From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #97 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, March 11 2002 Volume 02 : Number 097 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil ["Aaron Milenski" ] Re: [loud-fans] Re: Wells and Coryell [Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com] Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] who in the hell would vote for a dead guy? [zkk46@ttacs.t] Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil [Miles Goosens ] Re: [loud-fans] 24 [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil [Dennis_McGreevy@prax] [loud-fans] Alias [was 24] [Miles Goosens ] Re: [loud-fans] 24 [Michael Mitton ] Re: [loud-fans] 24 ["me" ] Re: [loud-fans] Re: Wells and Coryell [Miles Goosens ] Re: [loud-fans] Answers to many unasked questions [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeff] Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Je] Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil [] Re: [loud-fans] Answers to many unasked questions [Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil > > If you think that's weird, check this out: Joe Leiberman's religion >forbids > > him to eat a cheeseburger! What is it with these whackos, and how can we >all > > stop being so darn tolerant of them? > >Yes, but Leiberman *doesn't try to forbid the rest of us* from eating >cheeseburgers, thou beslubbering, beef-witted barnacle! That's the whole >point, thou droning, doghearted codpiece. I never thought I'd side with JRT on any political argument, but Lieberman *does try to forbid the rest of us* from having freedom of choice about what we see on TV, at the movies, etc... His censorship policies are extremely dangerous and scare me to death. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 11:54:13 -0600 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil Sharples sez: Ashcroft is a nightmare, the most craven of political opportunists, and looney tunes to boot. And I actually support most the USA Patriot Act. <><><><><><><><><><> Man, I don't know why you're so down on the guy. That "Let The Eagle Soar" song was no worse than half the crap Aerosmith has gotten away with without excessive public mockery for the last decade. But seriously folks, of those that actually listened to this, did anyone else find it amusing that the symbolic figure of "The Eagle", as depicted in Mr. Ashcroft's lyrics is specifically gendered female, and described as more or less passively enduring "all we've put her through" but triumphs by shrugging this off, soaring "like she's never soarn (sic) before" (I listened several times, and am pretty damn sure that was the author's choice of pseudoparticiple) and just being a symbol for us all, as opposed to the tougher love (para-arbitrary trampling of pesky civil rights, bombing little brown fuckers that short distance back into the stone age, etc.) that a male gendered eagle might be justifiably obligated to do? - --Dennis, wondering if "Billy Don't Be A Hero" now qualifies as sedition ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:33:38 -0600 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil JR sez: ...Ashcroft credits Southern Partisan magazine for its work against historical revisionism: "Your magazine also helps set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like Lee, Jackson and Davis. Traditionalists must do more. I've got to do more. We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda." Have somebody read this to you, and they'll explain that Ashcroft considers a pro-slavery ideology to be a perverted agenda. Also, "Lee, Jackson and Davis" refers to Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis. They were major figures in the Civil War. <><><><><><><><><> To which revisionist assertions regarding the nature of the Civil War, I must add: "If we're not fighting to keep slavery, what are we fighting for?" - --Nathan Bedford Forrest If my Heritage and Tradition included a long history of basing my entire economic system upon torturing uncompensated labor out of unwilling people as in part rationalized by declaring them to be inferior as signified by what color they are, I'd be cloaking my revisionistic defense of it in high sounding abstractions like "Heritage" and "Tradition", while carefully excluding the "of..." part so as not to look like an asshole, too. - --Dennis, noting that a record "set straight" can still point straight away from the truth ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:06:23 -0600 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Clinical Depression (ns) dana on Larry Coryell: I have to admit that my favorite song is the opener "Sex" which I swear reminds me of a nice Krautrock tune in some ways, between the effect laden guitar spazzing, the distorted vocal shouts, and the repetitive bass and drums. After that, things calm down, but the album basically hits a nice spot between rock and jazz, without ever implying fusion in any way. <><><><><><><> I don't know the album in question, but Larry Coryell (along with McLaughlin, and Miles Davis circa Bitches Brew, Pangea, etc.) is one of the inventors of fusion, an idea apparently originally more intended to direct jazzers to the path of the forcefulness and textural experimantation of Hendrix, than to give dentists who choose not to subscribe to Muzak something to play in their waiting rooms. Coryell later becomes fairly wanky and bland, but early on, whoo bay-bay, he does rock. - --DCM ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 12:28:29 -0700 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fusion stuff At 12:45 AM 3/11/02 -0800, Carolyn Dorsey wrote: >But it is something I'd like to know more about now. Some college radio >station around here was playing a bunch of early jazz funk fusion music from >the late sixties and early seventies and it was some of the most subtle and >interesting stuff I'd heard in a while. It was very spacy and beautiful. >And I had to get out of the car and didn't get any artist's names. if >anyone can make any suggestions I would be very appreciative! Several years ago, during the whole acid-jazz thing (around '95, I think), Blue Note did a series of reissue compilations called the RARE GROOVES series (they also reissued a lot of rare '60s and '70s albums around the same time) that featured a lot of the sort of thing I think you're talking about. (There's another series called BLUE BREAK BEATS that's good too, but it focuses a little more on vocal stuff.) I don't know if they're still in print, but I bet they'd be a good starting point. As for single artists, well, I still think that you can't go wrong with Rahsaan Roland Kirk at all, and I've developed a fondness for Herbie Mann in the last couple of years, especially his '60s stuff. I believe Yusuf Lateef recorded a lot of things in this style as well, but I don't know his stuff so well. I know that my college girlfriend Terry, who was absolutely mad for early fusion, soul jazz and jazz funk, was a big fan of Donald Byrd and his protegees the Blackbyrds, but their records left me kind of cold at the time. I might appreciate his stuff more now. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 13:45:15 -0600 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: Wells and Coryell Jeff [tells us that he is], letting his beard grow in an isolated bunker in Montana <><><><><><><><><> That's very open minded of you, sir, but lest the lesson of supervillain John Walker Lindh The American Taliban be lost on you, you do realize that when your beard finally attempts its inevitable wooly act of treason, that your liberal attitude in shaving it free to bunker down on the so-ultra-mega-patriotic-it's-actually-not-patriotic-at-all-anymore Montana / Idaho border will mean that you are as much to blame as your beard is. - --Dennis, doing my patriotic best and informing on you in advance ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:47:19 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil Boy, did I make a mistake. Did I say that my tour down South was next week? Actually, it's tomorrow. This month is just flying by. As for this... << Dennis, noting that a record "set straight" can still point straight away from the truth >> Instead of saying "Have somebody read this to you...," perhaps I should have said, "Have somebody read this article to you." (As noted, I've got a trip tomorrow, and I don't have time to type up the whole article for the list.) The magazine's slant is difficult to define, but John Ashcroft comes across as a guy with a solid anti-slavery agenda. In fact, Senator Jean Carnahan was just one of many Ashcroft opponents who ridiculed any suggestion that Ashcroft has racist leanings. It's no surprise that certain people are reduced to creating their own Ashcroft quotes in an effort to suggest that he's a racist. And it's certainly been nice to learn so much about what a close election it was in Missouri. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:20:12 -0600 From: zkk46@ttacs.ttu.edu Subject: Re: [loud-fans] who in the hell would vote for a dead guy? Quoting jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu: > > <> >> Actually, it was a close election (51%-49%). >> OK, I've finally stopped laughing. That was a stunning defeat considering Bush carried Missouri by a healthy margin and that his opponent had, in fact, been quite dead for three weeks. > > JS I have a question: Why is it so funny that Ashcroft lost the election to the dead guy, and not that 51% of the population VOTED for the dead guy? Talk about an election that no-one cares about. Hope I die before I get voted in... Talkin' 'bout my legislation Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:14:38 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil At 08:53 AM 3/11/2002 -0500, Aaron Milenski wrote: >> > If you think that's weird, check this out: Joe Leiberman's religion >>forbids >> > him to eat a cheeseburger! What is it with these whackos, and how can we >>all >> > stop being so darn tolerant of them? >> >>Yes, but Leiberman *doesn't try to forbid the rest of us* from eating >>cheeseburgers, thou beslubbering, beef-witted barnacle! That's the whole >>point, thou droning, doghearted codpiece. > >I never thought I'd side with JRT on any political argument, but Lieberman >*does try to forbid the rest of us* from having freedom of choice about what >we see on TV, at the movies, etc... His censorship policies are extremely >dangerous and scare me to death. Which is part of the reason that some of us didn't see any significant difference between the proffered candidates of either major national party and ended up voting for Ralph Nader in November of 2000. And THE NATION's Eric Alterman can bite my ass for acting like Nader voters brought us Dubya, Ashcroft, Enron, the atomic bomb, the Holocaust, the Black Plague, Original Sin, and YES, DEAR -- if Gore and Lieberman were in power, the only improvements I can envision are less publicity for the alcohol/narcotics-related hijinks of the Bush progeny and a really tasty MAXIM spread of that hottie Rebecca Lieberman. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:44:14 -0000 From: "Ian Runeckles & Angela Bennett" Subject: [loud-fans] 24 2 episodes into this here in the UK and the question is "Should I bother continuing to watch this?" So far it's been such a load of formulaic schlock that I'm wondering why it's getting such a high profile. Also we're only getting 1 episode a week which means it's going to go on until August - that's an awful long time to drag out the events of a day... And why oh why do they continue in these sort of programmes to have those appalling computer application simulations on the screen where everything is in HUGE LETTERS - and considering the predominance of WinTel machines in the real world I'm always amazed at the number of Macs there are in offices in movies... I'm done. Ian ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:51:45 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 24 >2 episodes into this here in the UK and the question is "Should I bother >continuing to watch this?" So far it's been such a load of formulaic >schlock that I'm wondering why it's getting such a high profile. Also >we're only getting 1 episode a week which means it's going to go on >until August - that's an awful long time to drag out the events of a >day... In my opinion, if you like it at the beginning you'll continue to (and if you don't you won't.) Since you don't like it now, why bother? This show divides people. I'm in the pro camp, but I won't claim that if you aren't there from hour one that you ever will be. Then again, I can't stop myself from watching FELICITY or X-FILES to the bitter end, even though both have sunk lower than I thought they ever could. Aaron _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:13:19 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 24 On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Ian Runeckles & Angela Bennett wrote: > So far it's been such a load of formulaic schlock that I'm wondering > why it's getting such a high profile. Due to roommates who were hooked right away, I kept watching after the first few, and I think it got better for a while. Then it got weak again, though, and I'm so disappointed by their failure to follow through on what *I* thought were the implicit promises of a real-time show that I say, go ahead and give up on it. a ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:31:01 -0600 From: Dennis_McGreevy@praxair.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil JR: Instead of saying "Have somebody read this to you...," perhaps I should have said, "Have somebody read this article to you." (As noted, I've got a trip tomorrow, and I don't have time to type up the whole article for the list.) The magazine's slant is difficult to define, but John Ashcroft comes across as a guy with a solid anti-slavery agenda. In fact, Senator Jean Carnahan was just one of many Ashcroft opponents who ridiculed any suggestion that Ashcroft has racist leanings. It's no surprise that certain people are reduced to creating their own Ashcroft quotes in an effort to suggest that he's a racist. <><><><><><><><><><> I was not calling the A.G. a racist. I am suggesting that the agenda of those folk, including the crew behind the publication Ashcroft was praising as "setting the record straight", who would redefine the insurrectionist Confederate bigwigs as "Patriots", whose arguments I have heard in many subtle shades of permutation, all of which essentially boil down to either, "We're not revering the Confederacy for attempting to defend the practice of slavery, we're revering it because it is Our Proud Heritage," which I addressed in my previous post, or "What people need to understand is that the Civil War had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery; ifyouknewanythingatallthenyoudknowthat it was actually about the conflict between States Rights, and the Tyranny Of The Federal Government," is, in my uninformed opinion, naught but a manure truck load of obfuscation. The former sneakily supposes that "Heritage" is intrinsically of virtue, while conspicuously avoiding mention of the content of that heritage. The latter slyly plays out a sort of David and Goliath myth to suggest that the Federal Government, by exclusive virtue of it's being larger, could not possibly have any basis for a moral authority over the smaller states, again attempting to dodge the central issue of what the moral question requiring such an authoritative answer might be. I have my hypotheses as to why this is going on, which veer more towards notions of perceived cultural emasculation than to accusations of racism, but I'll spare everyone that particular long winded digression, and instead refer anyone concerned back to the Nathan Bedford Forrest quote in my previous post. Unlike Ashcroft, or anyone else alive today trying to sanitize this conflict, Forrest was there. - --Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:31:45 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: [loud-fans] Alias [was 24] At 03:51 PM 3/11/2002 -0500, Aaron Milenski wrote: >Then again, I can't stop myself from watching FELICITY or X-FILES to the >bitter end, even though both have sunk lower than I thought they ever could. Speaking of FELICITY creator J.J. Abrams and THE X-FILES, I'm *extremely* wary about the recent detour that ALIAS' storyline has taken