From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #137 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 Friday, June 22 2001 Volume 01 : Number 137 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] state v. church / Potter [popanda@juno.com] Re: [loud-fans] Double X, Aye-aye-aye [popanda@juno.com] Re: [loud-fans] Gabba Gabba Hey, that sounds great [popanda@juno.com] Re: [loud-fans] Double X, Aye-aye-aye [Dana L Paoli ] [loud-fans] the unfinished joke (ns) [Dana L Paoli ] RE: [loud-fans] Double X, Aye-aye-aye [bbradley@namesecure.com] RE: [loud-fans] the unfinished joke (ns) [bbradley@namesecure.com] Re: [loud-fans] the unfinished joke (ns) [Cindy Alvarez ] RE: [loud-fans] Double X, Aye-aye-aye [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] Motherless Brooklyn (no imprimatur) [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Je] Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed AND a moment of music [Miles Goosens In a message dated 6/20/01 12:37:51 PM, jenor@csd.uwm.edu writes: > > >The whole world isn't out to > >get Christians. > > > > Yes, but some of us do our part .... There you go again...reinforcing my persecution complex, and paranoia! - -Mark, thrashing about in his hairshirt, like a bad nineties video np Cat Stevens "Remember" (the only hits collection that has the song from "Harold and Maude" on it, "If You Want to Sing Out, Sing Out") ________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 21:24:07 -0400 From: popanda@juno.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Double X, Aye-aye-aye On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 09:42:31 -0500 Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com writes: > Anybody know the significance of the number 23 as it appears in the > Posies Album > title _Dear 23_? I thought it had to do with the age of Auer and Stringfellow or something. I remember I was 23 at the time, and since the world does seem to be ALL ABOUT ME, I thought it was a generational reference, or it was the age of a romantic interest, or something. I noticed that bit with the numer 23 with Psychic TV and their "Temple of Psychic Youth" or however way they spelled it. My hairshirt has bugs, - -Mark p.s. the new Auer ep has a cover of "Love My Way" (I broke down and bought this...no willpower) ________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:46:25 -0400 From: popanda@juno.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Gabba Gabba Hey, that sounds great Well, the point I was making is that I can't really spend any money really on music right now, so if I want something, I have to sacrifice. I haven't listened to those titles since I bought them. It's okay. There is light at the end of the tunnel. If not, I'll end it all in the darkness outside of it. M On Tue, 19 Jun 2001 18:39:23 -0700 "\(The Arch-Villain\) West" writes: > > I wanted those new remasters of the first Ramones record and "Road > to > > Ruin" so badly, that I sold all my Sonic Youth CDs (except for > "Daydream > > Nation," "Goo" and "Dirty"...those are keepers) and all of my > Labradford > > catalog (it's good for a couple of plays, then you never want to > hear it > > again) and my Flying Saucer Attack CDs (same response as with > Labradford) > > to have enough money for them > > Egad. Couldn't you have just waited for payday? I saw the Ramones > CDs at > The Store, but had to pass them by temporarily in favor of the > "Nuggets II" > box set, which Rhino also saw fit to release today. God bless us, > everyone! > > > Nine days till payday, > West > > > > np: Cast Away > ________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:32:27 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Double X, Aye-aye-aye I believe this may also be the unofficial release party for Anton's ANTOLOGY 2 and Belle da Gama's GARDEN ABSTRACT before the official release show next Saturday in Berkeley. Those albums should be available via 125records.com now, but I'm not sure because their site gets flagged as "adult content", when I try to access it at work. >>>>>>>>>>> Access it via safeweb.com, and set the preferences to hide history and referer. Every webpage that you access will show up as safeweb.com/l;ajf;ajf;asdfj;asdfj;ka or something along those lines. I'd like to hear from one of the loud-fan computer experts if this really works as well as the Safeweb folks claim it does. I've been sneaking onto MP3.com (our server blocks anything with MP3 in the title) and I'd hate to find out that I'm not as tricky as I think I am. When it comes to computers and such, I'm usually not too clever, so I wouldn't be surprised to learn that big brother has foiled my feeble attempts to surf below the radar. - --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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 20:51:15 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] the unfinished joke (ns) Had a very frustrating experience on the bus home today. I was sitting across from a group of four teenagers, and one of them started telling a joke. I missed the