether I have any critical thinking skills. Well this whole hubbub is because of my comments about the debate . if the debate didn't affect you then I am just as confused as to how you or anyone can ignore the man's idiocy which wouldn't matter if he didn't have so much power ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 15:17:25 +0000 From: "Patti Parlette" Subject: Re: Our Kids & Joni Too funneee! Thanks, Brian. Say hello to your Joni woman for me....Joni women rule! You are lucky to have one, and you know it! Laughing it all away, Patti > >--- Patti Parlette wrote: > > > > P.S. Gotcha, Chris! I TOLD you I was going to report you to the Joni > > Police! Now Paz will never get you Jack Nielson's autograph. And Brian replies: >You see Chris, better to NOT get on the bad side of any of these Joni >women. >They kick ass and take no prisoners! (Take it from one who knows, >first-hand) > >Brian in NJ > >===== >Don't it always seem to go >That you don't know what you've got till it's gone > > --Roberta Joan Anderson, who never lies _________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 17:02:35 +0100 From: colin Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc Martin Giles wrote: > Hi again Colin > > > > The theory does explain a lot. It fits in with a host of observations > of the universe. Things we can see, and measure. Given that what we > can observe fits the theory, it looks probable that it happened. There > are a few problems with it apparently, for instance relating to the > speed of the expansion of the universe at the moment. There would seem > to be a lot of mass in the universe that we can't detect. On the > whole, I would say that it's more believable that there was NOTHING and then that NOTHING exploded and hey presto here we are? I find that too hard to accept. > > You: > Many scientists,( and you too) come to it having already made up > theirr mind there is no Creator. to me one cannot prove there is a god > and one cannot prove there isn't. So one should base the search for > meaning on that. > Me: > I don't honestly think there are many scientists whose agenda is to > prove the non-existance of God. (Many are religious anyway). I'm sure > the motivation is simply to find out how things work. However, why > would it NOT be possible to prove the existance (or non-existance) of > a god? And why on earth would you start a search for meaning (or for > that matter, for your front door key) on the premise that you won't > find it?? you didn't understand what i said. i did not say that their agenda was to prove the non existence of God. i said, that like you, many have already decided there is no Creator. there is a big difference between what i did say and what you inferred. > > You: > As human beings we find living wothout knowing, without certainty, > very diffiuclt. but to be authentic and have integrity, one must > accpet it and live with it. > > Me: > Why should I accept not knowing? It's fun finding out! It's incredible > what the human race has discovered about the universe so far, and if > we don't destroy ourselves first, we will continue to discover more > and more. Will we ever know everything? I would find THAT very hard to > believe, but what a fabulous voyage of discovery! again you have misunderstood what i wrote. We DO NOT know if there is Creator and we DO NOT know how all this happened. That is the uncertainty we must live with. I did not dsay anything about not searching or wanting to know. You know, I say the same thing over and over again and still people read something else. i wonder why? > > Martin. - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 08:57:23 -0700 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Aliens, njc Dalai Smurpha writes: > There are many paths to God, Kakki, and I believe that martinis are one of > them! I believe martinis are one of many paths to peace in our time ;-) Kakki "I used to be governor of California" --Gov. Jim McGreevey - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:27:59 +0100 From: "Martin Giles" Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc Hi again Colin You said about the 'big bang' theory: yes but it doesn't explain anything much. like How? The Big band theory (and that is all it is) is juts as unbelieveable as the God explanation. The theory does explain a lot. It fits in with a host of observations of the universe. Things we can see, and measure. Given that what we can observe fits the theory, it looks probable that it happened. There are a few problems with it apparently, for instance relating to the speed of the expansion of the universe at the moment. There would seem to be a lot of mass in the universe that we can't detect. On the whole, I would say that it's more believable than an explanation involving a supreme being, in as much as it is a theory that attempts to (and succeeds in) explaining a lot of details of things that were not observable until recent times. But for me, it's not so much whether the 'big bang' theory is correct or not; more about trying to put the pieces together that we find infront of us. You: Many scientists,( and you too) come to it having already made up theirr mind there is no Creator. to me one cannot prove there is a god and one cannot prove there isn't. So one should base the search for meaning on that. Me: I don't honestly think there are many scientists whose agenda is to prove the non-existance of God. (Many are religious anyway). I'm sure the motivation is simply to find out how things work. However, why would it NOT be possible to prove the existance (or non-existance) of a god? And why on earth would you start a search for meaning (or for that matter, for your front door key) on the premise that you won't find it?? You: As human beings we find living wothout knowing, without certainty, very diffiuclt. but to be authentic and have integrity, one must accpet it and live with it. Me: Why should I accept not knowing? It's fun finding out! It's incredible what the human race has discovered about the universe so far, and if we don't destroy ourselves first, we will continue to discover more and more. Will we ever know everything? I would find THAT very hard to believe, but what a fabulous voyage of discovery! Martin. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:45:41 +0200 From: "Ron" Subject: Fw: bestellung: cut all the strings NJC hi for those who may be interested : >>>> raya o coals "hoam" will be available at cdbaby.com in about one month. I'll drop you a message as soon as the cd is in their onlineshop.<<<<< >>> greets, robin gillard - Gillard Music ron np - donovan - sleep ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 19:49:02 +0200 From: "Ron" Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc hi >>>colin wrote >>>>The Big band theory <<<<< mmmm - so who is god???? tommy dorsey, glenn miller, wait - i know - it gotta be stan kenton!!!!!! ron np - donovan - everlasting sea ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:08:35 -0400 From: Lori Fye Subject: Re: NJC Future Jonifests Bob wrote: > I'm with Michael in that I did not want to return to the Full Moon - I'd > support one in another location as I have over the years. I'm curious, Bob ... any particular reason why you don't want to return to the Full Moon? > I'd love to show off Greenville, SC with a fest but it doesn't make a lot of > sense given that I'm the ONLY JMDL'er here. Hey, my cousin is the deputy coroner in Greenville and so, for me, Greenville would be fine! Maybe she can arrange a tour of the morgue for those of us who are forensically inclined ... >; ) Lori ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:39:12 +0100 From: "Martin Giles" Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc Hi Colin You said: >that there was NOTHING and then that NOTHING exploded and hey presto here we are? I find that too hard to accept. The way I understand the theory is that as far back as the evidence can be traced, the universe appears to squash down into an infinitely small space and at that point the laws of physics as we understand them, don't work any more. More than that - well (I'll say this once again) they are still looking. It's difficult to get my head around the idea that time (like the other dimensions) didn't exist because my whole perception of the world is based on all dimensions as they are now, but why should answers be easy to understand? It may be that only people who can understand higher mathematics will ever be able to cope with that concept, but that doesn't mean that it can't be the answer, or part of it. Especially because the theory accounts for a lot of the things we can observe in the universe now. >you didn't understand what i said. i did not say that their agenda was to prove the non existence of God. i said, that like you, many have already decided there is no Creator. there is a big difference between what i did say and what you inferred. Apologies for the misunderstanding Colin. But if these people (including myself) have made up their minds already, what are they looking for? >again you have misunderstood what i wrote. We DO NOT know if there is Creator and we DO NOT know how all this happened. That is the uncertainty we must live with. I did not dsay anything about not searching or wanting to know. You know, I say the same thing over and over again and still people read something else. i wonder why? Well, it's just that you actually said: one CANNOT PROVE there is a god and one CANNOT PROVE there isn't. (my capitalisation). And then you say that we must live with it. ..Which to me implied a very different thing from 'we do not know'.. All of this is a sidetrack really. My original question was how does saying God created everything explain anything? Colin, you profess that you don't know. I'd like to have things explained to me by someone who feels that the existance of a creator does answer these big questions. Martin. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 20:44:36 +0100 From: "Martin Giles" Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc LOL Ron!! I've already made my mind up, you see. I don't believe in Stan Kenton. ;0) Martin. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron" To: "colin" ; "Martin Giles" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 6:49 PM Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc > hi > > > >>>colin wrote > >>>>The Big band theory <<<<< > > > mmmm - so who is god???? tommy dorsey, glenn miller, wait - i know - it > gotta be stan kenton!!!!!! > > > ron > np - donovan - everlasting sea ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 15:53:34 -0400 From: dsk Subject: Re: Stop the Bleeding - NJC PC Bobsart48@aol.com wrote to Kate: > > It is quite apparent that you did not take the trouble to read with > sufficient critical thought what I had posted, or you would not have replied > with your "Thirdly" above. > > I do not have the time at the moment to explain to you why, in what I view as > a very difficult time for the country and the word, I prefer George Bush to > John Kerry as candidate for president. Lots of other people in this country prefer Bush also. That's always been a mystery to me because a person doesn't have to look very deeply to find out that what Bush says is not the truth. He's all show. (He visited wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Hospital and