From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #269 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 Monday, October 15 2001 Volume 01 : Number 269 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC [Stewart Mason ] Re: [loud-fans] Book recs needed (no spiritual or philosophical content!) ["richblath" ] Re: [loud-fans] Loud Effers [Sue Trowbridge ] RE: [loud-fans] Loud Effers [Overall_Julianne@isus.emc.com] Re: [loud-fans] Loud Effers [mweber@library.berkeley.edu (Matthew Weber)] [loud-fans] irc anyone? [Overall_Julianne@isus.emc.com] [loud-fans] Book recs needed (slight spiritual or philosophical content) [Richard Gagnon ] Re: [loud-fans] irc anyone? [Jer Fairall ] [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC ["Vallor" ] Re: [loud-fans] Loud Effers [RufusWainwrong@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Loud Effers / trolls and such [steve ] Re: [loud-fans] Loud Effers ["Andrew Hamlin" ] Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC [JRT456@aol.com] [loud-fans] Loud Effers [zkk46@ttacs.ttu.edu] Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC [jenny grover ] [loud-fans] To be(lieve) or not to be(lieve)? [Overall_Julianne@isus.emc.] Re: [loud-fans] To be(lieve) or not to be(lieve)? ["Chris Murtland" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC At 06:22 PM 10/14/01 -0400, Chris Murtland wrote: >In other words, "doing right" is a way to somehow feel better >about myself psychologically, but that's about it. Uh, if that's what you got out of that, then clearly I didn't put it as well as I might have. >But I guess that's because I have some notion that "honesty is >right," when that's just another culturally manufactured way >to put band-aids on my ego. Let's try this again. How about: "Honesty is right because it's right, not because some dude in the sky said that if we're honest, we'll get to heaven." Is that a little better? Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 23:40:03 +0100 From: "richblath" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Book recs needed (no spiritual or philosophical content!) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Murtland" To: Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2001 6:21 PM Subject: [loud-fans] Book recs needed (no spiritual or philosophical content!) > Assumption: Reading novels is valuable, if only because I find it "enjoyable" > > Being completely isolated from the Academy, and for that matter other people who like reading as much as I do, I sometimes find it hard to discover new (to me) writers that are worth reading. Here are some recent and not-so-recent discoveries that may illuminate my tastes. Please send a couple of names my way so I can discover more. Ever tried TIBOR FISCHER? THE THOUGHT GANG has one of those beginnings that you never forget and UNDER THE FROG is a fine debut. The COLLECTOR COLLECTOR manages to keep an unusual premise running much better than you'd imagine. For the same reason of unforgettable openings I'd go for anything by PAUL AUSTER, especially LEVIATHAN or MR.VERTIGO. And, if you like his idiosyncratic writing style, KURT VONNEGUT has written lots of entertaining stuff. Also, though the idea of musicians writing fiction is not one that to which I give unreserved support AND THE ASS SAW THE ANGEL by NICK CAVE seems to be reappearing all over the place again, but be aware, at times not even a good dictionary will totally save you! Richard np Ryan Adams - Gold (just winning tonights battle with my newly acquired copy of Pet Sounds!) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 18:47:00 -0400 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC > At 06:22 PM 10/14/01 -0400, Chris Murtland wrote: > >In other words, "doing right" is a way to somehow feel better > >about myself psychologically, but that's about it. > > Uh, if that's what you got out of that, then clearly I didn't put it as > well as I might have. I admit I am prone to jump to some unintended conclusion just because I feel like I have to jump to a conclusion, right or wrong, for further testing. > >But I guess that's because I have some notion that "honesty is > >right," when that's just another culturally manufactured way > >to put band-aids on my ego. > > Let's try this again. How about: "Honesty is right because it's right, not > because some dude in the sky said that if we're honest, we'll get to > heaven." Is that a little better? Yep. I think I see what you're saying. It seems to me you're saying "right" is something that independently exists in the world - it's just "there," kind of like the law of gravity. Or perhaps you are saying it exists only in culture, but that it nevertheless has some quality that makes it worth pursuing even if it only exists in culture. If it's the former, that's a moral law that's built into the universe. If it's the latter, then it boils down to whether one can accept arbitrary cultural value as something to exemplify in daily life. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 15:51:45 -0700 (PDT) From: mweber@library.berkeley.edu (Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC At 4:33 PM 10/14/1, Stewart Mason wrote: >At 06:22 PM 10/14/01 -0400, Chris Murtland wrote: >>But I guess that's because I have some notion that "honesty is >>right," when that's just another culturally manufactured way >>to put band-aids on my ego. > >Let's try this again. How about: "Honesty is right because it's right, not >because some dude in the sky said that if we're honest, we'll get to >heaven." Is that a little better? But the problem is, what makes honesty right? People don't have an innate sense of right and wrong, other than that which comes from their upbringing & social context. I think Chris seems to be saying that if morality isn't deontological, then it's arbitrary and there's no reason to follow one preference over another (something I think Sade touched on as well). On the other hand, since I don't really care all that much about Unified Field Theories or living according to consistently rational standards (because life is a mess and not a neat equation), I try to avoid hurting people because I don't wish to be hurt, and try to be kind because I would like to expect kindness. Foolish, I know. Matt Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. William Penn, _Fruits of Solitude_ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 19:04:25 EDT From: RufusWainwrong@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] Loud Effers It was bad enough reading your wanking about pop music. The theophilopopical has been painful, yet not in any way entertaining. Overeducated self-impressed geeks, beware: each time you believe you've been clever, that God in the sky/human invention/what-have-you knocks a day off yer future. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 19:13:59 -0400 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Loud Effers We are just easily amused. While hardly over-educated, I am happily self-impressed. I'm sure you are, too. ~3465 days til forty > It was bad enough reading your wanking about pop music. The theophilopopical > has been painful, yet not in any way entertaining. > > Overeducated self-impressed geeks, beware: each time you believe you've been > clever, that God in the sky/human invention/what-have-you knocks a day off > yer future. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 16:16:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Sue Trowbridge Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Loud Effers - --- RufusWainwrong@aol.com wrote: > It was bad enough reading your wanking about pop music. The > theophilopopical > has been painful, yet not in any way entertaining. > > Overeducated self-impressed geeks, beware: each time you believe > you've been > clever, that God in the sky/human invention/what-have-you knocks a > day off > yer future. Randy Peppler, have you been lurking on the list again? Won't you ever learn your lesson? - -- Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 19:22:34 -0400 From: Overall_Julianne@isus.emc.com Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Loud Effers Oh, cool... a troll. Just in time for the Harry Potter movie. Does this one have elmers glue coming out of it's nose though? -julianne 33 days and counting.... > -----Original Message----- > From: RufusWainwrong@aol.com [mailto:RufusWainwrong@aol.com] > Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2001 4:04 PM > To: loud-fans@smoe.org > Subject: [loud-fans] Loud Effers > > > It was bad enough reading your wanking about pop music. The > theophilopopical > has been painful, yet not in any way entertaining. > > Overeducated self-impressed geeks, beware: each time you > believe you've been > clever, that God in the sky/human invention/what-have-you > knocks a day off > yer future. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 16:22:50 -0700 (PDT) From: mweber@library.berkeley.edu (Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Loud Effers At 7:04 PM 10/14/1, RufusWainwrong@aol.com wrote: >It was bad enough reading your wanking about pop music. The theophilopopical >has been painful, yet not in any way entertaining. > >Overeducated self-impressed geeks, beware: each time you believe you've been >clever, that God in the sky/human invention/what-have-you knocks a day off >yer future. Gee, I'm really sorry that we're not doing a better job of entertaining you. Matt Let the people think they govern and they will be governed. William Penn, _Fruits of Solitude_ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 19:29:01 -0400 From: Overall_Julianne@isus.emc.com Subject: [loud-fans] irc anyone? If so, which network? I'm currently on dalnet... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 19:30:42 -0400 From: Richard Gagnon Subject: [loud-fans] Book recs needed (slight spiritual or philosophical content) Ian wrote: >Personally I'd rate Block's Matt Scudder books above the Bernie books but I >love both series(es?). Both are New York located but completely different >in tone - the Bernie books are wonderful confections and, like Stewart's >recommendation of Stout's Nero Wolfe, are all plotted in pretty much the >same way but they are huge fun and I tend to pull one off the shelf if I'm >feeling a bit out of sorts - the Scudder books are much darker but the >characters who float in and out of the books are brilliantly realised and >the dialogue marvellous. Yes they are mysteries but that doesn't really >seem to be the point of the books... If I don't chime in here right where I'm s'posed to, Stewart'll think something bad's happened to me.;) I also rate Block's Scudder stuff above (way, way above) the Bernie books, but in between