beginning, but then got interested and spent most of the trip trying to listen in without being too obvious. Unfortunately, the joke teller was one of those people who like to s-t-r-e-t-c-h things out, and I began to get panicky as we approached my stop. I thought of staying on, but I was bringing Shari home a Cappucino, and I didn't want it to get cold. And, in the end, I sadly missed the punchline. Very frustrating. I'm hoping that someone here can help me reconstruct, as it sounded somewhat funny. I missed the beginning, but it had something to do with a lack of room in heaven...St. Peter has to be more discriminating about who gets in. Just then three men approach. St. Peter says that he can only allow into heaven the one with the most pathetic story about how he died (that part was hard to hear). First man says that he suspected his wife of cheating on him, came home one day to catch her in the act. Found his wife naked, sweating, surrounded by clothes, but no lover. Ransacked the apartment and then went out onto the deck. I'm not clear on why, but he picked up his refrigerator and threw it off of the deck, and in so doing died of a heart attack. The second man, for some reason that I missed, jumped (fell?) off of his deck, but landed on an awning beneath. He was, unfortunately, then killed by a large refrigerator that fell on him. The third man says, and at that point we reached Caton and Coney Island, and off I went. Anyone able to reconstruct the joke? - --dana np: Swans/Feel Good Now ________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:00:42 -0700 From: bbradley@namesecure.com Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Double X, Aye-aye-aye ah...HAHAHAHAHA! i just figured out why 125records.com got flagged! there's a tiny little note at the bottom that says: *A note about the e-mail links on this site: Unfortunately, there are "spider" programs out there that roam the web, looking for e-mail addresses to add to spam lists. Since we're not interested in Viagra, toner cartridges or moneymaking schemes, you'll have to cut & paste the address into your mail program and add an "@" sign. Sorry! viagra. it caught viagra! hee hee hee.... - -- brianna bradley ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:05:36 -0700 From: bbradley@namesecure.com Subject: RE: [loud-fans] the unfinished joke (ns) i believe the third man was in the refrigerator. but what you missed is that after the husband realized there was no lover with is wife, he looked out on the balcony and saw a naked man jump off, hence the throwing of the refrigerator. i believe balcony man was actaully having an affair with someone upstairs and had jumped from THAT bacony to the fated one watched by the jealous husband. i never said i could TELL jokes, but i occassionally remember them. - -- brianna bradley - -----Original Message----- From: Dana L Paoli [mailto:dana-boy@Juno.com] Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 5:51 PM To: loud-fans@smoe.org Subject: [loud-fans] the unfinished joke (ns) Had a very frustrating experience on the bus home today. I was sitting across from a group of four teenagers, and one of them started telling a joke. I missed the beginning, but then got interested and spent most of the trip trying to listen in without being too obvious. Unfortunately, the joke teller was one of those people who like to s-t-r-e-t-c-h things out, and I began to get panicky as we approached my stop. I thought of staying on, but I was bringing Shari home a Cappucino, and I didn't want it to get cold. And, in the end, I sadly missed the punchline. Very frustrating. I'm hoping that someone here can help me reconstruct, as it sounded somewhat funny. I missed the beginning, but it had something to do with a lack of room in heaven...St. Peter has to be more discriminating about who gets in. Just then three men approach. St. Peter says that he can only allow into heaven the one with the most pathetic story about how he died (that part was hard to hear). First man says that he suspected his wife of cheating on him, came home one day to catch her in the act. Found his wife naked, sweating, surrounded by clothes, but no lover. Ransacked the apartment and then went out onto the deck. I'm not clear on why, but he picked up his refrigerator and threw it off of the deck, and in so doing died of a heart attack. The second man, for some reason that I missed, jumped (fell?) off of his deck, but landed on an awning beneath. He was, unfortunately, then killed by a large refrigerator that fell on him. The third man says, and at that point we reached Caton and Coney Island, and off I went. Anyone able to reconstruct the joke? - --dana np: Swans/Feel Good Now ________________________________________________________________ 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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:07:33 -0700 From: Cindy Alvarez Subject: Re: [loud-fans] the unfinished joke (ns) >Had a very frustrating experience on the bus home today. > >I was sitting across from a group of four teenagers, and