went back to Washington and cut their benefits, for example. He laid a wreath in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. and went back to Washington and snuck in a "recess" judge who wasn't approved by the Senate because of his racist background, for another example. Just because Bush keeps repeating that he does what he says does not make it true.) The debates made Bush's emptiness obvious to me, and I don't understand why everyone can't see that. His repeated phrases rang hollow. He kept saying "it's hard work" and I kept thinking "yep, that job is way too much for you! Let's get a smart grown-up in there." > I think it is apparent that any critical > analysis would conclude that we must - now, and for quite some time to come - > choose between (or perhaps among) unpalatable paths of evil, hoping and > praying that we will have found the least evil and most constructive one at > the end of the day. Yes, I agree with you that neither candidate is perfect. I trust Kerry more than I trust Bush. I did before the debate and I still feel that way after seeing the debate. > To that end, I will pray for and support John Kerry as our > president should he be elected. I'm praying that Kerry IS elected. I don't even want to imagine what Bush, who's so offended at having to answer any questions that he's coming across more as king than elected leader, would do with four more years and no re-election coming up. More wars anyone? Hello Iran. A completely busted economy? Bye bye social security. Bye bye workers' rights. A solidly conservative Supreme Court? Bye bye civil rights. Bye bye reproductive rights. A Christian (make that Fundamentalist Christian) society? It's not surprising that many different religious groups have applied for funds under his current "faith-based initiative", but only Christian ones have received any money. Bush's Christian fundamentalism scares me the most. He's learned to not be obvious about it, but it guides him. It's a perfect match with al Qaeda's fundamentalism. The Rapture makes sense to both groups but it does not at all appeal to me. Kerry (or any non-fundamentalist candidate) would instantly change that deadly dynamic because he's not caught up in that way of thinking. That, all by itself, would be enough reason for me to vote for Kerry. > I respect differing points of view. I have little respect for others who are > not open minded enough to consider other points of view. I have no respect for > the actions of those who persist in being openly and insultingly > disrespectful of others, and ascribe motives and intents to their actions and > even their beliefs that may be (and in some cases, almost certainly are) incorrect, in > effect slandering or libeling them. In saying this, I intend no direct charge > toward you or anyone individually , but encourage a more respectful tone in > the JMDL's political discourse, in the interest of not offend others. Bob, you're the one who's being offensive here by continuing to bug Kate (and "others") rather than make your own views known. Stop the speeches about other people's behavior and let us know why you support Bush. I (and most "others" here) may not agree with you, but it is something I'm curious about, and would especially like to hear from someone as thoughtful, careful and articulate as you usually are. There's obviously something you see in Bush that I don't, and I would like to know about that. If you're only going to speak when you know people will agree... well, what fun is that? what kind of discussion is that? > For an insight into why I do not prefer Kerry as my candidate after having > viewed the first debate, I would refer you to an outstanding op-ed piece in > yesterday's WSJ written by Marty Peretz (editor in chief of The New Republic) > entitled "Kerry Haters for Kerry". It also alludes to the tone of the current > political climate on the left. I cannot provide a link, since I do not > subscribe online - can anyone else on the list help out with that ? Mentioning someone else's writing, especially when most people here probably do not subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and wouldn't have access to WSJ online, isn't helpful to anyone, including you. So you're responding to Kate (and us all), but not really. That doesn't work. > As for my reasons for preferring Bush after having heard the first debate, I > would say that it had little to do with the debate itself (my vote rarely > does). Perhaps at a later time I will let you know my thoughts, so that you > can then decide whether I have any critical thinking skills. Spill, baby. Or don't, as you choose. But enough already with the complaints about no NJC or how Kate's not reading carefully enough what you've written, or generally complaining about everyone who wouldn't agree with you (and that would offend you?). Going on the offense about such side issues is not a good defense. Debra Shea, in NYC, always curious and opinionated, and not trying to convince anyone of anything but seeing sharing one's views as the reason we're here in this discussion group (in addition to the Joni Worship, of course) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 11:56:06 -0700 From: Scott Price Subject: Re: For the Roses is better than Blue At 12:05 AM 10/4/2004 EDT, KindTaper@aol.com wrote: >"Blue" is overrated by some as her best work. "Blue" equals "confessional." It opened the door for a whole new genre and is perhaps the most significant album in Joni's catalog. >"For The Roses" was a foreshadow of what was ahead. And oh my, what indeed followed! I couldn't begin to rate Joni's individual albums or songs as "best" to worst. I can rate my own favorites, as