are Block's wonderful Evan Tanner books. The Burglar books are *too* similar for my taste. As for Westlake, I like the Parker (written as Richard Stark) books slightly more than the Dormunder, but I love both series to pieces. It would be apple and orangey to compare the two series (as with Block's Scudder/Rhodenbarr/Tanner series) if they weren't by the same author. Stewart likes his crime books on the light side, so I don't think it means he dislikes Westlake and Block's darker stuff, he just hasn't read it. Speaking of the Nero Wolf series, Block also wrote, early in his career, a sort of parody of it, the Chip Harrison series (four books). Light stuff, more character than plot-driven (not a value judgment, just a description), and a lot of sexy fun. Also, recommended reading for those who can't conceive of a meaning to life without a Higher Power, "The Conquest of Happiness" by Bertrand Russell, my own personal favorite philosopher. Makes you wish that the Ayn Rand cultists had picked *that* up to read instead of "Atlas Shrugged". Rick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 19:36:09 -0400 From: Richard Gagnon Subject: [loud-fans] I second that motion picture Oh, and while I'm catching up: I second Stewart's enthusiasm for Jeunet's (Delicatessen, City of Lost Children) "Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amilie Poulain" (guess it'll be called "Amelie" down where you are). It's still playing to ecstatic packed houses up here in Montreal, over a month after its release. Nice to see a great film attracting a popular audience. Wonderful, wonderful film. Utterly life-affirming without the blatant emotional manipulation that mars and gives a bad name to most "feel-good" movies. You'll come out of it with a big clever grin. Rick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 16:42:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Jer Fairall Subject: Re: [loud-fans] irc anyone? > If so, which network? I'm currently on dalnet... I just joined Julianne over at Dalnet. C'mon over!! Jer np: Elvis Costello, MY AIM IS TRUE ===== Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals. http://personals.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 16:52:01 -0400 From: "Vallor" Subject: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC Gosh, all I asked was if Skylarking ever came out on CD before Dear God was tacked on & if anyone could direct me where to find a copy (thanks Sue). I didn't expect a sort of Spanish Inquision. I was interested in Scott's remarks to Chris Murtland in his interview interview. Scott and I used to regularly debate these issues on tour, him from a pure atheistic, steeped in science, perspective; and me from a Catholic (albeit progressive Catholic) perspective. Now we discuss them with much greater satisfaction, as two seekers of enlightenment. I have five thoughts about some of the rhetoric that's been lobbed around for the last few days (I'll be honest and say that I have just been scanning some of the digests since there have been so many thoughts). Some of my remarks may seem harsh but they're really just meant to explore the issue. I realize these points will tend to translate my own personal perspective, but I'll try to be balanced. 1.) Hard-line Christian fundamentalists and hard-line Atheists are, in my opinion, cut from the same cloth...they're just raised in different environments. They share a common intolerance for different opinions and a common taste for forcing their opinions rather than discussing them with an open mind. In the end they sound like pretty much the same person to me. That said, I do think that the intentions of some of the the hard-line atheists I've known, who subscribe to a sort of secular humanist approach, have some legitimate gripes about the current state of religion. However, these same people tend to issue a mass condemnation of belief to support their objections. 2.) There are many more interpretations of Christianity than there are organized religions. The fact is that if you can open your mind to it, The New Testament is a rather remarkable endeavor. A Roshomon-like story of the teachings of Christ wherein 4 different voices, in four primary gospels, tell you the story of and recount the words of one who is/was, at the very least, an extraordinary philosopher. A book that gives you a piece of history and/or literature wherein the truth of it lies within the contradictions of these human voices. That said, and I will address this further below; according to historians and theologians, their were actually 5 primary gospels one of which was The Gospel Of Mary Magdalene. Parts of this Scripture were discovered as part of the Akhmim Codex in 1896 and first published in 1955...I've been given to believe that this book may have been excised at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD as a power play but there are multiple references in the scriptures of Christ's higher regard for Magdalene than for any of the other disciples...the other disciples were at times envious that Christ would provide her with greater insight than he would them... "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."