one of them >started telling a joke. I missed the beginning, but then got interested >and spent most of the trip trying to listen in without being too obvious. > Unfortunately, the joke teller was one of those people who like to >s-t-r-e-t-c-h things out, and I began to get panicky as we approached my >stop. I thought of staying on, but I was bringing Shari home a >Cappucino, and I didn't want it to get cold. And, in the end, I sadly >missed the punchline. Very frustrating. I'm hoping that someone here >can help me reconstruct, as it sounded somewhat funny. > >I missed the beginning, but it had something to do with a lack of room in >heaven...St. Peter has to be more discriminating about who gets in. Just >then three men approach. > >St. Peter says that he can only allow into heaven the one with the most >pathetic story about how he died (that part was hard to hear). > >First man says that he suspected his wife of cheating on him, came home >one day to catch her in the act. Found his wife naked, sweating, >surrounded by clothes, but no lover. Ransacked the apartment and then >went out onto the deck. I'm not clear on why, but he picked up his >refrigerator and threw it off of the deck, and in so doing died of a >heart attack. > >The second man, for some reason that I missed, jumped (fell?) off of his >deck, but landed on an awning beneath. He was, unfortunately, then >killed by a large refrigerator that fell on him. > >The third man says, and at that point we reached Caton and Coney Island, I *think* the third man says "I was just hiding in this refrigerator!" ...amusingly enough, I just searched google for "st peter refrigerator joke" and confirmed that yes, that is the punchline. c ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 21:36:41 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed AND a moment of music In a message dated 6/21/01 5:11:38 PM, rwinston@tde.com writes: >I've always argued that condom distribution can get a bit sticky. > OUch; I banged my head as I fell to the floor laughing. And please, roger [may I call you that], allow Sharples and I to masturbate over imprimatur and irrebutable presumptions. It keeps us from fucking up the real world ..... [we did that in the late '70s and early '80s making "music"] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 21:44:29 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) In a message dated 6/21/01 8:08:51 PM, jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu writes: >then I > >guess I'd have to admit there is none. But that seems to entirely defeat > >the purpose of this debate, so I wonder where your question gets us. Respectfully, I don't remember a debate. A trip to the archives to pull up my "query" will show that I wasn't making a point, I was asking a question that generally interests me. And I learned that others disagree with you that there is no difference in the two, as their posts showed. Of course, you and JRT do debate, and raise an interesting query: whether "respecting establishment" *does* cover, or was intended to cover, the state allowing a religious group to meet on school grounds -- whose *grounds* were presumably acquired and built with taxpayer funds [since access does not automatically involve additional public expense] [and my question isn't about what "taxpayer expense" is -- screw that; just whether the sweeping bar is or was intended to cover that situation; I think that's a matter for more serious debate] [and a music list about Scott Miller and the Loud Family is obviously the appropriate forum, as we dance with architecture and rain on frogs .....] ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 19:41:05 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Motherless Brooklyn (no imprimatur) >My theory is >he's afflicted with a kind of Tourettes/obsessive-compulsive disorder not >unlike Lionel in the book MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN. > >Has anyone here read it? I thought it was brilliant. Oh, yes. I'd tried and liked several of Lethem's books, but that one had me running around trying to make converts. I haven't seen Lethem's latest, the one Dave Eggers published, but it looks bizarre. A graphic novel, perhaps? Can't do it unless the number is...two, Andy " think everyone should be replaced at least once." - --Dennis McGreevy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:07:54 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: RE: [loud-fans] oh, I almost forgot... On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Cindy Alvarez wrote: > >Capybaras eat juicy green plants! > > Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. the first time i read that sentence i thought it sounded like a gold mine of bandnames. and i couldn't understand why pinker thought sleeping furiously was not validly descriptive. i'm pretty sure i've seen someone sleep furiously. = i do what i am told. i am not opinionated. i accept without | dmw@ = questioning. i do not make a fuss. i am a good consumer. |radix.net = pathetic-caverns.com * fecklessbeast.com * shoddyworkmanship.net ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:19:33 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Double X, Aye-aye-aye On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Joseph M. Mallon wrote: > A very good question! Here are said details: > Sat., June 30th > 125 Records release party! > Starry Plough, Berkeley, CA > > Bill: > Scott Miller + Kenny Kessel from The Loud Family + special guests > Anton Barbeau > Belle Da Gama Who's "Bill"? Is he the same guy Camper Van Beethoven wondered where where the hell is he? - --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 ::Watson! Something's afoot...and it's on the end of my leg:: __Hemlock Stones__ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:25:03 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] the sleep gods have spoken! On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Stewart Mason wrote: > At 12:44 PM 6/21/01 -0700, Andrew Hamlin wrote: > >>** Have a bedtime ritual for the last 30 minutes before you go to bed. > >>Having a routine and calm breathing will help make you sleepy. Also, read a > >>few pages of inspirational material just before turning out the light. > > > >Never read that one at bedtime! I know a couple who tried reading FEAR AND > >LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS to each other in bed, though... > > As a lifelong insomniac, I've learned to always have a particularly boring > book in my my bedside reading for those nights when only something really > eye-glazing will put me out. INFINITE JEST is my current one--three pages > and I'm out like a light. Well, I actually liked _Infinite Jest_...but Wordsworth, always put me right out. - --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 ::Watson! Something's afoot...and it's on the end of my leg:: __Hemlock Stones__ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:30:35 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed AND a moment of music On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Roger Winston wrote: > That goes without saying. But what does everyone think about Rose > McGowan replacing Shannen Doherty on Charmed? Holy cats, is this true? Damn - gotta program my VCR right away. (Yes, I know..."VCR": soon, I will be wearing plaid Bermuda shorts and black socks and carrying a metal detector.) - --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 ::glibby glop gloopy nibby nobby noopy la la la la lo:: ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:36:06 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: RE: [loud-fans] oh, I almost forgot... On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 bbradley@namesecure.com wrote: > nah-uh. the word you're looking for is... > > capybara As in: "India and Pakistan have both recently achieved nuclear capybara"? - --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 ::American people like their politics like Pez - small, sweet, and ::coming out of a funny plastic head. __Dennis Miller__ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:38:48 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Double X, Aye-aye-aye On Thursday, June 21, 2001, at 09:42 AM, Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com wrote: > Are the Posies trying to take over the World? http://www.23-skidoo.com/ http://www.omega23.com/links.html http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/hilbert/ http://www.shore-leave.com/ Lemuria - - Steve __________ "we must therefore reject the central animating idea of modern Establishment Clause analysis: that taxpayers have a constitutional right to insist that none of their taxes be used for religious purposes." - Michael McConnell, Bush Circuit Court nominee ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:48:45 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Motherless Brooklyn (no imprimatur) On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, John Sharples wrote: > "This should take care of it. This is all I have. I'll never be able to pay > it back............it's Monday." Oh - those are just the lyrics to a new Radiohead b-side. You sure it wasn't Thom Yorke? - --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 ::Californians invented the concept of the life-style. ::This alone warrants their doom. __Don DeLillo, WHITE NOISE__ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:50:38 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed AND a moment of music At 02:59 PM 6/21/2001 -0600, Roger Winston wrote: >That goes without saying. But what does everyone think about Rose McGowan >replacing Shannen Doherty on Charmed? I think I said something like this on Fegmaniax about a week ago (to no response I've remembered, but I've been out of town on business this week, so maybe there's been one): I thought Shannen did a great job on CHARMED, but word is that her high-maintenance ways and her degenerating relationship with Alyssa Milano (Shannen was a bridesmaid in Alyssa's wedding what, two years ago, so *that* must have gone downhill fast!) finally led to