you have done. I rather look back at her career output as an artist and remain simply amazed. IMO her best vocal performance was done for "Mingus." Her best lyrics were from "Hejira." Her best production was "Court and Spark." Her "best work" was done over a period of many years. But if one wishes to point to a single album that set a new standard for generations of singer-songwriters, then "Blue" it is. Scott ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:08:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "Gerald A. Notaro" Subject: Re: For the Roses is better than Blue Scott Price said: But if one wishes to point to a single album that > set > a new standard for generations of singer-songwriters, then "Blue" it is. And then surpassed immediately by For the Roses. Jerry :) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 22:13:01 +0100 From: "Laurent Olszer" Subject: Mark Knopfler UK Tour - Exclusive Presale, njc - ----- > > Mark Knopfler has announced an 8-date UK tour for 2005. Tickets for these shows don't go on sale to the general public on Friday October 8th but as one of our subscribers, you will be able to book from Wednesday October 6th. > > These links will activate at 9:00am on Wednesday morning giving you the chance to book 2 days in advance of everyone else. > > 22 May Edinburgh Playhouse > > http://www.ticketline.co.uk/event_details.asp?EventID=29556 > > 23 May Newcastle City Hall > > http://www.ticketline.co.uk/event_details.asp?EventID=29563 > > 24 May Cardiff CIA > > http://www.ticketline.co.uk/event_details.asp?EventID=29555 > > 25 May Brighton Centre > > http://www.ticketline.co.uk/event_details.asp?EventID=29551 > > 26 May Manchester Evening News Arena > > http://www.ticketline.co.uk/event_details.asp?EventID=29558 > > 31 May London Royal Albert Hall > > http://www.ticketline.co.uk/event_details.asp?EventID=29560 > > 01 Jun London Royal Albert Hall > > http://www.ticketline.co.uk/event_details.asp?EventID=29561 > > 04 Jun Birmingham NEC > > http://www.ticketline.co.uk/event_details.asp?EventID=29550 > > --- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:27:57 -0400 From: Lori Fye Subject: RE: Stop the Bleeding - NJC PC As I just wrote privately to Debra, it must be that people in the two camps -- those who prefer Kerry versus those who prefer Bush -- are simply "wired" differently. Nothing else explains to me why anyone, especially after seeing and listening to last week's debate, would prefer that Bush continue to "lead" our country. Bush appeared to be a peavish puppet who cannot, on his own, articulate beyond rhetoric. He said nothing substantive during the entire 90 minutes of the debate. Mary and I watched together, and we alternated between covering our faces in embarrassment for Bush and just staring at each other, wondering if he'd really just said *that* [replace *that* with the gaffe of your choice]. I just don't get it, but, like Debra, I am curious about any Bush supporter's reasons for voting for him. Especially since a vote for Bush is a vote for his entire package of war hawks and PNAC cronies. Any Bush supporter care to respond? Lori ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:29:24 +0100 From: colin Subject: Re: NJC Future Jonifests Lori Fye wrote: > > >Hey, my cousin is the deputy coroner in Greenville and so, for me, Greenville >would be fine! > in case any of you over do it? - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:30:43 EDT From: Smurfycopy@aol.com Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc Colin writes: << You know, I say the same thing over and over again and still people read something else. i wonder why? >> Yes, Colin, it was a lovely day here. A bit cold this morning, and there are weather reports predicting our first frost tonight -- brrr! -- but the days are very nice for this time of year. Thanks for asking. - --Smurf "LA LA LA LA LA I am not listening to Smurf anymore LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA fingers in my ears LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA." - --Gov. Jim McGreevey ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 22:33:43 +0200 From: "Ron" Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc hi >>>martin wrote >>>>>>All of this is a sidetrack really. My original question was how does saying God created everything explain anything?<<<<<< seriously now - i really think anyone who thinks that saying that god created everything answers any questions, is probably like (nice answer) a little kid who thinks their parents can do anything (realistic answer) not thinking particularly straight (nasty answer) stupid believing in god only adds a whole new dimension to the where do we come from, where does the universe come from, why are we here, what caused life type questions - by moving them one step backwards to where does god from, why did he make us, what was he thinking when he made churches. and why is there so much crap on earth type questions. to me - the existence of god is a given. faith comes in in trying to get on with day to day life, with some of these questions in the back of my mind - accepting that one day ill get the answer - maybe from inspiration, maybe from sheer hard work, (or maybe from the jmdl????) of course - there is on question you *could* answer - if you chose to - so please, please do answer & tell us - WHEN IS THE NEXT FECKIN STRYNGS ALBUM HITTING THE SHELVES ITS OVER A YEAR NOW AND SURELY ITS AUTUMN ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ron np - tony rice - changes ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 22:33:02 +0100 From: "Laurent Olszer" Subject: Future Jonifests Re: [NortheastJonifest] Future Jonifests