into X-FILES territory. I know that some of the plots and gizmos certainly stretch credulity, but IMO until now everything's been squarely within the parameters of ALIAS' kicky spy vs. spy universe. But this... OK, there was a little hint of it several episodes ago when Sydney met the elderly Italian gentleman, but at the time, I took it as little more than a very momentary flight of the script's fancy, and the plot quickly steamrollered past it. But now... huh. To the show's credit, they're playing this in what may be reverse X-FILES fashion (the special CIA unit apparently is uberpowered rather than being perpetually in danger of elimination, and they've had many of our main characters express doubt about this turn of events, instead of egging us halfway into Mulder-like acceptance), so they could be playing with our own X-FILES-shaped expectations. I'm hoping it's all a fabrication of That Ugly Guy From THE SINGLE GUY Who No One Could Believe Would Be Married To Ming-Na, just a power play to get Sydney away from Vaughn and into the hands of Maggie Walsh. And speaking of Maggie Walsh, the other disturbing trend on ALIAS is the Guest-Star-O-Rama thing. Having the character actor who played BUFFY's government-affiliated mad scientist play a government-affiliated mad scientist on ALIAS is an OK reference by me, but do they really need the distractions of Quentin Tarantino, Patricia Wettig, Roger Moore, Amy Irving, etc.? It's especially galling when every episode is a testimony to how much milage you can get out of superb veteran character actors like Ron Rifkin, Carl Lumbly, and the totally kick-ass Victor Garber. It's not as though the cast needs gratuitous celebrity help. Sheesh. Don't get me wrong, it's still my favorite new TV show, and since they've pulled off everything else so far, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. But if ALIAS trots out Bobby Ewing or a lump-necked alien, I am so outta there. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:17:11 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 24 On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Ian Runeckles & Angela Bennett wrote: > - and considering the predominance of > WinTel machines in the real world I'm always amazed at the number of > Macs there are in offices in movies... I've wondered about this for quite some time. I've always assumed this was the result of a product placement deal. But, in advertisements for the new Imac, Apple was saying that Macs dominate in Hollywood (I guess because Hollywood is graphics-intensive). So, Macs in the movies may just be a result of whatever computers the studios have sitting around. Anyone know for sure? And agreeing with I forget who, if you haven't liked the first two episodes, I think it's highly unlikely you'll like the rest. I still watch it, but it's not even at the top of my list of shows for *Tuesday*. - --Michael ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:37:33 -0800 From: "me" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 24 i had the same experience, but not the same results. i liked it at the beginning (but i started watching on the 3rd episode, i think) and got bored of it. the reason i started watching in the first place is because our housemates had to watch it at top volume on their big new tv set, and i had to know what that incessant chromatic PLINK! PLINK! PLINK! PLINK! was. (in a way, it has sort of a neat sound design....) - -- monkeys are funny. look at one and you will laugh, the hilarity http://students.washington.edu/dglasser/monkeys.html - -- - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron Mandel" To: "Ian Runeckles & Angela Bennett" Cc: "Loud Fans" Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 1:13 PM Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 24 > On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Ian Runeckles & Angela Bennett wrote: > > > So far it's been such a load of formulaic schlock that I'm wondering > > why it's getting such a high profile. > > Due to roommates who were hooked right away, I kept watching after the > first few, and I think it got better for a while. Then it got weak again, > though, and I'm so disappointed by their failure to follow through on what > *I* thought were the implicit promises of a real-time show that I say, go > ahead and give up on it. > > a ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 16:46:51 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: Wells and Coryell At 10:10 PM 3/10/2002 -0500, Dana L Paoli wrote: >Please, for the love of god, just stop this horrible name calling. It's >making me so sad. Can someone please post a couple of messages from '96, >so we can all remember what it was like in the good old days. I seem to >recall a nice thread where we all talked about how much we loved our >kitty cats. That was so nice!! Let's do that again!! Let's. Reminds me that I need to upload pictures of Aubrey and Cocoa to my website. So when are we going to talk about Boomer Wells and Don Coryell? This thread is such a rip-off! later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:12:35 -0600 From: "triggercut" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] who in the hell would vote for a dead guy? Whoa, whoa, whoaaaaah....back off my homies in Missouri, willya? The facts of the election are these: Carnahan's death fell outside the window of time allowed by the State Constitution to put another Democrat on the ballot. Carnahan's name was on the ballot, and