her departure from the show. I'm sure Shannen's DUI didn't help matters, though all parties deny that it had anything to do with her exit. Getting to see Rose McGowan on a weekly basis is certainly the best-case scenario from a leerworthy-to-Miles standpoint. But I question the logic of the show's producers if they think they're getting someone who's easier to work with than Shannen. Shannen may be a temperamental prima donna, but Rose is Clearly Insane. Utterly voluptuously delectable, but Clearly Insane. It'll be interesting to see how *that* plays out on the set 22 weeks a year... Keeping the drool-o-meter at 10, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 22:27:50 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] aube vs reed AND a moment of music At Thursday 6/21/2001 10:50 PM -0500, Miles Goosens wrote: >Keeping the drool-o-meter at 10, Just for you, Miles and Jeff: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/nm/20010615/en/mdf14555.html ------- R.I.P., John Lee Hooker and Carroll O'Connor. Is it Friday yet? It better be Friday. Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:55:23 -0400 From: "John Sharples" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) C7: >In a message dated 6/21/01 8:08:51 PM, jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu writes: >>then I >>guess I'd have to admit there is none. But that seems to entirely defeat >>the purpose of this debate, so I wonder where your question gets us. >Respectfully, I don't remember a debate. Really? >And I learned that others disagree with you that there is no difference in >the two, as their posts showed. Wait -- didn't I just say (printed above) precisely that there's no difference in the two, given your fantastic context? >Of course, you and JRT do debate, and raise an interesting query: whether >"respecting establishment" *does* cover, or was intended to cover, the state >allowing a religious group to meet on school grounds Well, if I'm not mistaken, decades, if not centuries, of Constitutional interpretation has established that the non-establishment clause DOES cover such state allowances. Can we include stare decisis here? I mean, without it, this discussion becomes endlessly boundless, and a matter of original Constitutional interpretation, does it not? I mean, what's the *point*? -- whose *grounds* were >presumably acquired and built with taxpayer funds [since access does not >automatically involve additional public expense] Well, of course it does. We pay for the upkeep. But that's not the point. The point is.........uh-oh.............here it comes........state imprimatur!! D'oh!..........there.....I said it!!!! Is that so wwwrrroooooonnnnggggg??????? ("Haven't seen it.") I DON'T WANT MY KIDS TO ATTEND A PUBLIC SCHOOL WHICH SUPPORTS ONE RELIGION AND NOT ALL OTHERS (AND NON-RELIGIONS). THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION SUPPORTS ME. Am I clear now? js ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 00:29:39 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) On Thursday, June 21, 2001, at 11:55 PM, John Sharples wrote: > Well, if I'm not mistaken, decades, if not centuries, of Constitutional > interpretation has established that the non-establishment clause DOES > cover > such state allowances. Can we include stare decisis here? I mean, > without > it, this discussion becomes endlessly boundless, and a matter of original > Constitutional interpretation, does it not? I mean, what's the *point*? Scalia and Thomas don't care 'bout no stare decisis, unless it suits their purpose. All they want is two more solid votes. Everybody from The Federalist Society on down can debate this 24/7 and it amounts to less than zero. But as luck would have it, O'Connor seems too embarrassed by her "that's just terrible" outburst to step down after this term, so it looks like Mr. What's Wrong With Restrictive Covenants might go first. Maybe the Bushies master plan *might* not come to fruition before 2004, if we're lucky. - - Steve __________ "...if you're having a hard time deciding whether you're actually talking to your best friend or a giant bug from the Proxima system wearing a mask of your best friend - you're having a phildickian moment." - K.W. Jeter ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 01:38:02 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] church v state (C7 and Mr. sharples exchange fish-blows by the water) In a message dated 6/22/01 12:50:42 AM, jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu writes: >C7: > > > >>In a message dated 6/21/01 8:08:51 PM, jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu writes: > >>>then I > >>>guess I'd have to admit there is none. But that seems to entirely defeat > >>>the purpose of this debate, so I wonder where your question gets us. > > > > > >>Respectfully, I don't remember a debate. > > > >Really? > Yeah, really. I don't get why that's hard to understand -- there had been some discussion of the Thomas opinion, there'd been some debate 'twixt JeFF and me re: whether church groups were by definition