- Gospel of Phillip, Codex II 3.) You Christians, understand how your religion has been bastardized and seek greater enlightenment. The aforementioned excise of The Gospel Of Mary is but one example of how Christianity has been exploited and corrupted by tyrants. Popes, preachers, kings, dictators and common people have manipulated the text to serve there own purposes and this may be why the hard-line atheist feels compelled to speak. 4.) Atheists try to understand that in spirituality, just as in science, suffering and death are a part of the game plan. We are born...we try to gain some insight...then we die. The spiritual person simply believes that once we die there is more. To suggest that mortal life should somehow be of ultimate value to a believer is absurd; life in this world, to a spiritual person, is simply an avenue. That said, I acknowledge that providing aid to the suffering is paramount to most enlightened belief systems. 5.) Start reading. Philosophy, Science, Theology...there are a lot of brilliant minds writing on these subjects who were/are a lot smarter than any of us. Read The New Testament and ignore The Old Testament, read the Bhagavad-Gita, Plato and Aristotle, read Boethius and Saint Augustine; there's a lot more to learn about humanity than pure math. - - Dan Vallor ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:17:36 EDT From: RufusWainwrong@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Loud Effers In a message dated 10/14/01 7:23:55 PM, mweber@library.berkeley.edu writes: >Gee, I'm really sorry that we're not doing a better job of entertaining >you. > > >Matt Well shit, Mark -- so am I! But I'm glad to know you sense my woes . . . ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:23:58 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC On the topic of what inspires morality within humanists: Let's not forget what seems to be the most beloved ritual of the Church of the Humanist, which is doing good in the name of never missing a chance to complain about Christians who are adulterous, lying, self-righteous sacks of shit with extremely shady... But then, I guess that point has already been made. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 19:37:20 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Loud Effers / trolls and such On Sunday, October 14, 2001, at 06:22 PM, Overall_Julianne@isus.emc.com wrote: > Oh, cool... a troll. Just in time for the Harry Potter movie. > > -julianne > 33 days and counting.... Why count down to a troll when you can can count down to a balrog? ;) And if you don't want to wait for a real good time, go see IRON MONKEY. - - Steve __________ One of the president's close acquaintances outside the White House said Mr. Bush clearly feels he has encountered his reason for being, a conviction informed and shaped by the president's own strain of Christianity. "I think, in his frame, this is what God has asked him to do," the acquaintance said. - Frank Bruni, NYT, on Bush's new war ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:55:39 -0400 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Book recs needed (no spiritual or philosophical content!) Thanks to all who provided the names of books and writers. I should be able to go for a year or two now without having to think about it again! I will hopefully now be able to fill the middle ranks between Nabokov/Eco/Borges and the supermarket writers. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 18:59:43 -0600 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Book recs needed (slight spiritual or philosophical content) At 07:30 PM 10/14/01 -0400, Richard Gagnon wrote: >I also rate Block's Scudder stuff above (way, way above) the Bernie >books, but in between are Block's wonderful Evan Tanner books. The >Burglar books are *too* similar for my taste. I think the Evan Tanner books are my least favorite Block, but probably only because they were written *very* early in his career (1965-69, I think, over a decade before the first Scudder and Tanner books) and he just wasn't as good a writer then as he became later. The general idea of the series is terrific, and the surprise Tanner novel TANNER ON ICE that came out three or four years ago is a hoot. >As for Westlake, I like the Parker (written as Richard Stark) books >slightly more than the Dormunder, but I love both series to pieces. >It would be apple and orangey to compare the two series (as with >Block's Scudder/Rhodenbarr/Tanner series) if they weren't by the same >author. Stewart likes his crime books on the light side, so I don't >think it means he dislikes Westlake and Block's darker stuff, he just >hasn't read it. No no, I've read all of Westlake's Parker books (except for the two recent continuations, which I've yet to get around to) and love 'em to death. If you're a fan of the Dortmunder books, you *have* to like the Parker books (and vice versa), because Dortmunder is just Parker played for laughs. Westlake once said that when he wrote his first comic crime novel, THE BUSY BODY, he rewrote the first chapter three or four times *trying* to make it be a serious, hardboiled caper, but it kept coming out funny. I am convinced he came up with Dortmunder under similar circumstances: a Parker story came to him but it made him giggle. ("Hey! I'll make him have to steal the same emerald half a dozen times!") (Speaking of Westlake's non-series crime books, they're uneven, but some of them are all-time classics: THE SPY IN THE OINTMENT, GOD SAVE THE MARK and SOMEBODY OWES ME MONEY are