it would have been illegal to remove it or substitute another name in his place. John Ashcroft, who had engaged in a rather acrimonious campaign against Carnahan, announced that he would suspend all campaigning up to election day in deference to his fallen rival. I think that's a huge key to his loss as well. I believe he announced this kind of "off-the-cuff", and by the time it became apparent that he might be in danger of being defeated, the cows were already out of the barn. See my earlier post regarding Carnahan's popularity. His reputation was such that there were quite a few people who voted against him and held differing political views who still respected him and were fond of him. In the final analysis, I don't see what other choice Missouri Democrats had. It was very well-publicized that the Missouri Constitution provided for the election of a deceased candidate--in such situations the sitting governor (in this case, Roger Wilson, a Carnahan disciple who'd moved up from Lt. Governor with Carnahan's death) gets to appoint the person to fill the position vacated by the deceased, but victorious, Senator-elect. It is obvious that many of the Carnahan votes were votes against Ashcroft, but also see the earlier email of mine and Bill's regarding the sympathy vote, too. If I'd still been living in Missouri at the time, I'd have voted for Carnahan, but for none of these reasons. Like I said, I volunteered for him going back to his days as Lt. Gov of the state, and got to meet him quite a few times. He was a bright, personable, funny man, a cagey, foxy political opportunist, and a man who seemed to generally care for his constuency and their problems. He had a rare gift for making each person he talked with seem like the most important person in the room, something that I associate with real leaders. He was just a good man, and I wept when I heard of his death on a late-night news report here in Chicago. My vote for him would've been cast as the last thing I could do for the guy all of us in the foot patrol affectionately called "The Captain". > I have a question: Why is it so funny that Ashcroft > lost the election to the dead guy, and not that 51% of > the population VOTED for the dead guy? Talk about an > election that no-one cares about. > > Hope I die before I get voted in... > Talkin' 'bout my legislation > Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 18:50:56 -0500 From: "janet@simplyliving.org" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Alias [was 24] Alias? 24? Downloaded my e-mail and thought we were actually talking about Scott Miller again. Ah well. the disappointed, tv-free, janet - -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:32:50 -0800 (PST) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: [loud-fans] Answers to many unasked questions Thanks to a really dull day at work, I just caught up with about a month's worth of LF posts. Comments: Elizabeth: Mazel tov! Re 24: I'm still hooked. I'd say hang on for ep 3, and if you still don't like it, bail. As for season 2, I'd say, considering the ratings, it's highly unlikely that'll be an issue. I think it works best as alimited series, like the Brits do. HBO is developing a cop show that follows a single case for the entire season, but they can afford to do serial series. Dana, re: Scott's mental health: I wouldn't worry so much. We know very little about Scott's real life. Judging him based on ASK SCOTT is like judging Tom Cruise based on an Access Hollywood interview. Jeffrey: The SWEENEY TODD song was fantastic. I had to dig out the soundtrack after I read your post. Re TNPorn.: Great show, and Neko is so hot! Damn, can she sing, too! Back to y'all, Joe Carl Newman, re: the bras & panties thrown on stage during their show: "Wow! Five pieces of underwear! That beats our old record...by 5!" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:42:19 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Aaron Milenski wrote: > > > If you think that's weird, check this out: Joe Leiberman's religion > >forbids > > > him to eat a cheeseburger! What is it with these whackos, and how can we > >all > > > stop being so darn tolerant of them? > > > >Yes, but Leiberman *doesn't try to forbid the rest of us* from eating > >cheeseburgers, thou beslubbering, beef-witted barnacle! That's the whole > >point, thou droning, doghearted codpiece. > > I never thought I'd side with JRT on any political argument, but Lieberman > *does try to forbid the rest of us* from having freedom of choice about what > we see on TV, at the movies, etc... His censorship policies are extremely > dangerous and scare me to death. Yes...but he does not ground those proposed policies specifically in the tenets of his religion, nor does he claim (as many fundamentists do) that only his version of his religion is correct. That is: just because someone is religious, and just because they have repugnant views, in itself that does make those repugnant views part of, or even derived from, that religion. I suspect Joe Lieberman (and of course, he's not the only one) would feel the way he does about cultural productions whether he wore a yarmulke, a turban, a miter, or shaved his head. As far as I know, Judaism in general doesn't have much of a history of censoring cultural productions. (Alas, unlike some strains of Christianity...) - --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 ::[clever or pithy quote]:: __[source of quote]__ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:52:50 