evangelizing, and then I aired my query (I thought I made it clear I was really lokking for answers to it, too), about which there was no *debate* that I saw. Some people took different approaches and I questioned them further, but the debate began with your response a day later, prompting my rejoinders. > > >>And I learned that others disagree with you that there is no difference >in > >>the two, as their posts showed. > > > >Wait -- didn't I just say (printed above) precisely that there's no > >difference in the two, given your fantastic context? My context isn't fantastic, it's merely hypothetical. I can easily imagine it being a germane question in Great Britain/Canada/Australia, which lack the same express establishment prohibition. And it needn't be germane anyway; it's a hypothetical to test the reasoning that stands behind the policies that led to the establishment clauses. And I guess I must not have been clear: even given my "fantastic context," I disagree with you, as others who posted and enlightened me also did, that there is no difference. I see one, and I directed you to a nice, thoughtful response from S.Schiavo articulating at least one difference better than I could. > > > >>Of course, you and JRT do debate, and raise an interesting query: whether > >>"respecting establishment" *does* cover, or was intended to cover, the > >state > >>allowing a religious group to meet on school grounds > > > >Well, if I'm not mistaken, decades, if not centuries, of Constitutional > >interpretation has established that the non-establishment clause DOES cover > >such state allowances. Can we include stare decisis here? I mean, without > >it, this discussion becomes endlessly boundless, and a matter of original > >Constitutional interpretation, does it not? I mean, what's the *point*? The *point* is (1) that examining whether something's right and reexamining the arguments that got us where we are is a) fun and b) useful [imo]; and (2) that as Plessey/Brown and other cases show, stare decisis has its limits. JRT was pretty clear that he disagreed with the cases interpreting the clause, but I don't think he opened a question whether it's "the law of the land," as it obviously is, but whether that law is right. Discussing it, and engaging in examining original intent (which has proponents who serve on the bench right now), is also fun and useful [imo]. And since when did you or I ever run away from an endlessly boundless discussion, eh.......? I don't have to worry about my bona fides on separation of church and state, as they've been consistent. I just don't mind trying to decide again whether I was right or wrong. And it occurs to me only now that I've been on the JRT side before, arguing with you and others on the list that the watered-down interpretation of the First Amendment's admonishment to Congress (to make "no laws" abridging freedom of speech or of the press) is the law of the land and is nevertheless wrong. I may lose on the merits of my position, but I like being able to argue it without being told it lacks a point or is purely academic. > > > > -- whose *grounds* were > >>presumably acquired and built with taxpayer funds [since access does not > >>automatically involve additional public expense] > > > >Well, of course it does. We pay for the upkeep. which may not be enlarged by the access > But that's not the point. We've both said it (but can't let anything go by, methinks) > >The point is.........uh-oh.............here it comes........state > >imprimatur!! D'oh!..........there.....I said it!!!! > > > >Is that so wwwrrroooooonnnnggggg??????? > > > > > >("Haven't seen it.") > > > > > >I DON'T WANT MY KIDS TO ATTEND A PUBLIC SCHOOL WHICH SUPPORTS ONE RELIGION > >AND NOT ALL OTHERS (AND NON-RELIGIONS). THE FIRST CLAUSE OF THE FIRST > >AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION SUPPORTS ME. > > > >Am I clear now? > > > >js Yeah. And, in my fit of pique, I'll ask -- what's the *point*? ...... I don't think anyone doubted you. You know that I agree with you, but who the fuck cares how we feel if we can't convince them we're right and persuade them to agree? Which is the reason to have "pointless" discussion and queries on seemingly settled subjects --- and on *this list*!!! Of course! I'm starting an "inane C7 babbling" list for folks who wanna discuss Scott Miller and related topics...... As we've had these yelling [okay, capitalized] arguments on the phone 'til 4:00 in the morning on occasion, I hope you know that this is all fun with me and is not disrespectful. After all, you fucked my first wife 24 years ago, and I still love you. And the second wife... ? 'Fess up.......... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:38:00 -0700 (MST) From: Dennis Subject: [loud-fans] loud-fans down friday afternoon Smoe is moving again. They are shooting for tomorrow (friday) around 4pm. If loud-fans goes off the air do not panic. Repeat do not panic. - --- Dennis Sacks dennis@illusions.com ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #137 *******************************