From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #131 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 19 2001 Volume 01 : Number 131 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Musical aside [Jon Tveite ] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) ["Aa] Re: [loud-fans] re: Oleanna ["Aaron Milenski" ] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) ["Aa] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Jo] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Dan] [loud-fans] bee gees on leno [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awful attemptatOTing) [] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either. ..) [De] Re: [loud-fans] bee gees on leno [jenny grover ] [loud-fans] Recommendations, please [Michael Bowen ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 02:20:19 -0500 From: Jon Tveite Subject: [loud-fans] Musical aside I was just checking out the new 125 records site, which looks nice, but that's not the point. The point is that I listened to the sample tracks by Belle Da Gama, and they sound really good, especially "The Three Cornered World", which is just a gorgeous walking-tempo song. And that second voice in the chorus sounds eerily familar.... "The Mozart Defect" is a nice power-pop affair -- a pretty far cry from "Some Paintings Were Never Meant to Hang", but I like it. Anyway, I'd recommend checking these things out, if you haven't already. Not usually prone to boosterism, Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:00:29 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) >I don't think distributing condoms is necessarily at the expense of >advocates of abstinence. There's always the old "Kids, don't have sex >until you're married. But if you do, at least use these." That's saying >"abstinence is best - condoms if abstinence isn't for you." > >Endorsing a position (abstinence) need not deny either the existence of >other positions nor that humans are imperfect and sometimes mess up. I agree. This issue is a completely different issue than the religious one. What's going on here isn't so much an "acceptance" of certain types of sexual behavior as "OK" as it is having the common sense to realize that no matter what you want people to do they still have their own minds and it's better to help them to do it in a less dangerous way than it is to close your eyes and pretend they're not going to do it at all. It reminds me of Bob Dole's answer to the question about drugs: "Kids, DON'T DO IT." It's as if he truly believed that they would look at him as an authority figure and just do what he said. I've always been rather disgusted by the fact that there seems to be an assumption that if you have left-wing political views that you necessarily also have "liberal" social values (and by that I don't mean that you're pro-choice, pro-gay rights or that sort of thing, but rather that you're in favor of promiscuity, liberal in your beliefs about drug use, that type of thing.) I can very easily explain why, at least in my own mind, the two have nothing in common whatsoever. I, personally, don't think teenagers should be having sex. Most people think I'm nuts for that belief. But I'm not foolish enough to think it matters what I think, so I figure that preventing VD and pregnancy is the next best thing to abstinence. I also think you can be vehemently anti-drug and still in favor of legalization. To me, having policies wherin the government sanctions no religious activity is allowing that every religion has an equal right, rather than singling any one out in any instance, just as distributing condoms allows people to decide to use them or not use them. If you would argue that the equivalent would be to distribute religious literature and let people choose to use it or not use it, than I would argue you'd need to distribute literature for every existing religion on earth, including atheism, and let people decide, in order to give them the same freedom of choice. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:12:30 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] re: Oleanna >Question: How on earth is that a problem? As i'm understanding it, the >female character in the play falsified a charge of rape (i think? some sort >of sexual abuse). This is not an absurd, beyond belief scenario -- i have >no >idea how common it is, but it certainly happens at all, and i don't see any >reason to think Warren Farrell is lying when he reports on personally >attending a legal seminar in which women contemplating divorce were >encouraged to invent rape charges for tactical advantage. Hopefully that's >rare, but here: _this character_, in this play, falsifies a rape scenario, >potentially ruining the person she charges. If the script is "slanted" >against her, why shouldn't it be? She claims of sexual harrassment, and much later actually claims rape. The only reason this is an issue in this film/play is that it presents itself as an objective look at the issue of "is it or isn't it sexual harrassment." I have nothing against literature that's slanted towards a particular viewpoint, as long as it doesn't try to pretend that it isn't. I thought TRAFFIC was a rather sneaky piece of propoganda, as it created certain fictional events to support an argument for legalizaton of drugs, but also presented itself as if it did not have a political viewpoint (some may disagree about the last point; it's certainly up for interpretation.) People argue the same about JFK, which presents itself as history, when much of it is fiction created to help prove its basic assertion. The same can be argued about all sorts of values that are portrayed in literature, most of which simply happen to be the values of the writer. I would have had no problem with OLEANNA if Mamet had presented it in more of a "this is something that could possibly happen" way than in a "this is an unbiased look at the issue" way, because it came across as a very biased look at the issue. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:23:04 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) >Creationism shouldn't be taught as fact >(which, for all I know, could be common in parochial schools), but students >aren't served by any school system that pretends to know all the >answers. I feel that one of the greatest disservices our schools do our students is to act as if history texts are fact. Obviously you have to have a text to teach something, but it's sad that there aren't more teachers out there who are willing to (or knowledgeable enough to) let the students know that history texts are written with bias, or without full knowledge of the events, etc... I'm not arguing for deconstructioninsm or radical revision of the texts, because that's just as biased and flawed as the texts themselves. I just think students should be taught to question and to learn how to investigate ideas. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 09:00:58 -0500 (CDT) From: Jon Tveite Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Aaron Milenski wrote: > I'm not arguing for deconstructioninsm or radical revision of the > texts, because that's just as biased and flawed as the texts > themselves. I just think students should be taught to question and to > learn how to investigate ideas. That would be nice. I hated history in high school because it was just a series of names and dates. I hated English because it broke literature down just factual information about the characters, which we were tested on to prove we had read the assigned book. I hated math because I didn't understand what how it fit into the context of life outside high school. It's a good thing for me that I was raised in a middle class family where going to college was just expected, because if I had no reason to expect it would be more interesting than high school, I can't imagine why I would've thought it a good idea. High school is mostly about social control, unfortunately -- warehousing potential delinquents for a good deal of time, forcing them to get used to taking orders and staying on schedule, etc. On NPR this morning, I heard a story about Tristan, a high school student from Connecticut. His school had held a required assembly where people from McDonald's came in, talked about their job opportunities, played a corporate PR video, had everyone fill out applications, and then asked for volunteers to do mock interviews on stage. Tristan went up and said he didn't want to work for a big corporation that lied about their product (referring to the recent revelation that the fries, which they represent as vegetarian-friendly, are actually done in animal fat). The school made him write 2 apologies, one to McDonald's and one to the student body, which he was made to read over the intercom. There's where thinking for yourself will get you in high school. Jon ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 10:38:53 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) Tristan went up and said he didn't want to work for a big corporation that lied about their product (referring to the recent revelation that the fries, which they represent as vegetarian-friendly, are actually done in animal fat). >>>>>>>>> This is actually my only beef (no pun intended) with McDonalds. I was told on several occasions by their employees (managers, not counter folk) that the fries were vegetarian after they swiched from cooking them in animal fat, *and* the company made a huge deal about the switch to frying in vegetable oil without mentioning the continuing presence of beef flavoring, which was obviously going to be a concern for a number of people. Very irritating, although I really shouldn't have been buying *anything* from them, so serves me right for trying to buy fries from the Devil, I suppose. - --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, 18 Jun 2001 10:50:29 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] bee gees on leno I like some of the songs on their new album a whole lot, but others are only so so. Depending on which one they play, this could be great. They're on Leno tonight. - --dana (btw, just in case anyone here only knows of their disco era, the Bee Gee's started out sounding an awful lot like the Beatles, and they seem to be headed back in that direction, to a certain extent.) ________________________________________________________________ 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, 18 Jun 2001 10:02:52 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awful attemptatOTing) On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 Cardinal007@aol.com wrote: > I'm looking for the fine logical distinctions that allow someone to believe > there's state imprimatur with religious access, but no state imprimatur > [regarding sexuality] with condom distribution. I know the distinctions are > there, but I seem to get "the first is bad, the second is good" stuff most of > the time. > > I'm still looking for Jeff's great reasoning on that topic; I don't remember > us discussing the *legality* of the state's rejection (as I've put it) > anywhere. He and I have disagreed, but never addressed that, methinks. And > we disagree with love, I hope. Uh, I thought I had: in the matter of distributing condoms, a range of behaviors or alternatives is available; in the matter of allowing religious access to schools (by which in this example I mean either during school hours, by school personnel, or in any other way that implies school endorsement of that religious access), spatial logistics entail that only one group can occupy a room at any given time, and there are more religious groups than there are rooms or time to meet in. So in the religious example, a group meeting at school under the conditions I delineate parenthetically above clearly *is* receiving imprimatur (man, it's been too long since I've received imprimatur), whereas in the condom example, no imprimatur exists as to whether students should take the condoms, use them, ignore them, or stand nearby with signs stating anyone thinking of using them is going straight to highway patrolman - errr, hell. Also, re JRT's comments: Nowhere in this discussion have I said that religion is ipso facto bad - the argument about "Congress shall make no law...respecting the establishment of religion" (if I misquote it's because I'm doing it from memory) also protects religion. Given the negative opinion many students have of schools and their authority, an argument could be made that religion would be devalued in students' eyes if schools endorsed it. Re evolution: it's a poor science teacher who teaches any theory as "fact." Theories are hypotheses; the hypothesis that best fits what is known is the most scientifically tenable explanation; if other hypotheses are reasonably close in explanatory power, that fact should be mentioned. But the hypothesis of creation science (or whatever they're calling it these days) does not, so far as I know, have much in the way of facts supporting its hypotheses: that is, it lacks robust explanatory powers. Evolution, so far as facts are currently known, has them. (Please note as well that denying the literal truth of the biblical account of creation is not in itself irreligious: there are interpretations other than literal (*), and many religious people have no problem reconciling a belief that evolution provides the best explanatory theory for life on earth with their religious beliefs.) (*) As is well known, a "literal" reading of Genesis is self-contradictory (two different creation stories rammed together). Frankly, the prevalence of metaphor, allegory, etc. in the Bible (and for that matter, in language, period) ought to rule out of court any strictly "literal" reading. And would I be a smart-ass to mention the incest problem? - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::Drive ten thousand miles across America and you will know more about ::the country than all the institutes of sociology and political science ::put together. __Jean Baudrillard__ np: Thelonious Monk _Straight, No Chaser_ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:07:12 -0500 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either. ..) Cardinal: What if religion Y is granted access, provided they ask? Is X then at no one's expense? If not, what is state imprimatur? Jeff: >>I suppose it goes without saying, also, that generally the aim of religious groups is to get people interested in their religion (otherwise, why publicize their meetings to anyone *not* already in the group?) - the interest of those distributing condoms is not usually getting people interested in sex (if only because that would be redundant). Cardinal: sorry, my hypo was intended to reject your supposition, and didn't do so explicitly enough. Assume they don't publicize, they just want the space. I made mine hypothetical and removed evangelism to hypothesize they just use the school to meet. <><><><><><><><><> Forget about "religion Y". Forget about the issue of evangalism. Churches are tax exempt organizations. If they are willing to give that status up, then perhaps allowing them to meet in facilities paid for by taxpayers might hold water. Until they do, this is just another special interest group "looking for a government freebie". Let's say their church has been burned to the ground. Rather than meeting in a public school, why don't they meet in an unoccupied and scheduled for demolition public housing unit? Or one better, why don't they meet in the basement of a theologically differing church which has received a grant to perform some sort of social service from the Office of Faith Based Initiatives? faithfully, - --Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:13:55 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] bee gees on leno Dana L Paoli wrote: > > I like some of the songs on their new album a whole lot, but others are > only so so. Depending on which one they play, this could be great. > They're on Leno tonight. > > --dana Thanks for the heads up. I agree with your assessment of the album. There are maybe 4 really good songs and the rest are pretty disposable. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:15:24 -0400 From: Michael Bowen Subject: [loud-fans] Recommendations, please OK, so I kind of like "Once Around The Block" by Badly Drawn Boy...is this typical of the rest of the album? Also, Low fans - if I want to check them out to figure out if I'd like them, which 2 or 3 tracks should I listen to? MB np: Reign Of Frogs, "I Have No Life Outside Of My Mind" (Highly recommended!) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:35:54 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Recommendations, please On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Michael Bowen wrote: > OK, so I kind of like "Once Around The Block" by Badly Drawn Boy...is > this typical of the rest of the album? It's the only song I like from the album, for what that's worth. (I thought that it was the only song which made any impression on me at all, but when I heard him perform "Everybody's Stalking" on Letterman, it sounded familiar.) I don't grok the hype. aaron ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:49:47 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Recommendations, please > Also, Low fans - if I want to check them out to figure out if I'd like > them, which 2 or 3 tracks should I listen to? The handful of tracks they've got on their web site (http://www.chairkickers.com/low/audio.html) are a pretty good sample. Listening to a few isolated tracks isn't really the right way to approach Low, but "Dinosaur Act" is probably the song that stands up best on its own. glenn ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 15:51:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 125 Records footnote On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, glenn mcdonald wrote: > > incredibly weird cLOUDDEAD album > > I've seen this around, but don't know anything about it. Care to > elaborate, descriptively, on "incredibly weird"? First of all, it's a hip-hop record; to be exact, it's the first benificiary of me finding, after ten years' occasional dalliance with rap music, a record I like so much that I've started chasing down its relatives the same way I confidently do with rock records: that record was Aesop Rock's _Float_, and cLOUDDEAD are on the same label. It didn't hurt that I walked into Other Music while it was playing and mistook it for Family Fodder. The music is very spacy; it reminds me of stuff on Kranky and of vintage cartoon scores, though neither one of those is something I listen to a lot of, so beware. Occasionally they add beats, but sometimes not. The vocals are split between all three of the guys in the group, as far as I can tell. The one who does most of the music/production, "odd nosdam", has a pretty normal voice. The other two, Doseone and Why?, both sound sort of like Yoda, but with less purring and more nasality. You'd think this would be annoying, but I don't find it to be... The intriguing part of both the vocals and the music is the way they drift from one thing to another. cLOUDDEAD put out six 10"s over the last few years; this is a collection of them. Each track has five or six different segments that run together, usually without any particular transition. It's not at all boring if you sit and listen to it actively, but I've found that it's even better approached similar to the way that I've been told ambient music should be -- do something else, with the record halfway between inaudibly quiet and intolerably loud, and let your awareness of it drift in and out like the melodies and voices. (The vocals are pronounced in some sections and quiet in others, which seems like an obvious trick to draw in/push away the listener, but I'm having trouble thinking of other records that have done this.) (Maybe Bee Thousand, which cLOUDDEAD often remind me of in that "there seems to be an awful lot going on here for something that sounds pointedly primitive" way.) aaron ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:04:49 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) >Tristan went up and said he didn't want to work for a big corporation that >lied about their product (referring to the recent revelation that the >fries, which they represent as vegetarian-friendly, are actually done in >animal fat). The school made him write 2 apologies, one to McDonald's and >one to the student body, which he was made to read over the intercom. >There's where thinking for yourself will get you in high school. Hm...should I tell the Beanie Babies story here? Paging Jer, Jase, and Amy, Andy "Here we are at the end of the-century-of-beauty-lost. We greedily ate what you gave us, the rest we tossed. We've trapped all your rivers, paved every pass, pulled at your sky 'til we caused it to rip. But you've got Jimi Hendrix so let's call it an even split." - --from the Cowboy Junkies song "Thousand Year Prayer," on their recently-released CLOSE album ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:33:29 EDT From: AWeiss4338@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Recommendations, please In a message dated 6/18/01 3:33:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mbowen@frontiernet.net writes: > OK, so I kind of like "Once Around The Block" by Badly Drawn Boy...is this > typical of the rest of the album? > > Kind of, most of the album is singer/songwriter folk songs, very modern. This is one of the more jazzier songs. I like it, and recomend it. Andrea ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:28:22 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awfulattemptatOTing) >If this is true, and if, as I understand it