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 24 On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Michael Mitton wrote: > On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Ian Runeckles & Angela Bennett wrote: > > > - and considering the predominance of > > WinTel machines in the real world I'm always amazed at the number of > > Macs there are in offices in movies... > > I've wondered about this for quite some time. I've always assumed this > was the result of a product placement deal. But, in advertisements for > the new Imac, Apple was saying that Macs dominate in Hollywood (I guess > because Hollywood is graphics-intensive). So, Macs in the movies may just > be a result of whatever computers the studios have sitting around. Anyone > know for sure? No...but I highly doubt it's simply that there are lots of Macs sitting around. Things must be paid for - it wouldn't be an accident that Macs show up. My guess is that (a) Apple's done a great job buying product placement; (b) Hollywood's more receptive to Macs than Windows machines, because (b-1) they're more visually interesting and (b-2) there's no such thing as a Windows machine...it's an OS. Macs are instantly recognizable as such; Windows machines read simply as "computer" (even if it might be "cool-looking black computer," say). So there really isn't that much competition, I guess. Also, Brianna wrote (re _24_): the reason i started watching in the first place is because our housemates had to watch it at top volume on their big new tv set, and i had to know what that incessant chromatic PLINK! PLINK! PLINK! PLINK! was. (in a way, it has sort of a neat sound design....) - --- Yes...it occurs to me, in fact, that _24_ lacks opening theme music entirely, no? But that sound is so distinctive, it acts as the show's quasi-musical hook...much in the way themes are supposed to do, so I guess it doesn't need one. (Me, I started watching the show six episodes in, became hooked, and am still watching it...although it could be that if I find it less predictable and/or disappointing than some of you, that's because half the show's still in the dark for me.) Has there been another TV show that had no title theme? - --Jeff Jeffrey Norman, Posemodernist University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Dept. of Mumblish & Competitive Obliterature http://www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:54:55 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Answers to many unasked questions On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Joseph M. Mallon wrote: > Carl Newman, re: the bras & panties thrown on stage during their show: > "Wow! Five pieces of underwear! That beats our old record...by 5!" So, what...does he look like Tom Jones? or were folks hoping, uh, mebbe Neko'd model 'em? (uh-oh - now I won't be able to get *any* work done...) - --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 ::"Shut up, you truculent lout, and let the cute little pixie sing!":: ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:57:26 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > tenets of his religion, nor does he claim (as many fundamentists do) that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I meant, of course, "fundamentalists" - but when that message came through, I realized I'd accidentally created my all-time favorite typo. - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::it's not your meat:: __Mr. Toad__ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:57:42 -0500 (EST) From: Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil > On Mon, 11 Mar 2002, Aaron Milenski wrote: > > > I never thought I'd side with JRT on any political argument, but Lieberman > > *does try to forbid the rest of us* from having freedom of choice about what > > we see on TV, at the movies, etc... His censorship policies are extremely > > dangerous and scare me to death. JeFF pretty much covered it, but: I agree with you, Aaron, that Lieberman's censorship views are troubling, but that has nothing to do with what we were talking about. And you most certainly have not agreed, in your statement above, with a position taken by J.R. or anybody else in that discussion. JS ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 18:11:29 -0800 (PST) From: mweber@library.berkeley.edu (Matthew Weber) Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil At 7:42 PM 3/11/2, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >Yes...but he does not ground those proposed policies specifically in the >tenets of his religion, nor does he claim (as many fundamentists do) that Fundamentists? What utter arse! sitting in for Rog this evening, Matt The anonymous writer, as a rule, ought to be ignored, since he is unwilling to face those he accuses, while he may be a sneak or coward, traitor or spy, in the role of a "staunch Socialist," whose base design it is to divide and disrupt the movement. Eugene V. Debs, _International Socialist Review_, January 1904 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:16:58 -0500 (EST) From: jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil OK. I'm sure everyone else on the list understands this by now, but I'll go through it one last time for your benefit. <> Yes, and two police groups, the Missouri Fraternal Order of Police and the Missouri Police Chiefs Association, did not oppose White's nomination, even after Ashcroft intensely lobbied them. So when Ashcroft testified that Missouri law enforcement was against him, that was *not true*. Progress! <<>> <> Yes. Ashcroft testified that White was "outside the mainstream" of the other Missouri judges. That was a lie, as the record clearly reflects. Read on. << Or when you said "Ashcroft also claimed that White was not supported by local law enforcement, but in fact he carried the endorsement of the local Fraternal Order of Police and other orgs"?