brilliant, and the less-wonderful WHO STOLE SASSI MANOON? has possibily my favorite scene in his entire oeuvre, concerning the many different names for thin batter baked on a hot griddle.) As for the Scudder books, when they're good, they're the best things Block has ever written. I'm specifically thinking of WHEN THE SACRED GINMILL CLOSES and EIGHT MILLION WAYS TO DIE. But a lot of the Scudder books feel to me like he's going through the motions. >Speaking of the Nero Wolfe series, Block also wrote, early in his >career, a sort of parody of it, the Chip Harrison series (four >books). Light stuff, more character than plot-driven (not a value >judgment, just a description), and a lot of sexy fun. I recently read my first Chip Harrison book (THE TOPLESS TULIP CAPER), and it's hilarious, though I think they're probably funnier if you've got a working knowledge of both the Nero Wolfe books and the realities of paperback publishing in the early '70s. There's a scene where out of nowhere, Harrison goes to the apartment of an entirely unrelated character we never see before or after and has fairly explicit and vaguely S&M sex with her, then leaves. At the start of the next chapter, Harrison/Block addresses the reader directly, apologizing for the last scene but saying his editor at Fawcett Crest, who he mentions by name, had called and said there wasn't enough sex in the manuscript. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 21:49:27 EDT From: GlenSarvad@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] Sloan I've been really amused reading the thread and the total lack of consensus on which are the "consistent" Sloan records. Place me firmly in the "Twice Removed" camp- it's the only one of their records I can really enjoy start to finish (and I consider myself a pretty big fan). I think One Chord To Another houses a couple of the best songs they've written, but that it really falters as a whole. While I agree that it's cool and in many ways a strength that they boast four talented songwriters, I also suspect it's at the heart of their consistency problem, at least in terms of appealing to a broad(er) audience. The same bugaboo befell Shoes in the early 80s, who had three songwriters. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 20:52:50 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC On Sunday, October 14, 2001, at 07:23 PM, JRT456@aol.com wrote: > On the topic of what inspires morality within humanists: Let's not > forget > what seems to be the most beloved ritual of the Church of the Humanist, > which > is doing good in the name of never missing a chance to complain about > Christians who are adulterous, lying, self-righteous sacks of shit with > extremely shady... Well, it's not humanists that are forever setting themselves up in public as moral exemplars. > But then, I guess that point has already been made. If you mean by Dan, then I don't think so. And besides, it looks like you only remembered half of his argument. - - Steve __________ HALTON, England  President Bush said Thursday he is having a hard time selling a missile defense plan to skeptical allies in Europe because he has only "vague notions" about what it would entail. - Ron Fournier, AP, 07/19/01 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 19:17:28 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Loud Effers >Randy Peppler, have you been lurking on the list again? Won't you >ever learn your lesson? I suspect it's actually jbenson. Now what's that library at Harvard where you're supposed to have sex before you graduate... Andy "The first time I heard a children's choir on record was when I was really young and I stumbled into Keith West's superb 'Excerpt [sic] from a Teenage Opera. One of my favourite singles from the 60's. Try to find it, it's worth it!" - --Per Gessle, the songwriting half of Roxette, discussing the Roxette song "Stars"; from the liner notes to Roxette's DON'T BORE US, GET TO THE CHORUS: GREATEST HITS ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 23:20:06 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC In a message dated 10/14/01 6:54:59 PM, steveschiavo@mac.com writes, while proving his lack of knowledge extends to non-religions: << Well, it's not humanists that are forever setting themselves up in public as moral exemplars. >> "Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion." That's just the opening sentence from a definition provided by a large Humanist organization, and barely begins to tap into how Humanists love to celebrate their moral superiority. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 22:23:55 -0500 From: zkk46@ttacs.ttu.edu Subject: [loud-fans] Loud Effers >It was bad enough reading your wanking about pop >music. The theophilopopical >has been painful, yet not in any way entertaining. not entertaining eh? how's this then: is this a god dam? >I used to play one note with one >finger and now There [sic] are no limits. I came out >of a shell. And that happened as a result of >Dianetics." >--Billy Sheehan, bassist for Diva Lee Roth, Mr. Big., >and others; from a Dianetics flyer I found two days ago so scientology is to blame for mr. big? things are starting to make sense now....... > To see the absurdity of this position, >substitute "purple flying unicorns" > for "god." That is, the argument that atheism also >rests on faith assumes > that "God" is a likelier concept (albeit unproven) ? >than, say, purple > flying unicorns. But to do so is begging the question >(right, aaron?): > assuming that which you are trying to prove I don't know if flying purple unicorns exist or not, but I do know that if they *did* exist, they wouldn't for very long. Even animal lovers would have their guns pointed in the air to stop the huge piles of horse poo from falling from the sky. There's a Sloan cover band here in Dallas that serves my sloan needs almost every weekend. I thought you saw the good in everyone, Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:50:17 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC Stewart Mason wrote: > > ... like for instance my asshole brother, > who has explained his born-again Christian views in terms of, when you get > right down to it, a Get Out Of Jail Free card. (He would undoubtedly > sputter mightily if he heard me put it in those terms, but that's exactly > what it boils down to.) Apparently, this gives him license to be an > adulterous, lying, self-righteous sack of shit with extremely shady > business ethics. What the hell (oops!) denomination is he "born again" into? Christianity does not teach that you can get away with anything you want. It requires repentance, and repentance includes not only asking forgiveness, but demonstrating resolve to change your ways for the better. If he thinks he can do what he wants when he wants and then repeatedly wipe the slate clean in order to get to heaven, then he's not living a Christian life. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 01:04:50 -0400 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: audio weenie / XTC Plus, theologically speaking anyway, there is a distinction between salvation (having nothing to do with how "good" you are) and sanctification (the process of trying to become "good"). > What the hell (oops!) denomination is he "born again" into? > Christianity does not teach that you can get away with anything you > want. It requires repentance, and repentance includes not only asking > forgiveness, but demonstrating resolve to change your ways for the > better. If he thinks he can do what he wants when he wants and then > repeatedly wipe the slate clean in order to get to heaven, then he's not > living a Christian life. > > Jen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 05:48:54 +0000 From: "Brendan Curry" Subject: [loud-fans] New York City Hello all, I just landed a job in NYC and will need to move there very soon. I was hoping some NYC area loud fans could offer direction in terms of nice places to live that won't bankrupt me in a year. Please e-mail me off list if you have any suggestions. Thanks, Brendan Curry _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 02:24:21 -0400 From: Overall_Julianne@isus.emc.com Subject: [loud-fans] To be(lieve) or not to be(lieve)? Thank GOD I'm an atheist! - -julianne, Give me ambiguity or give me .... something else. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 02:35:46 -0400 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] To be(lieve) or not to be(lieve)? I think it's safe to say we've beaten the topic to death at this point. On to more ambiguous things... > Thank GOD I'm an atheist! > > -julianne, > Give me ambiguity or give me .... something else. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2001 23:40:35 -0700 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Book recs needed (no spiritual or philosophical content!) Stewart said: >I've never been a particular science fiction fan, because I've seen more >piss-poor writing in that genre than any other, but I recommend >Stephenson's two SF novels, SNOW CRASH and THE DIAMOND AGE, unreservedly. >They're not so much science fiction as they are fiction that deals with >science. This is close enough to "I like it, therefore it's not *really* science fiction" to push my buttons. Stephenson's books are solidly in the mainstream of SF. SNOW CRASH, in fact, is something of a parody of cyberpunk cliches, and quite a successful one, at least for the first half--the second half, unfortunately, has the cliches but not the parody. And for my taste in prose, at least, there are lots of SF authors who can write rings around him (although there are many far worse than he, to be sure). My recommendation to Chris would be to check out some of the many SF authors influenced by Borges and the magic realists--Gene Wolfe (THE FIFTH HEAD OF CERBERUS), John Crowley (ENGINE SUMMER or LITTLE, BIG), and Richard Grant (VIEWS FROM THE OLDEST HOUSE, which I guess is a bit more Pynchonian than Borgesian) come to mind. I also want to stump for my favorite magic realist book, Rhoda Lerman's THE BOOK OF THE NIGHT. In re the evolution of morality, current mathematical models show that in many situations the most effective strategy (from a survival/reproduction point of view) is to start with trust/cooperation and only switch to distrust/non-cooperation when provoked, and that populations with such behavior will tend to resist intrusion by individuals without it. This is a long way from proof of anything, of course, but I think it's at least sufficient to show that the superior survival value of nasty behavior can't be assumed a priori. ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #269 *******************************