to be, sex with a minor, >even when both partners are minors, is, in fact, illegal, A guy at college responded to this pickle with, "Just make sure you really don't know her age." We named it after him: the Hagemann Defense. Not that I've ever field-tested it, Andy "It will never rain roses: when we want To have more roses we must plant more trees." - --George Eliot, from "The Spanish Gypsy" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:41:59 -0700 From: Matthew Weber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awfulattemptatOTing) At 04:28 PM 6/18/01 -0700, Andrew Hamlin wrote: > >If this is true, and if, as I understand it to be, sex with a minor, > >even when both partners are minors, is, in fact, illegal, > >A guy at college responded to this pickle with, "Just make sure you really >don't know her age." > >We named it after him: the Hagemann Defense. > >Not that I've ever field-tested it, Destined to dismal failure, I'd guess. I think "But I *love* her, Your Honor!" would work just as well. Matthew Weber Curatorial Assistant Music Library University of California, Berkeley Follow your desire as long as you live and do not perform more than is ordered; do not lessen the time of following desire, for the wasting of time is an abomination to the spirit . . . . When riches are gained, follow desire, for riches will not profit if one is sluggish. Ptahhotpe (Twenty-fourth century B.C.), _The Maxims of Ptahhotpe_ [c. 2350 B.C.], maxim no. 11 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 16:44:39 -0700 From: bbradley@namesecure.com Subject: RE: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either. ..) >>Sure. I don't want some Wiccan douchebag teaching my kid the wonders of a >>religion which has all the proud heritage of Scientology. >Well, "Wicca" does go back a decade or two further than Scientology, but >not much more. However, the implied comparison is otherwise invalid; Wicca >does not have a central structural organization, well, it's just not very well delineated. so you're kind of right. (did a lot of reading about many variants of this a while back.) >let alone one that is not >averse to using murder, blackmail, and fraud to advance its interests. >Granted, they're both based on really stupid premises, but so are >Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. oh, how true. but let's remember that every school in the nation teaches greek and/or roman mythology. i think i've heard of parents questioning this ONCE in my entire life. (i have no problem with it, and i think it's a wonderful thing to be teaching.) i just think it's ironic (or is that doric?) that no one says word one about kids reading that unmistakably pagan literature, and yet some kid wears a pentacle to school and gets suspended. what the hell? is it just so old, unbelievable, and arcane that it's not a concern? the reasoning follows that the lack of concern is due to the lack of the religion's credibility. therefore, should they be concerned about wicca (in all it's horribly misled false history), satanism (which has little to do with eating christian babies), or whatever other belief system, it follows that they are in reality showing acceptance of it's potential validity. follow me? bah. my brain hurts. you guys have hit a sore topic with me. (long) side note: i survived a year (5th grade) of a rather fundamentalist christian school at a rather impressionable point in my life. it was mental torture. no joking here, either. i'd never been in trouble and was a very bright and well-mannered student, though i frequently questioned my teachers. (in 2nd grade, when we were learning about bones and the teacher coverd the basic arm, leg, spine, and skull stuff, i told her that there were x number of bones in the body and i wanted to know the rest of them. she took it pretty well.) at this particular school, i was constantly in trouble because you were not supposed to ask questions. that aside, the curriculum was so damaging to my sister (who was in 2nd grade) that she never fully caught up in school. right around easter they insisted on showing us all a movie which followed the last few days on earth of a 15-or-so-yr-old girl during the 2nd coming. she had to choose whether to take the 'mark of the beast' or to die by guillotine. of course, she died. but the way they handled it was to show her putting her head down in the gullotine, then cut to a red screen and play a deafening sample of the blade falling. i had nightmares for weeks. they showed that to all kids from 3rd grade up. 3rd grade. 8 years old. that, as far as i am concerned, is inexcusable. predictable outcome - i am NOT christian. i admire and subscribe to many of the same beliefs and ideals, but i refuse to identify myself with a religion that, when organized, so frequently dissolves into such incredibly self-serving, masturbatory, or just plain cruel tactics. (maybe un)predictable outcome - my sister is a staunch born-again. she's very happy, and i'm happy for her. what she lost in education because of that school she gained in emotional and spiritual support. go figure. just my little tirade. - -- brianna bradley web designer, web ops http://namesecure.com IT ALL STARTS WITH A WEB ADDRESS tel: 925.609.1101 x206 fax: 925.609.1112 "The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant; the population is growing." Cole's Axiom http://startrekonice.com - -----Original Message----- From: Michael Bowen [mailto:mbowen@frontiernet.net] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 1:48 PM To: loud-fans@smoe.org Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) At 09:25 PM 6/16/2001 -0400, JRT456@aol.com wrote: Earlier, someone said that they thought Antonin Scalia was actually a legal scholar of note. (Sharples, was that you?) I haven't read that many of his opinions, but the one he wrote that affects me most directly (BOARD OF EDUCATION OF KIRYAS JOEL VILLAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, v. LOUIS GRUMET et al.; see http://www.fac.org/legal/SUPCOURT/opinions/93-94/93-517.ZD.htm ), he is hopelessly ignorant regarding the facts of the case. MB ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 20:13:10 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed vs ? rou n d two (+ awfulattemptatOTing) Andrew Hamlin wrote: > > A guy at college responded to this pickle with, "Just make sure you really > don't know her age." > > We named it after him: the Hagemann Defense. > > Not that I've ever field-tested it, > > Andy well, it didn't work for errol flynn ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 22:25:32 -0400 From: popanda@juno.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) Excuse me for being late, but I'm trying to get all sorts of stuff done right now for my trip, and it is going to take a while to catch up on the posts. The discussion here reminds me of a heated debate that went on in one of my education courses I took about seven years ago at Charleston Southern University, a school once affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, before I changed schools and majors. I was given incredulous glances in one of my classes for having the belief that condoms should be passed out in schools. From the response I got, you would have thought I'd committed heresy. Given the broad spiritual spectrum I'm sure exists on this list, to give respect for all faiths here, be you Jewish, atheist, Wiccan or what have you, let's just entertain the idea for a moment the concept that Christian Protestant denominations have, (I'm not schooled in Catholic theology, but it may be the same or similar) of salvation and eternal life, as it is relevant to what I'm about to say (write). My point that I made to the class discussion was, "Shouldn't you pass out condoms in schools to save people's physical lives, so that they would have more time and opportunities to hear the Christian gospel message, to save their spiritual lives?" Why do most Christians see this as an alien concept? Somebody please clue me in. It seems the dominant Christian attitude is: "They shouldn't be having sex, and I'M not going to promote promiscuity." As Alvie Singer would say, "Excuse me, but I'm due back on the planet earth." - -Mark np "Attractive Nuisance" (Hey, remember the Loud Family? Good band) ________________________________________________________________ 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, 18 Jun 2001 21:22:59 -0500 From: steve Subject: [loud-fans] Those talented Magnetic Fields people Forgive me if this is redundant - http://www.lemonysnicket.com/ - - Steve __________ The Bush administration is considering a crash effort to put into place a rudimentary missile defense system before the end of President Bush's current term in 2004, according to administration officials and a presentation by a major defense contractor. - - Steven Mufson & Mary Pat Flaherty, Washington Post ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:05:49 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) Mark wrote: My point that I made to the class discussion was, "Shouldn't you pass out condoms in schools to save people's physical lives, so that they would have more time and opportunities to hear the Christian gospel message, to save their spiritual lives?" Why do most Christians see this as an alien concept? - ----- Unfortunately, most Christians (and this is true of most conservatives, most leftists, most Backstreet Boys fans, and most left-handed mechanics) use their faith (or their political principles etc.) less as a series of beliefs and practices to be followed, ethically and intellectually, in evaluating situations and actions than as a club with a handful of rules, to be blindly followed, and even more bluntly as an in-group against which any outsider is, by definition, an enemy. The in-group forms identity, so anyone who differs is beat upon with that blunt club. In other words, you're asking people to think logically about issues that more strongly stir up gut reactions. I mean, the Bible passage that bigots like Fred Phelps quote to condemn homosexuality sits right next to a passage condemning the eating of shellfish - but you don't see Phelps and his ilk parading around seafood restaurants harassing the staff and patrons. If they were evaluating their faith with reason and logic(*), they'd be as likely to do the one as the other - that is, if they really were basing their condemnation on Biblical disapproval. Instead, their gut reaction comes first - and the Bible is gleaned for something that might possibly justify that gut reaction. Not the other way around, for too many. Another example: I've known many people who describe themselves as "pro-life." Yet when asked, with great concern, whether exceptions to prohibitions against abortion shouldn't be made for women who became pregnant as a result of rape, including incest, many - in a gesture they might think of as "moderation" - concede that that would justify an exception. These people are rank hypocrites, who are blatantly revealing that their real opposition to abortion has far more to do with their opposition to and fear of women's sexual autonomy - if they truly thought "a life is a life" and that it begins at conception, there could be no exception even in cases of rape or incest. In other words, no abortion so long as the pregnancy is the woman's "fault." (*) I know faith isn't the same as reason - but that shouldn't mean reason cannot be used in exploring the implications of that faith, in determining what are right actions and feelings. And the real point of the above is that too often people's actions reveal their faith to be a gesture, not a principle. Of course, people may fail in their efforts to hold true to their principles - but that's not the same at all as persisting, loudly, in actions that contradict those principles, if those principles were examined. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html - --Finally: a bunch of new reviews are up-- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 01:49:16 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) In a message dated 6/19/01 12:14:30 AM, jenor@csd.uwm.edu writes: >Yet when asked, with great concern, whether exceptions to >prohibitions against abortion shouldn't be made for women who became >pregnant as a result of rape, including incest, many - in a gesture they >might think of as "moderation" - concede that that would justify an >exception. These people are rank hypocrites, who are blatantly revealing >that their real opposition to abortion has far more to do with their >opposition to and fear of women's sexual autonomy - if they truly thought >"a life is a life" and that it begins at conception, there could be no >exception even in cases of rape or incest. I have no use for fervent right-to-life folk, almost all of whom I believe essentially are opposed to sex in any form. But I'll have to concede that some may not truly fear a woman's "sexual autonomy," and instead have a genuine concern for [what they believe is] life. An exception for risk of death to the mother is distinguishable from rape, and some may make a principled distinction -- such an abortion is not the loss of "life" against the wishes of another, but the loss of "life" balanced against the other's life. When i become king, I shall, of course, have abortion on demand except in cases of rape and incest. In those cases, there will be a multiple choice exam on seafood. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 23:12:04 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: [loud-fans] 3 queries, 1 recycled Information and opinions please on the following three items: STANDING STONE by Oliver. Only heard a snippet of this, but became intrigued, especially at how the fellow never made another album, and apparently never purchased an album, any format, until about twenty years after he cut this. Had we another Jandek almost a-brewing? STEEL LEG V THE ELECTRIC DREAD. Credited to Jah Wobble, Don Letts, Stratetime Keith, and Steel Leg himself, the first two of whom I know from other affiliations. What's the sound? And finally, this identity puzzler Brian Block posed on my account (thanks Brian!) but which garnered no reply that first time out: "A musical question: i've seen at least one review of a recent album consisting of voice-and-piano songs performed, by a male, extremely slowly - -- slowly in the sense that compositions take 20 or 28 minutes without being even slightly prog-rock in construction. Anyone know who i mean?" I just wanna verify, Andy Guess where the sexually charged and celeb-heavy Stuff magazine hosted its Pink Slip Party. (No worries--nobody got fired, only fired up.) I'll give ya a hint: There were more scantily clad women in this happening hot spot than in a year's supply of the passionate page-turner. Give up? (Don't worry, I won't bring out the nipple clamps.) At the oh-so-fine Crazy Girls. City of the Fallen Panties, just down from the Strip. With questionable dudes like Tommy Lee and Ashley Hamilton up to no good in private booths, I thank My Celestial Supreme that a little sassy classy wandered in for a bit o' fun: Daryl Hannah. No stranger to revealing her God-given assets, the lanky blonde spent many a night on C.G.'s runway while filming Dancing at the Blue Iguana. Miss it last year? Too bad. I hear it wanted to do for strip clubs what Michael Moore did for GM. "It's very different tonight, with so many people here," said J.F.K. Jr.'s former flame. "There was no one here when I danced." Looking lush at 40 in a long denim skirt, tank top and deliciously long locks, Daryl shyly added, "Everyone would have to leave, and then maybe I'd dance." Whether or not to strut their Stuff was on the minds of some other fox-ay femmes. Not as shy as Daryl was Drea de Matteo, of Sopranos fame. Looking G-string ready in tight jeans, a boob-bolstering bustier and high boots, the New Yawker came complete with 'tude: "I'm totally ready to dance and get onstage. I am so sick of watching those bitches up there." Don't think anybody would have minded. (Unfortunately, Drea was not good on her sultry threat.) [--from Ted Casablanca's gossip column, http://entertainment.msn.com/celebs/gossip/ ] ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #131 *******************************