>> Yes, there's that, too. <> Really? I think it's pretty good. But you (unsurprisingly) skirted the fact that gives you the most trouble, which is that out of 59 death penalty appeals, White approved 41, and in most of the other 18 he was in a majority with other conservatives. Five were unanimous. In only three did he write a lone dissent, but never did he oppose the death penalty per se. Nor did he oppose the capital sentence in the Johnson case. Yet, Ashcroft testified that White was "the most anti-death-penalty justice" in the state. In fact, there were several other justices with a higher rate of overturning capital sentences. So again, Ashcroft lied. But these aren't the AG's only lies before Congress. At his confirmation hearing he swore that Missouri "had been found guilty of no wrong" in a St. Louis desegregation case and that "both as attorney general and as governor" of the state he had followed "all" court orders in the matter, but the truth is that a federal judge found the state a "primary constitutional wrongdoer" and only finally forced Ashcroft to comply with court orders by threatening him with contempt charges. And it also appears he lied (or at best was extremely creepy) at the John Hormel hearings. <> ??????????????? <> The way you keep clutching at that straw I hate to break it to you, but nobody here said it wasn't a close election. (Check the archives! I said he got his ass kicked by a dead guy, but apparently you have no sense of humor. Lighten up, dude!) My point of course is that it spoke volumes of how fed up Missouri voters were with the guy that they elected his opponent's widow, a woman with absolutely zero political experience. The fact that Bush cruised in Missouri seems to underscore the point. But you KNEW that. Why? Because you're a BOT, invented by JEFF, designed to make conservative Christians look like IDIOTS! HA! Thought you could fool me, eh, Norman........? JS ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 21:35:54 -0500 (EST) From: Subject: [loud-fans] Ashcroft in SOUTHERN PARTISAN Ashcroft in SOUTHERN PARTISAN: "Your magazine also helps set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, of defending Southern patriots like Lee, Jackson and Davis. Traditionalists must do more. I've got to do more. We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda." I'm not up on my Civil War history, maybe Miles can help out here. How did these patriots come by their "sacred fortunes?" Well, I for one will rest easier tonight knowing our country's top law-enforcement official supports a publication holding these views: http://www.fair.org/press-releases/southern-partisan.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:17:16 -0500 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Answers to many unasked questions Dana, re: Scott's mental health: I wouldn't worry so much. We know very little about Scott's real life. Judging him based on ASK SCOTT is like judging Tom Cruise based on an Access Hollywood interview. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Next you're going to tell me that when Tom Cruise said his baseball bat was "in the closet" in A Few Good Men, it wasn't absolute proof that the rumors are true. God, you people can't accept the truth when it's staring you in the face!! [ : ) emoticon alert, just to be safe ] - --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/web/. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:27:47 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Ashcroft & Thomas make with the oil In a message dated 3/11/02 6:17:58 PM, jsharple@bls.brooklaw.edu writes: << OK. I'm sure everyone else on the list understands this by now, but I'll go through it one last time for your benefit. >> Is it time to recap? Well, here's what I've learned: John Sharples mindlessly perpetuates made-up quotes to make his points (although he never acknowledges when those quotes are proven wrong). John Sharples makes broad statements about local elections that he doesn't actually know anything about (although he never acknowledges when he's proven wrong). John Sharples likes to challenge people on their facts...but when the facts are easily backed up, he decides that those facts don't really matter anyway. You know, I love that this guy is in law school. I'd certainly want a weasel like him on my side in court. But here's my favorite part, this being Sharples' response to a mention of his weird habit of always asking me out at the end of these little bitchfests... << ??????????????? >> You know, it's a sad anniversary in our country, so let's lighten up by remembering one of the weirder by-products of recent tragedy--that being about five months ago, when Sharples went on this list and actually used the World Trade Center Massacre as an excuse to ask me to join him for some drinks. I know I wasn't the only Lister weirded out by that desperate maneuver. Anyway, John, the answer is still no, but I hope you've enjoyed the attention you've gotten from me over the past few days. ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #97 ******************************