From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #138 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 Saturday, June 23 2001 Volume 01 : Number 138 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Motherless Brooklyn (no imprimatur) [Dan Schmidt ] [loud-fans] Joyless [Jer Fairall ] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (C7 and Mr. sharples exchange fish -blows by the water) [Dennis_McGre] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [JR] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (C7 and Mr. sharples exchange fish -blows by the water) [Dennis_McGre] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) [Ma] Re: [loud-fans] church v state (C7 and Mr. sharples exchange fish -blows by the water) [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] [loud-fans] Re: Fortune cookie taglines [Charity Stafford ] Re: [loud-fans] Re: Fortune cookie taglines [Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Motherless Brooklyn (no imprimatur) "Andrew Hamlin" writes: | >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. Me too. I know I recommended it in a bunch of forums, dunno if here was one of them. | I haven't seen Lethem's latest, the one Dave Eggers published, but it looks | bizarre. A graphic novel, perhaps? THIS SHAPE WE'RE IN is a regular book except for being short-story sized. I picked it up but haven't read it yet. Eatmebailey, Dan - -- http://www.dfan.org ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:42:48 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu writes: << Look, Snookums, if you want to suggest that the clause "[the state] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (U.S. Const., Amd. I) may be reasonably interpreted to mean that public schools can host an evangelic and worshipping religious group, at taxpayer expense, be my guest....>> I know it's Pride time, but this still has to be the gayest e-mail I've ever seen that didn't end with a Monty Python sig. If it's any comfort to normal Listers, past encounters suggest that this will eventually segue to JSharple debating me via off-list e-mails that he'll later edit and pass around to selected sympathetic List members. They will then, presumably, assure him that he's really very smart. As for personal comfort, I'm just happy that "The Odd Couple" theme didn't have lyrics--and that the same can be said of the theme to "The Profiler." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:16:43 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) In a message dated 6/22/01 10:03:36 AM, JRT456@aol.com writes: >I know it's Pride time, but this still has to be the gayest e-mail I've >ever >seen that didn't end with a Monty Python sig. HHmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm; protesteth thee too mucheth, centurion? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:38:07 -0500 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] oh, I almost forgot... >> lemur >That's classified info! So if it becomes declassified, then we'll have access to the information, but noone will know what it is anymore? - --D ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:00:42 -0700 From: bbradley@namesecure.com Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Double X, Aye-aye-aye Jeffffffffrey: <> no, silly! he's the one sittin' up on capitol hill. gawd... don't you know anything?!?!? - -- brianna bradley ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:43:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] Point-Missing Transmuted to a Large, Unsightly Lump of Irradiated , Lead Rog asked, in his exemplary role as List Jester (and I mean that in the Shakespearian sense), how exactly we can tell when a corporation is evil. Just as everyone has the gift, the right, of Joking at the Serious, we all have the gift of Taking Seriously the Joke, which I shall now do. (The line for the delete key forms on the right.) In a terrible legal decision (whose merits I am not going to argue - initiates of the Ancient Order of the Imprimatu will understand), corporations were granted certain aspects of legal personhood. However, we have never really held them to the responsibilities of personhood, only allowing them the rights. I'd say we know when a corporation is evil in the same way we know when a person is evil: by looking at its actions, words, intentions, and circumstances in accordance with whatever ethical system we feel is appropriate. In general, for me, this means that when a corporation's pursuit of profit (its lifeblood) causes excessive harm to significant numbers of people (note hedgewords), such actions in that pursuit become Evil. Please note that I'm not one of those Left Puritans, for whom the very existence of, say, McDonald's is abomination, because fat-laden foods are Bad For You (I am sinning against the gods of limited capitalization in this post, btw): I think everyone has the right to indulge in the sin of fat, the sin of sweet, the sin of alcohol etc., to limited degrees (ltd. by the principal above), and therefore those things in themselves are not sinful, and therefore providing them is not in itself sinful. But the recent example of McD's lying about the additives to its fries (beef flavoring in some markets) is, in the definition above, sinful - not to mention monumentally stupid from a marketing perspective. (Parenthetical rant re marketing: Marketers act as if people are robots that alternative between