I REALLY REALLY think we should, at least once or twice, manage to have the fest in Europe. Yes, Laurent, do tell us more (again, for those who forgot!) about that place near Carcassonne. It all depends whether enough people are close enough to do some of the practical arranging. Lieve. Hi Guys Sure Holland sounds cool and very central, as Uncle John wrote. I'd go for that. The place I was thinking of is a wild area, middle mountains, sort of Topanga Canyon like. It's filled with medieval castles, 11th century abbeys, rivers. Very unpopulated area (twice more than Patagonia) and the least populated county in Europe. Population is a mix of locals and also a Haight-Ashbury refugee national park. This friend of mine has a place which is truly magical. He has bungalows + a renovated mill for housing, a view on the whole valley, private waterfalls, fruit trees, pond, prehistoric bat cave, etc. It's hard to describe but rest assured that everybody (including some U.S. friends of mine) who goes there feels the magic. Local housing is also available in nearby villages. Why go to a Vegas lookalike when you can get the real thing? Laurent ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:34:35 +0100 From: colin Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc Smurfycopy@aol.com wrote: > > >Yes, Colin, it was a lovely day here. A bit cold this morning, and there are >weather reports predicting our first frost tonight -- brrr! -- but the days >are very nice for this time of year. > youa re such a pratt! but I like you anyway! lol! > > > - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 16:36:48 EDT From: Smurfycopy@aol.com Subject: Re: Aliens, njc Cryptically, Kakki writes: << "I used to be governor of California" --Gov. Jim McGreevey >> Hmm. I am not McGetting this McGreevey quotation. Does anyone else have a McGuess at what this means? (Please let me know sometime, Kakki.) - --Smurf "Yes, I've got a light. And so does Lady Liberty." - --Gov. Jim McGreevey ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:37:16 +0100 From: colin Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc Ron wrote: > what was he thinking when he made churches. > Huh? If God made churches, then she also made aeroplanes and undergrounds and office blocks. - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 21:33:33 +0100 From: colin Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc Martin Giles wrote: > Hi Colin > > You said: > > > > >you didn't understand what i said. i did not say that their > agenda was to prove the non existence of God. i said, that like > you, many have already decided there is no Creator. there is a big > difference between what i did say and what you inferred. > > Apologies for the misunderstanding Colin. But if these people > (including myself) have made up their minds already, what are they > looking for? > you tell me. You are the one who has said you believe there is no creator. Unless i misunderstood you. > > > >again you have misunderstood what i wrote. We DO NOT know if > there is Creator and we DO NOT know how all this happened. That is > the uncertainty we must live with. I did not dsay anything about > not searching or wanting to know. You know, I say the same thing > over and over again and still people read something else. i wonder > why? > > Well, it's just that you actually said: > one CANNOT PROVE there is a god and one CANNOT PROVE there isn't. > (my capitalisation). And then you say that we must live with it. > ..Which to me implied a very different thing from 'we do not know'.. > It means the same thing to me. If it hasn't been proved one way or the other, then it remains umknown. >> >> All of this is a sidetrack really. My original question was how >> does saying God created everything explain anything? Colin, you >> profess that you don't know. > because I don't. >> I'd like to have things explained to me by someone who feels that >> the existance of a creator does answer these big questions. > but they don't know either. they can only tell you their ideas. Your ideas are as good as any on the subject! >> >> Martin. > - -- bw colin http://www.btinternet.com/~tantraapso/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 21:39:27 +0100 From: "Martin Giles" Subject: Re: Science vs Religion, njc Hi Catherine Richard Dawkins (geneticist/neo-Darwinist) says that it turns out that you can find more genetic variation between two individuals of say the Caucasian 'race' than between any two 'races' for instance Asian and Caucasian. So I think that display you saw was right on the money - no hokey'! Martin. NPIMH Parachute Games with string quartet added! (Been thinking about recording several of the songs for our new album with strings.. and of course with Strings :0) > Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:45:39 -0400 (EDT) > From: Catherine McKay > I remember going with my kids to an exhibit at the > Ontario Science Centre that had to do with genes and > racism. One display showed you pictures of three young > men and you were supposed to "guess" which two you > thought might have more in common. There were two > black guys and one white guy. Most people would say > the two black guys were more alike, but then they > showed you different factors, including blood type and > so on, and, as it turns out, one of the black guys and > the white guy were a closer match genetically. That > may be a bit hokey, but the point was to show that > similarities and differences amongst people have to do > with a lot more than skin colour. ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2004 #404 ***************************** ------- 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)