From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #106 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Tuesday, June 5 2001 Volume 01 : Number 106 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! [timv@t] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! [jenny g] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! [Stewar] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! [timv@t] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! [Dana L] Re: [loud-fans] R.E.M., hair, cover art, aging [Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.c] RE: [loud-fans] RE: "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! [] Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! [Dennis] [loud-fans] Moulin Rouge ["R. Kevin Doyle" ] Re: [loud-fans] Moulin Rouge [Tiger Reel ] Re: [loud-fans] Another helping of Slaw ["John Sharples" ] Re: [loud-fans] Sparklehorse and other MUSIC [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey <] Re: [loud-fans] Moulin Rouge [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Dana L Paoli wrote: > > As to gender-specific words: I'll accept that feminine-specific terms > > convey no derogatory effect when you show me an example of a > > feminine-specific term that works as a generic. > > >>>>>>>>>> > > "Nurse." > > Good try - but there's nothing intrinsic in "nurse" that marks it as > feminine. And we don't have a separate word meaning "male nurse" - we only > apply the adjective "male" to indicate its relative rarity. The intrinsic suggestion of breast-feeding, of which men are generally not capable, seems like a factor to me. On 4 Jun 2001, at 10:02, Steve Holtebeck wrote: > Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > >> A better example might be the situation where "ballerina" is a well-known > > (and clearly feminine) word, but whatever the word is for "male ballet > > dancer" is, it's far more obscure. (Yes, I know the obvious joke - thank > > you for not bothering to post it.) > > Here's the straight dope (from Cecil Taylor) on male ballet dancers: > http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmalebal.html > > Male ballet dancers are so obscure that they don't even have a word > yet.. Reveling in my own obscurity here: "danseur" is the standard term. And most major companies have nearly as many male as female dancers. Incidentally, "ballerina" isn't a generic term either, at least not traditionally. It implies a female dancer of exceptional accomplishment and fame, with "prima ballerina" being the peak of acheivement. Best wishes, Tim Victor timv@triad.rr.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 14:57:15 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! timv@triad.rr.com wrote: > > The intrinsic suggestion of breast-feeding, of which men are > generally not capable, seems like a factor to me. sooo... in other words, if i'm injured, i need to breast feed my wounds? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 13:14:01 -0600 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show itin! At 02:57 PM 6/4/01 -0400, jenny grover wrote: >timv@triad.rr.com wrote: >> >> The intrinsic suggestion of breast-feeding, of which men are >> generally not capable, seems like a factor to me. > >sooo... in other words, if i'm injured, i need to breast feed my wounds? I think there's a website for that... S NP: Are You Real Or Just Some Sort of Disgusting Fridge Magnet?--The Creams ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:46:05 -0400 From: timv@triad.rr.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! On 4 Jun 2001, at 14:57, jenny grover wrote: > timv@triad.rr.com wrote: > > > > The intrinsic suggestion of breast-feeding, of which men are > > generally not capable, seems like a factor to me. > > sooo... in other words, if i'm injured, i need to breast feed my wounds? Heh! Probably not very helpful... Not to suggest that the meanings of words don't broaden and shift with time ("teamsters" once drove teams of horses) but Jeff commented about there being nothing intrinsically female in the word "nurse". Not having an OED handy, I'm betting that the word originally referred to lactation. In any case, it's still widely used and understood in that sense. Tim ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:29:33 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! Good try - but there's nothing intrinsic in "nurse" that marks it as feminine. >>>>>>>>> There's nothing intrinsic in any word that marks it as anything. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:11:50 -0500 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] R.E.M., hair, cover art, aging Rog sez: Go ahead and use that saccharin toothpaste(?) - - I'm sure something else will kill you (fluoride?) long before that would. <><><><><><> Fluoride doesn't kill people. People turned into Communists by fluoride kill people. - --D ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:07:43 -1000 From: "R. Kevin Doyle" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] RE: "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! Ah, it is always a joy to learn that - somewhere out their in Loud Fans Land - I have a kindred spirit. - --- Tiger Reel wrote: >as another theatre director, i don't like to refer to >them at all, preferring to talk to them like the >buffalo bill character in "silence of the lambs": "it >puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose >again." >i find that this eliminates all need to gender >specificity and maintains the type of cowed, scared >behavior that i prefer out of my casts. - --- "R. Kevin Doyle" wrote: > I'm a theatre director (albeit community theatre, > but, heh, its the closest > thing to being indie you can be in my particular > theatre milieu) and I like > to refer to them generically as actroids. I don't > do this because it > satisfies any gender issues, but because it > correctly identifies the > actroids as machines who work only at my whim. > > Muhahahaha. Ahem. Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:28:47 -0500 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! Tim W.: >It's more elegant and more precise to use "actor" only for the >general case, and "male actor" and "female actor" when distinction by sex >is >necessary (and only then; you don't need to refer to Maggie Smith as an >"actress", because her sex is already specified and usually irrelevant). > Cardinal: ...I don't appreciate (although I recognize it exists) the desire to scrap words that have no inherent derogation. It may be more "elegant," but I disagree that it's more precise. The elegant word, I suggest, would be "thespian." <><><><><><><><><><><><><> Everybody's missing the real point here: The proper term is "waiter" or "waitress", with theawkward recently coined neuter "waitron". - --Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:23:42 -1000 From: "R. Kevin Doyle" Subject: [loud-fans] Moulin Rouge Anyone seen it? Opinions? I saw it last night. There was a sequence with a narcoleptic Argentinean doing a violent tango while singing "Roxanne" that I really dug. Another featuring Jim Broadbent reinterpreting "Like a Virgin" was a highlight. Oh, and there's a terrific Absinthe sequence. Even the "Elephant Love Medley" makes more sense in context and the distressing new version of "Lady Marmalade" is barely present. I had a great time. I loved it. I hated it. It is a triumph of style over substance. Part of my brain screams "No! Dear God No!" Part of my brain says "Fool! The style *is* the substance in this case." Anyhow, I rarely do this, but I might have to see the movie again. Luhrman seems to be intent on reinventing the movie musical and, in some ways, he succeeds in a hyperactive, post-modern way. In other ways, parts teeter so close to the edge of stupidity that the film risks plunging into idiot valley. If you're going to see it, see it on the big screen. The "Elephant Love Medley," which VH-1 is playing fairly regularly, has convinced me that, in the case of this film, size matters. R. Kevin Honolulu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 14:56:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Tiger Reel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Moulin Rouge i had a terrific time watching this film. baz luhrmann vaults to the top of my "directors whose stuff i will go out of my way to see" (i also had a great time with "strictly ballroom" and "romeo and juliet"). the first 30 minutes are just jaw-droppingly brilliant. - --- "R. Kevin Doyle" wrote: > Anyone seen it? Opinions? > > I saw it last night. There was a sequence with a > narcoleptic Argentinean > doing a violent tango while singing "Roxanne" that I > really dug. Another > featuring Jim Broadbent reinterpreting "Like a > Virgin" was a highlight. Oh, > and there's a terrific Absinthe sequence. > > Even the "Elephant Love Medley" makes more sense in > context and the > distressing new version of "Lady Marmalade" is > barely present. > > I had a great time. I loved it. I hated it. > > It is a triumph of style over substance. Part of my > brain screams "No! Dear > God No!" Part of my brain says "Fool! The style > *is* the substance in this > case." > > Anyhow, I rarely do this, but I might have to see > the movie again. Luhrman > seems to be intent on reinventing the movie musical > and, in some ways, he > succeeds in a hyperactive, post-modern way. In > other ways, parts teeter so > close to the edge of stupidity that the film risks > plunging into idiot > valley. > > If you're going to see it, see it on the big screen. > The "Elephant Love > Medley," which VH-1 is playing fairly regularly, has > convinced me that, in > the case of this film, size matters. > > R. Kevin > Honolulu Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:10:56 -0400 From: "John Sharples" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Another helping of Slaw >Hey, asshole; that's "lawman" and "lawwoman"! > > >And what are you doing back here, except spreading your lies about the >Beatles? Who you calling asshole, assman!! John Sharples **Filling your Lies About the Beatles, Law, Joey Molland, Paula Carino, and Liberal Media Needs since 1996.** ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:10:24 -0700 From: Elizabeth Setler Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! At 9:04 AM -0500 6/4/01, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >In most cases, a person's gender is utterly irrelevant to their >professional achievements: why, exactly, might it be relevant that >so-and-so's estate has an "executrix" rather than an "executor"? > >(Funny how we're not hearing from Loudfanesses here...) Well, as one of them there people, I'll speak up, but I imagine I'm not speaking for most of the women here. I *like* feminine suffixes. I usually add them to my job titles even when nobody else does. Sure, people look at me oddly when I say I'm a copy editrix (well, I was; now I'm a record store girl, I guess), but I don't mind. If I'm editing copy - or selling records - it's more than likely I'm doing so in a feminine fashion. (Or at least the sentence "You're such a GIRL" tends to pop up a lot in my various work situations for some reason.) Besides, the sheer fun of being girly is pretty much the only thing that makes up for all of the pain-in-the-ass parts of being female. For me, anyway. I've often thought I was born about 80 years too late... And whatever bias might exist in the use of the word "he" to indicate a single nonspecific person, I find it infinitely preferable to the agonizing contortions many people go through to avoid using it. - -- Elizabeth ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 16:22:03 -0700 From: bbradley@namesecure.com Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Moulin Rouge definately going to see this one. as far as my own recs, DO go see Shrek. DO NOT go see pearl harbor. as a wise man put it - 'they managed to cram a 1/2 hour story into a 3 hour movie'. it stank. short and sweet..... line two. - -- brianna bradley - -----Original Message----- From: R. Kevin Doyle [mailto:rkdoyle@midpac.edu] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 2:24 PM To: loud-fans@smoe.org Subject: [loud-fans] Moulin Rouge Anyone seen it? Opinions? I saw it last night. There was a sequence with a narcoleptic Argentinean doing a violent tango while singing "Roxanne" that I really dug. Another featuring Jim Broadbent reinterpreting "Like a Virgin" was a highlight. Oh, and there's a terrific Absinthe sequence. Even the "Elephant Love Medley" makes more sense in context and the distressing new version of "Lady Marmalade" is barely present. I had a great time. I loved it. I hated it. It is a triumph of style over substance. Part of my brain screams "No! Dear God No!" Part of my brain says "Fool! The style *is* the substance in this case." Anyhow, I rarely do this, but I might have to see the movie again. Luhrman seems to be intent on reinventing the movie musical and, in some ways, he succeeds in a hyperactive, post-modern way. In other ways, parts teeter so close to the edge of stupidity that the film risks plunging into idiot valley. If you're going to see it, see it on the big screen. The "Elephant Love Medley," which VH-1 is playing fairly regularly, has convinced me that, in the case of this film, size matters. R. Kevin Honolulu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:29:29 -0400 From: "John Sharples" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! >As to whoever suggested "actron" by analogy with "waitron": now *there's* >an abomination...and an unnecessary one as well, since "server" does just >fine, thank you, in describing the person who takes your order and brings >your food at a restaurant. There is no "-ron" suffix native to English, so >it's silly to try and invent one. I simply won't take any responsibility for words from someone who obviously has never heard Tru Fax and the Insaniax. JS ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 19:23:22 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Another helping of Slaw John Sharples wrote: > > Who you calling asshole, assman!! are you sure that's not asstron? or is it assperson? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 19:54:51 -0400 From: "John Sharples" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! >At 09:04 AM 6/4/01 -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >>As to gender-specific words: I'll accept that feminine-specific terms >>convey no derogatory effect when you show me an example of a >>feminine-specific term that works as a generic...to describe something >>that also has a masculine-specific term. Stewart: >Cow. No, that is not right. Cow can never be sex-neutral. Nurse is correct. JS ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 20:48:25 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Nothing personal here... Tim -- you made some reference to hoping these exchanges weren't personal and believing maybe they had become so [I accessed that message from a foreign computer, and promptly lost it]. Nothing personal here. I don't know you, and believe your ultimate aim to be sincere and similar to mine. Just trying to knead the logic and words *we* use in our arguments. Lord knows if it were personal I'd at least owe you coherence. Which has sadly been missing a lot lately from my posts. But I never let a flawed argument interfere with the "send" button..... Let's get back to the First Amendment soon, shall we? Or maybe I can buy you a beer at the record release party if I make it. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 18:00:21 -0700 From: bbradley@namesecure.com Subject: FW: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in ! just call them all epsilons. uh, line two. er sumpthin'. - -- brianna bradley "And they're happy below the water line?" - -----Original Message----- From: John Sharples [mailto:jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu] Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 4:29 PM To: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey; Bucky...Firewoman...and John Cameron Swayze.... Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! >As to whoever suggested "actron" by analogy with "waitron": now *there's* >an abomination...and an unnecessary one as well, since "server" does just >fine, thank you, in describing the person who takes your order and brings >your food at a restaurant. There is no "-ron" suffix native to English, so >it's silly to try and invent one. I simply won't take any responsibility for words from someone who obviously has never heard Tru Fax and the Insaniax. JS ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 20:02:47 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] the goddamned actors already Various people said various things, to which I will respond: >From JRT456@aol.com Mon Jun 4 19:47:27 2001 A person who refuses to use a word like "fireperson" isn't practicing discrimination against women. - ---------- No, they (strike that!) h/sh/it is avoiding linguistic abominations and should just say "firefighter" instead. - ---------- From: John Sharples >At 09:04 AM 6/4/01 -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >>As to gender-specific words: I'll accept that feminine-specific terms >>convey no derogatory effect when you show me an example of a >>feminine-specific term that works as a generic...to describe something >>that also has a masculine-specific term. Stewart: >Cow. No, that is not right. Cow can never be sex-neutral. Nurse is correct. - -------------- John is half-right; Dana was right and I was wrong; Stewart is right: "cow" is an acceptable term (usually in the plural) for a herd of some cows and some bulls (according to the dictionary I consulted); "nurse" is indeed intrinsically female (see Dana's comment below, and my response), in that, as several pointed out, its etymologically specifically refers to breastfeeding. Another correct answer to my question is "prostitute." - ------------ From: Dana L Paoli Good try - but there's nothing intrinsic in "nurse" that marks it as feminine. >>>>>>>>> There's nothing intrinsic in any word that marks it as anything. - ----------- Sure there is - words have history just like any other cultural object. As I point out above, "nurse" can be regarded as having an intrinsically feminine quality because it derives from a Latin root referring to breastfeeding. By "intrinsic" I simply mean something like "there from the start of the word's history" or "a large part of that history." Also: the root of "waitron" isn't "waitr" (no such root); it's "wait" (as in "attend"), with the -r being a truncated version of -er, a suffix of agency ("waitress" breaks down to its root "wait," a suffix -r, and a second suffix -ess connoting femininity). There is no such suffix -on - the words Dana mentions aren't native English and come from a Greek neuter ending, but it has nothing to do with agency. - ----------------- From: Michael Mitton On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > As to the substitution or alternation of "she" as generic pronoun: feh! > The goal of *any* writing is to communicate (something) - and unless the > point of what you're communicating is "now I'm being self-righteously > feminist by the zero-grade gesture of throwing 'she' around as a generic," > that "she" only distracts from whatever it is you're trying to say. Again: > the language is flexible enough that it's possible to rephrase, say things > elegantly, and avoid any variety of obnoxious pronoun usage. (Often, btw, > one can rephrase the whole thing into the plural: "if a student drops the > class, s/he..." vs. "if students drop the class, they...") But isn't your "s/he" or any of its variants also a self-righteous, zero-grade gesture? - -------------- It shouldn't - my use of "s/he" in the example was me saving typing time. I would never use it in formal writing, and I do not favor it. Anyway, it was the 90-pound-weakling example - the buff, muscular, bikini-wearing-model-bearing example is the "they" example. Finally - someone else said something about ridiculous contortions to avoid politically incorrect pronouns: they're only ridiculous contortions for folks who lack writing skill - bad writing is to be avoided for its own sake and doesn't need politics to justify its shunning. But really, what the hell is wrong with trying to say what you mean? If you don't *mean* "a masculine individual," why use "he" when that's what "he" means? Doing so misleads readers. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey, off to watch an _Angel_ rerun... J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::glibby glop gloopy nibby nobby noopy la la la la lo:: ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:04:57 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] are we nearly there yet? (ns) So, um, can we talk about the new Radiohead album yet? Can we? Can we? Can we? It's really good (I think) and I can't wait for someone to explain what time signature the second song is in!!! - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 18:22:07 -0700 From: bbradley@namesecure.com Subject: RE: [loud-fans] the goddamned actors already >>"cow" is an acceptable term (usually in the plural) for a herd of some cows and some bulls (according to the dictionary I consulted); the truly correct, though hugely archaic, plural is, i believe, kine. not that it matters. - -- brianna bradley on my way to the airport to pick up a gaggle of idiots. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 18:36:30 -0700 From: Elizabeth Setler Subject: Re: [loud-fans] the goddamned actors already At 8:02 PM -0500 6/4/01, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >Finally - someone else said something about ridiculous contortions to >avoid politically incorrect pronouns: they're only ridiculous contortions >for folks who lack writing skill - bad writing is to be avoided for its >own sake and doesn't need politics to justify its shunning. Just to clarify, and I won't say another word on the topic - I was thinking more of people who try to avoid the usage even in casual spoken conversation. Sometimes folks will back up and start over five, six times before they're content with their gender-neutrality. (That sentence has an alarming double meaning that I didn't intend, but I sort of like it, so I'm leaving it that way.) As stilted speech goes, it's never quite as funny as when a coworker of mine described someone as "an African-American gentleman from England," though. - -- Elizabeth ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 18:50:31 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] "There's an actor to see you" "Please show it in! >At 09:04 AM 6/4/01 -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >>As to gender-specific words: I'll accept that feminine-specific terms >>convey no derogatory effect when you show me an example of a >>feminine-specific term that works as a generic...to describe something >>that also has a masculine-specific term. > >Cow. Bull! SHT... Andy It was only the first date of the Angry White Male Tour in Seattle at the Ballard Firehouse on May 25th, when police stormed in and confiscated what was billed as serial killer Ed Gein's "real live" tombstone. National news reported the Wisconsin serial killer's, whose crimes had inspired the movies 'Psycho', 'Silence of the Lambs' and 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre', tombstone was stolen nearly a year ago. Police barged into the venue and examined the stone for an extended period before seizing it from it's possessor, Shane Bugbee. Whether or not this was even the real stone was in question from the beginning stages of promotion for the tour that also boasted an array of true crime artifacts, redneck author Jim Goad, convicted cartoonist Mike Diana, Skitzo the vomiting performance artist and an array of other artists, musicians and other underground artists. The tour planned to display the "real live" tombstone along the West Coast and Southwest. Shane Bugbee said, "I knew this was going to happen, it gives us just what we wanted, my lawyer will have a field day with this!" The tour and the stone are being used to promote Bugbee's new website www.evilnow.com. The site features an array of disturbin books, comics, collectibles and more, including Gein gravestone rubbings, Hitler CDs, and Brawlin' Broads videos. To schedule an interview from the road call 888-303-KILL Check out www.evilnow.com for tour schedule, and to buy products [--from an e-mail I got last Tuesday] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:48:06 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] the goddamned actors already I said: "There's nothing intrinsic in any word that marks it as anything." and Jeff said: "Sure there is - words have history just like any other cultural object." And I got all excited, because I still have my copy of "Poststructuralism for Dummies" at hand, and was prepared to demolish Jeff's argument and use the words "empty signifier" and "sign" at least 20 times, but then my eyes drift upward to Jeff's earlier quote: "Dana was right and I was wrong" and I get a warm, fuzzy, sleepy feeling and just drift off into pleasant dreams, accompanied by the lovely new Radiohead album. And maybe Jeff is right anyway. I defer to the English teacher. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 21:15:02 -0500 From: steve Subject: [loud-fans] New Sam Album http://www.billboard.com/billboard/feature/index.jsp - - Steve __________ At least three top White House advisers involved in drafting President Bush's energy strategy held stock in the Enron Corporation or earned fees from the large Texas-based energy trading company, which lobbied aggressively to shape the administration's approach to energy issues. - Joseph Kahn, New York Times ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:03:04 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Sparklehorse and other MUSIC On Sat, 2 Jun 2001, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Roger Winston wrote: > > > I also finally scored a copy of Plumtree's THIS DAY WON'T LAST AT ALL, > > which some around here have compared to the New Pornographers. There's > > Really? I can't hear that similarity at all. As Rog pointed out, glenn does compare the Plumtree recording to the New Pornographers - but not by saying they sound alike. (Rog, of course, doesn't claim they sound alike - I assumed that's what he meant. And, as Joe says, when you assume you make an ass of Sue and him. That works better when Joe says it, but you get the point...) Glenn instead compares their spirit, "an artless, percussive exuberance" to be precise. So there. - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::SCENE 2: ::Aunt Fritzi applies lipstick in the mirror. In the next room, Sluggo ::removes his ever-present cap and blows his nose in a red handkerchief. ::Nancy enters the room and accuses Sluggo of stealing the donuts that ::Aunt Fritzi made for her. Sluggo looks at the clock, which reads 8:54, ::and says he'd better hurry or he'll be late for his trombone lesson. np: Neilson Hubbard _Why Men Fail_ (damned sexist piggy!) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:17:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Moulin Rouge On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Tiger Reel wrote: > i had a terrific time watching this film. baz luhrmann > vaults to the top of my "directors whose stuff i will > go out of my way to see" (i also had a great time with > "strictly ballroom" and "romeo and juliet"). the first > 30 minutes are just jaw-droppingly brilliant. Despite liking _Strictly Ballroom_, Baz Luhrmann is on my list of directors to avoid, because: - --People should not be called "Baz" - what the hell is that? - --He's responsible for that utterly stupid, annoying adaptation of the graduation speech Kurt Vonnegut never gave a few years back. More things I don't get: what is a "RAV" as in Toyota RAV4, and why did they think that's a good name? I think "hmmm....Ravioli? Raffi?" Why does Gatorade think we want to see neon-colored sweat dribbling all over the place? (One answer: I am not a twelve-year-old boy, nor do I think like one - therefore I am in hardly anyone's desirable demographic. Rose and I were at a baseball game the other day, and in front of us were four guys that, at first glance, I would have said ranged in age from 18 to 24 or so. Once they opened their mouths - repeatedly, crudely, pointlessly, and bellowingly - I revised that estimate and assumed they were older-looking, immature sixteen year olds. So imagine my surprise when two of them hailed a beer vendor, produced the required ID, and bought some beers. "Jesus Christ," I thought, "these folks are old enough to vote!" That explains a lot.) - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::In terms of the conjunctures of cultures, [LA is] less like a salad bowl ::and more like a TV dinner with those little aluminium barriers keeping ::all the vegetables in their places. __Catherine Ann Driscoll__ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:46:51 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] the goddamned actors already On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Dana L Paoli wrote: > I said: > > "There's nothing intrinsic in any word that marks it as anything." > > and Jeff said: > > "Sure there is - words have history just like any other cultural object." > > And I got all excited, because I still have my copy of "Poststructuralism > for Dummies" at hand, and was prepared to demolish Jeff's argument and > use the words "empty signifier" and "sign" at least 20 times I'll be Chatty Charles just once more tonight, and then I'm Silent Steven. (Now who the hell is that a reference to? Slips my mind...) As I understand it, postmodernism was a response to the sort of philosophical thought that pursued absolute truth, that implicitly claimed that such truth was attainable by philosophy. Essentialism is one variant: the sort of claim that something (say, men or women) just is some way, in some, deep, natural, invariant way, all the way down. Culture, in this view, could modify such essentials, but ultimately must acknowledge its status as latecoming guest to the party, not host. Postmodernism, though (and it's been a few years - someone please correct me), said, no, there is no way to get all the way down - matter of fact, there's no bottom. That is, rather than culture being an overlay on some essential nature, it's all culture. Peel away the onion; there's no stone at the center - it's all skin. But that doesn't deny the very real effects of that culture, or that a culture can't be very persistent over time, or that such effects can nearly erase their very status *as* culture (in fact, it very strongly implies that such is nearly always the case: the most persistent culture is that which is invisble as culture, which masquerades as "just so" or "nature." See also: ideology). So when I say "intrinsically," I'm really saying "in a very culturally persistent way that, in its effects, *might as well be* 'natural' or 'essential.'" A comparison: biologically, there's really no such thing as "race." But to use that (scientific) fact to claim that therefore "race" is a meaningless category in the world would be monumentally stupid. Yes, race is "only" cultural - but that's a gigantic, huge, enormous "only." I suppose there are some postmodernists out there who imagine that, having been persuaded that very little of what humans do is dictated by nature or biology, somehow conclude that we therefore can easily do any damned thing. Uh-huh...and if you can say the word "relativity," you're Albert Einstein. Uh Louie Louie - whoa, baby, now we gotta go. Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah. - --Jeff, intrigued by the realization that he wrote a sentence which, but for a parenthetical interruption, would have had four words in a row followed by commas... Jeffrey Norman, Posemodernist University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Dept. of Mumblish & Competitive Obliterature http://www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #106 *******************************