utter irrationality and ruthless reason...uh, wait, maybe that is true...anyway, I imagine the reason behind not simply saying "our fries are not vegetarian, even though they're now prepared in vegetable oil" is that someone might guess at the meat-based additive, and presumably be able to duplicate McDonald's's's fries. That in itself is unlikely - and if someone were to achieve this, does McDonald's think people who favor their fries will suddenly, en masse, go to Joe's Dinky Burgers and Beef Fries - or even to Burger King, say - on the grounds that there's no distinction between the fries, unlikely though such identical nature might be? I think people favor restaurants for a whole variety of reasons, only a few of which are strictly about food and its ingredients. In their wiser moments, of course, marketers know this.) What McDonald's loses by its stupid evasiveness and getting-caught-with-pants-down in re the French Fries Imbroglio (what ever happened to Natalie Imbroglio anyway?) is probably worth far more than whatever it might have lost by simply stating, straight out, "yeah - we really don't have anything here for vegetarians." everything *but* the apple, - --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__ np: Lida Husik _Joyride_ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:53:48 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Point-Missing Transmuted to a Large, Unsightly Lump of Irradiated , Lead >re the French Fries Imbroglio (what ever >happened to Natalie Imbroglio anyway New album due late this year, maybe early next year. Round the same time as Cyndi Lauper's new one. Where's the beef? Andy I have a great deal of sympathy for him. As James Baldwin wrote, the white man here is trapped by his own history, a history that he himself cannot comprehend, and therefore what can I do but love him? - --Carroll O'Connor (1924-2001) discussing his trademark Archie Bunker character, from a 1986 interview in Playboy magazine. Re-quoted in http://www.msnbc.com/news/590798.asp?pne=msn ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:05:20 -0700 (PDT) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: [loud-fans] 125 Records ready to go! Thanks to the early adopters who've already placed orders through our web site. As a bonus, your CDs are going out today! How's that for quick turnaround? For everyone else, the web site is ready to take your orders for Belle Da Gama's GARDEN ABSTRACT (featuring our own Bradley Skaught), Anton Barbeau's ANTOLOGY 2, and Tris McCall's IF ONE OF THESE BOTTLES SHOULD HAPPEN TO FALL. Go to http://www.125records.com and buy buy buy! See ya at the Antonathon, J. Mallon ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:22:43 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Point-Missing Transmuted to a Large, Unsightly Lump of Irradiated , Lead Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey on 2001/06/22 Fri AM 10:43:23 MDT wrote: > What McDonald's loses by its stupid evasiveness and > getting-caught-with-pants-down in re the French Fries Imbroglio (what ever > happened to Natalie Imbroglio anyway?) is probably worth far more than > whatever it might have lost by simply stating, straight out, "yeah - we > really don't have anything here for vegetarians." To my mind, they don't really have anything for meat-eaters either. Later. --Rog (who has not eaten at a McDonald's in many years, but not because I consider them an "evil corporation" - I just don't like the food) - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:40:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Jer Fairall Subject: [loud-fans] Free Joy I found a cassette of Too Much Joy's classic 1990 album SON OF SAM I AM at Wal Mart yesterday ($0.50) and figured someone might want it, especially considering that it's now long out of print. First to email me with their address gets it. Jer ===== Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:44:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Jer Fairall Subject: [loud-fans] Joyless It's gone. Jer ===== Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:01:47 -0500 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (C7 and Mr. sharples exchange fish -blows by the water) I think this goes "Cardinal/Sharples/Cardinal" (thought it may be the opposite, or one of 'em may be Rog, out of context, ah shit, for all know this may be rook to queen's pawn 4 (though there seems to be no sign of a checkmate in sight)): > -- 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 <><><><><><><><><><><> What happens if the Rapture comes and they all get blasted bodily into Heaven and smash a big hole in the roof? Who's gonna pay for that, then? Certainly not the Lord of *This* World. give it up unto Ceasar, - --Rex Monday ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:08:52 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) In a message dated 6/22/2001, Cardinal007 writes, in an attempt to imply certain gayish attitudes upon Our Hero Who Is Not Scott: << HHmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm; protesteth thee too mucheth, centurion? >> Dude...! That's an especially unkind cut as the bride and I mark Gay Pride week with the Mission:Impregnation tour, tearing down Southern backroads in a rental car blaring out the collected works of Kim Wilde and Kim Fowley, all in the name of staying in cheap motels and having sex that will hopefully result in the upcoming debut of one Timothy McVeigh Taylor. (I thought Brainiac was a really cool band.) On the other hand, I hate to endanger the Officially Half-A-Fag status that I earned back when I dated a transsexual. That stuff's Kryptonite to charges of homophobia. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:14:27 -0500 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (C7 and Mr. sharples exchange fish -blows by the water) mas de la Card-Sharp: JS: THE CONSTITUTION SUPPORTS ME. C7: I don't think anyone doubted you. [...] After all, you fucked my first wife 24 years ago.... <><><><><><><><> Yeah, John's statement would probably would be a lot less credible if he hadn't done that, but as it stands, I'm convinced. - --Dennis (borrowing dana's Mantle of Sarcasm since we're not talking about Napster) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:11:34 -0700 From: Matthew Weber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) At 03:08 PM 6/22/01 -0400, JRT456@aol.com wrote: >Dude...! That's an especially unkind cut as the bride and I mark Gay Pride >week with the Mission:Impregnation tour, tearing down Southern backroads in a >rental car blaring out the collected works of Kim Wilde and Kim Fowley, all >in the name of staying in cheap motels and having sex that will hopefully >result in the upcoming debut of one Timothy McVeigh Taylor. (I thought >Brainiac was a really cool band.) RIP Timmy... >On the other hand, I hate to endanger the >Officially Half-A-Fag status that I earned back when I dated a transsexual. >That stuff's Kryptonite to charges of homophobia. So JR, the question then becomes: pre-op or post-op? And F to M or vice versa? Matthew Weber Curatorial Assistant Music Library University of California, Berkeley One who is serious all day will never have a good time, while one who is frivolous all day will never establish a household. Ptahhotpe (Twenty-fourth century B.C.), _The Maxims of Ptahhotpe_ [c. 2350 B.C.], maxim no. 25 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:12:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (C7 and Mr. sharples exchange fish -blows by the water) On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com wrote: > mas de la Card-Sharp: > > JS: THE CONSTITUTION SUPPORTS ME. > > C7: I don't think anyone doubted you. [...] After all, you fucked my first > wife 24 years ago.... > > <><><><><><><><> > > Yeah, John's statement would probably would be a lot less credible if he hadn't > done that, but as it stands, I'm convinced. "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of John Sharples to fuck anyone who may, in the future, become Cardinal007's wife"? Yep, right there in the Second Amendment, something about bearing arms... > --Dennis (borrowing dana's Mantle of Sarcasm since we're not talking about > Napster) Dana has a Mantle of Sarcasm? And they told me it was one of a kind - the bastards! - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey, donning the Beanie-Cap of Peevishness J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::I play the guitar. Sometimes I play the fool:: __John Lennon__ np: Everly Bros. - compilation of unknown title ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:51:31 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) JRT456@aol.com on 2001/06/22 Fri PM 01:08:52 MDT wrote: > Dude...! That's an especially unkind cut as the bride and I mark Gay Pride > week with the Mission:Impregnation tour, tearing down Southern backroads in a > rental car blaring out the collected works of Kim Wilde and Kim Fowley, all > in the name of staying in cheap motels and having sex that will hopefully > result in the upcoming debut of one Timothy McVeigh Taylor. (I thought > Brainiac was a really cool band.) On the other hand, I hate to endanger the > Officially Half-A-Fag status that I earned back when I dated a transsexual. > That stuff's Kryptonite to charges of homophobia. People, can't we just dispense with all this talk of who's "gay", "straight" or "half-gay", and who's an "evil corporate lawyer" vs. a plain old "evil lawyer", and get right down to the big ol' greasy pop music geek lovefest? (In the dark, of course.) Thanks. Later. --Rog (Infinite List Jester) - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:22:01 -0700 From: bbradley@namesecure.com Subject: RE: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here eithe r...) << People, can't we just dispense with all this talk of who's "gay", "straight" or "half-gay", and who's an "evil corporate lawyer" vs. a plain old "evil lawyer", and get right down to the big ol' greasy pop music geek lovefest? (In the dark, of course.) >> yeah, okay. my fortune from lunch at the excellent chinese restaurant says: A wise man knows everything; A shrewd one, everybody. between the sheets. - -- brianna bradley ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:34:48 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here eithe r...) bbradley@namesecure.com on 2001/06/22 Fri PM 02:22:01 MDT wrote: > yeah, okay. my fortune from lunch at the excellent chinese restaurant says: > > A wise man knows everything; A shrewd one, everybody. > > between the sheets. Hey, mine (from the Thai restaurant) was: "Use your gifts wisely and they shall be enlarged" BTW, I was always taught it was "in bed", but "between the sheets" works too! Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 18:30:13 -0400 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] CNFSD (ns) Are there any Primal Scream experts on the list? A whole abodeload of their CDs have turned up at my local used shop. I was previewing them today and realized that I just couldn't tell if I likes XTRMNTR or whatever it's called on a quick listen. I recall that it made a lot of (non loud-fans') top ten lists when it came out. Also, today in the mail I received the second in a series of singles by Safe Home, each in an edition of 200. And it's another winner, although one of the songs also appears on their Travel in Time ep (I'm not sure if the versions are identical). In addition to the thrill of getting a micro-edition 7", with it's strange artwork consisting of what looks like an astronaut angel from Scotland carrying an lp, there's a continuing story that's now veering into mystical territory. I eagerly await the remaining three singles/three installments of the story. That spoilsport from Sunday records has already blabbed that the singles will be collected on CD at year's end, but it's so much more fun acquiring them as they trickle out, like mysterious postcards from Holland by way of Illinois. I also received my swap CD today, which is wonderful and will be reviewed in the future, but which also contains a song by the Strokes. Didn't I make myself clear that they are the most over-hyped, worthless (on the basis of their present recorded product) band currently basking in the glow of the clueless British press, after having been correctly ignored in their homeland? I'll overlook this, as I'm sure that it was an oversight, but don't make me remind y'all again!! - --dana, slightly chilly without my mantle of sarcasm ________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 22:59:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Charity Stafford Subject: [loud-fans] Re: Fortune cookie taglines Roger Winston said: > bbradley@namesecure.com on 2001/06/22 Fri PM 02:22:01 MDT wrote: >> yeah, okay. my fortune from lunch at the excellent chinese >> restaurant says: >> >> A wise man knows everything; A shrewd one, everybody. >> >> between the sheets. > Hey, mine (from the Thai restaurant) was: > > "Use your gifts wisely and they shall be enlarged" > > BTW, I was always taught it was "in bed", but "between the > sheets" works too! Ever since Stewart and I saw FORTY GUNS with Barbara Stanwyck at the Toronto Film Festival 2 or 3 years ago, we've used "with a whip," which also works pretty well. (It's the recurring tagline from the theme song, and once you've seen the movie you'll never get it out of your head.) Charity ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:53:37 -0600 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] CNFSD (ns) At 06:30 PM 6/22/01 -0400, Dana L Paoli wrote: >--dana, slightly chilly without my mantle of sarcasm You should borrow Rog's ski parka of bitchiness! S ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 22:00:32 -0600 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: Fortune cookie taglines At 10:59 PM 6/22/01 -0400, Charity Stafford wrote: >Ever since Stewart and I saw FORTY GUNS with Barbara >Stanwyck at the Toronto Film Festival 2 or 3 years ago, >we've used "with a whip," which also works pretty well. >(It's the recurring tagline from the theme song, and >once you've seen the movie you'll never get it out of >your head.) It's not just the phrase, it's the way he sings it: "She's a hiiiiiigh-ridin' woman...with a whip." There's just something peculiar about that pause. But yes, "with a whip" is by far the best I've come across yet: "You will be called upon to help a friend in trouble...with a whip." "Happiness is around the next corner, wealth down the street...with a whip." "It's time you asked that special someone out on a date...with a whip." Really, the possibilities are endless. (It also works well on the signs in Honest Ed's, a Toronto retail institution that's half dollar store, half Barnum and Bailey.) And FORTY GUNS is a really good (and screamingly homoerotic, especially for 1958) movie, too. Babs looks quite yummy, whip or no. S NP: FROM GARDENS WHERE WE FEEL SECURE--Virginia Astley ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 21:26:58 EDT From: Cardinal007@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] church v state (no, there's no Scott here either...) In a message dated 6/22/01 3:21:13 PM, JRT456@aol.com writes: ><< HHmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm; protesteth thee too mucheth, centurion? >>> > >Dude...! That's an especially unkind cut as the bride and I mark Gay Pride > >week with the Mission:Impregnation tour, tearing down Southern backroads >in a >rental car blaring out the collected works of Kim Wilde and Kim Fowley, >all >in the name of staying in cheap motels and having sex that will hopefully > >result in the upcoming debut of one Timothy McVeigh Taylor. (I thought > >Brainiac was a really cool band.) On the other hand, I hate to endanger >the >Officially Half-A-Fag status that I earned back when I dated a transsexual. > >That stuff's Kryptonite to charges of homophobia. > I beg your apologies, sir. You have convinced me that I was wrong in even questioning. About me: "Centurion! Thwow him woughwy to the fwoor!!!!!!!" I have no credibility because, though I did not date a transsexual, I married a musician. That was the one I think Sharples didn't nail......... ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #138 *******************************