From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #227 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 29 2002 Volume 02 : Number 227 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] everything on this album is on purpose [Janet Ingraham Dw] [loud-fans] John Entwistle 1944-2002 ["O Geier" ] Re: [loud-fans] John Entwistle 1944-2002 [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] convincing arguments - plus, a soupcon of Scottness! ["J] Re: [loud-fans] everything on this album is on purpose ["John Swartzentru] Re: [loud-fans] convincing arguments - plus, a contest! ["Aaron Milenski"] Re: [loud-fans] convincing arguments - plus, a contest! ["Aaron Milenski"] Re: [loud-fans] everything on this album is on purpose [Jeffrey with 2 Fs] Re: [loud-fans] lowest home mortgage rate [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] convincing arguments - plus, a contest! [LeftyZ@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] convincing arguments - plus, a contest! ["glenn mcdonald"] Re: [loud-fans] New Jersey [Michael Mitton ] Re: [loud-fans] New Jersey [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] [loud-fans] FRTR cover art/title [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] everything on this album is on purpose At 11:05 PM 06/27/2002 -0500, Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >Oh yeah: who are the other two women on the cover? (I recognize the one >with the bloody dagger, of course...) It's not blood; it's Merlot. Or maybe it's Kool-Aid. Welcome back, Michele! It's SO good to see your words here again. And Mark, welcome, and may it not be such a bumpy ride anymore. You need _Friends of the Family_. Everyone does. I pity the fool who doesn't. janet ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:20:50 +0000 From: "O Geier" Subject: [loud-fans] John Entwistle 1944-2002 This is really really sad. The Who were set to open their tour tonight in Las Vegas. Support anti-Spam legislation. Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:27:42 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] John Entwistle 1944-2002 In a message dated 6/28/02 5:21:21 AM, ocgiii@hotmail.com writes: << This is really really sad. The Who were set to open their tour tonight in Las Vegas. >> Oh, that kind of thing hasn't been sad since Johnny Rivers made the Vegas Strip a real rock 'n roll showcase back in...oh, wait. Maybe you mean something else. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:31:08 -0400 From: "John Swartzentruber" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] convincing arguments - plus, a soupcon of Scottness! On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 21:54:10 -0500 (CDT), Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >"The Christian groups"? Certainly not all "Christian groups" believe the >same thing, with regard to the Pledge or anything else. I really do wish >people would stop lumping all Christians together. Oops. I must have left out "real" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:33:25 -0400 From: "John Swartzentruber" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] everything on this album is on purpose On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:05:58 -0500 (CDT), Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >Oh yeah: who are the other two women on the cover? (I recognize the one >with the bloody dagger, of course...) Wasn't she on the cover of People magazine a few years ago? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:01:50 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] convincing arguments - plus, a contest! >From: LeftyZ@aol.com >To: glenn@furia.com >CC: loud-fans@smoe.org >Subject: Re: [loud-fans] convincing arguments - plus, a contest! >Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 22:40:34 EDT > >In a message dated 6/27/02 12:08:24 PM, glenn@furia.com writes: > ><< I agree that this is an issue it wasn't at all pressing > >to raise, but now that it's come up I'm grateful for the opportunity to > >identify which members of Congress are constituency-pandering idiots. Just > >as I suspected: All of them! >> > >That was some shameful display. > >The whole thing made me wonder again if there has ever been an admitted >atheist in Congress. > How about Bernie Sanders? Wasn't it the Senate that did this? If it was the House, I'd be shocked if Bernie joined in. _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:00:28 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] convincing arguments - plus, a contest! >>This helps explains why so many liberals, including myself, switched over >>to Nader after Gore chose Lieberman, who I find as dangerous on the >>"family values" issue as Dan Quayle, running mate. > > >The only problem is that you missed your foot and hit the rest of us in the >ass. One might argue that the Democrats kicked themselves in the ass... _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:47:58 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] everything on this album is on purpose On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, John Swartzentruber wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 23:05:58 -0500 (CDT), Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey > wrote: > > >Oh yeah: who are the other two women on the cover? (I recognize the one > >with the bloody dagger, of course...) > > Wasn't she on the cover of People magazine a few years ago? > I think it was _Entertainment Weekly_, actually. Kristine looks quite different with her hair done that way! - --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 ::a squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous...got me? __Captain Beefheart__ np: Steely Dan _Citizen Steely Dan_ disc 3 (at this point _Countdown to Ecstasy_) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:52:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] lowest home mortgage rate On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Roger Winston wrote: > I don't think Mark Staples ever purchased one, but I'm sure it would make a > great gift for him! (Hint, hint.) Nothing says Lovin' like somethin' from > the Coven! "lovin'" doesn't rhyme with "coven," does it? - --Mark Borchardt ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:52:44 -0400 From: "John Swartzentruber" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] everything on this album is on purpose On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:47:58 -0500 (CDT), Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >I think it was _Entertainment Weekly_, actually. D'oh! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 09:54:49 -0400 From: "John Swartzentruber" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] everything on this album is on purpose On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 08:47:58 -0500 (CDT), Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: >Kristine looks quite different with her hair done that way! So what I want to know is if that is Kenny on the back cover. He looks quite different with his hair that way as well. Well, not "that" way as in the way Kristine's hair is. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:06:25 -0400 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: [loud-fans] New Jersey Can anyone recommend some good record stores in New Jersey? I'm interested in places that sell lots of used vinyl. Thanks, Aaron _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 11:22:40 EDT From: LeftyZ@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] convincing arguments - plus, a contest! I wrote: The whole thing made me wonder again if there has ever been an admitted >atheist in Congress. In a message dated 6/28/02 6:02:35 AM, amilenski@hotmail.com writes: <> Think I read this morning that three house members voted against the resolution. Brave indeed.... Left ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:07:03 -0400 From: "glenn mcdonald" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] convincing arguments - plus, a contest! > Think I read this morning that three house members voted against the > resolution. The Senate's two resolutions on Wednesday and Thursday went 99-0, with Helms absent. The House's protest went 416-3, with the three being Bobby Scott (D-Virginia), Pete Stark (D-California) and Michael Honda (D-California). Scott was quoted as clarifying that he just wanted the thing left to the courts. Dunno what Stark and Honda felt. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:08:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] New Jersey On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, Aaron Milenski wrote: > Can anyone recommend some good record stores in New Jersey? I'm interested > in places that sell lots of used vinyl. Thanks, Princeton Record Exchange! which is one of about two things I miss from living in New Jersey, and I think there are a couple people on this list who might agree. I never looked through the vinyl myself, that not being my thing, but they did have lots the last time I was there. The link: http://www.prex.com Directions available upon request, - --Michael ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:25:03 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] New Jersey Michael Mitton wrote: > > Princeton Record Exchange! which is one of about two things I miss from > living in New Jersey, and I think there are a couple people on this list > who might agree. Amen! (wait, that sounds religious). Is the other thing WPRB, by any chance? There also used to be a really good used record store in New Hope, PA, just across the Delaware River, but it's probably not there anymore, and I can't even remember the name of it. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:36:37 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] New Jersey On Fri, 28 Jun 2002, jenny grover wrote: > Amen! (wait, that sounds religious). It's okay - you're not posting from a government address. Me, on the other hand, posting from a state-school .edu... - --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 ::Solipsism is its own reward:: __Crow T. Robot__ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 14:47:03 -0500 (CDT) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] FRTR cover art/title Okay (just in time), what's the secret Rosicrucian/Satanic meaning of the title and cover art of that new live CD by that act named after the '70s PBS series? It sounds vaguely Girardian to me...necessarily "vaguely," since I'm still a Bad Stalker Fan who hasn't yet read every last word Scott's recommended. I'm also reminded (because last semester I was teaching Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" in conjunction with excerpts from John Berger's _Ways of Seeing_) of the transformation of the role of art - which actually can be pretty well summarized in the CD's title phrase. Art was once specifically located in time and space, unique, anonymous, and efficacious regardless of who saw it, whether anyone did, or of anyone's opinion thereof (ritual); whereas in a line increasing in amplitude from the Renaissance onward, it became progressively placeless and timeless, reproducible, tied to the aura of the artist, and subject to critics' and fans' evaluations, the Artist becoming perhaps the quintessentially Romantic figure. There's another way to take it: you might perform ritual not at anyone else's say-so but solely because it's necessary for you, unbeholden to any external motivation. But romance (with a small "r" this time) is intrinsically social: you're seeking someone else's approval, in essence, and in some ways this necessitates a species of insincerity and inauthenticity ("I'll have a cousin who grew up in the same town as you"). Which makes the title another entry in the long-running series of Dana's favorite "Ask Scott" questions...the only true, sincere art being silence and disappearance. No clues re the cover, though...the flat, forced perspective reminds me of 2SFTMA, and the cropping off of heads in conjunction with the red-bladed dagger is a slightly macabre touch... - --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 ::I feel that all movies should have things that happen in them:: __TV's Frank__ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 13:39:54 -0700 From: Steve Holtebeck Subject: Re: [loud-fans] FRTR cover art/title Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > Okay (just in time), what's the secret Rosicrucian/Satanic meaning of the > title and cover art of that new live CD by that act named after the '70s > PBS series? There is a 1920 book by J.L. Weston called FROM RITUAL TO ROMANCE. I don't know if that has anything to do with anything, but it was cited by T.S. Eliot as a source for The Waste Land. Excerpts from RITUAL TO ROMANCE (it's in the public domain now) can be found at http://camelot.celtic-twilight.com/weston/ the internet is full of information, Steve ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:58:54 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] convincing arguments - plus, a contest! On Friday, June 28, 2002, at 01:13 AM, Matthew Weber wrote: > Al Gore botched his own campaign. Blaming Nader, or those who voted > for him, doesn't relieve him of one iota of responsibility. I would point out that Gore got the second highest vote total ever, even though Bill Clinton's blow jobs from a fat girl probably cost him 3 to 5 percentage points. Yeah, Gore is a stiff, and the media pounded the shit out of him for every little mistake, while mostly failing to point out that Bush is a hollow man. In an election as close as 2000 every little negative turns out to be huge, but I think people who say that Gore botched his own campaign are probably deeply cocooned in a blue state and fundamentally misunderstand the American voting public. I've got nothing negative to say about Nader voters who would never vote for anybody other than Ralph. But if there were 1000 Nader voters in Florida who usually would have voted Democratic, then I'd say they fucked up big time. I'm sure they're happy with the 5 percent (maybe) of the Bush administration decisions that they agree with. I would also point out that Lieberman is currently a free agent, rather than in a position that has no real power. Interesting how Scott's vocals are mixed so forward on FRTR. - - Steve __________ "The logic of missile defense is to make the stakes of power projection compatible with the risks of power projection," says Keith B. Payne, a deterrence theory expert and an ardent supporter of missile defense. - Bill Keler, NYT ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 18:21:57 -0700 From: Matthew Weber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] convincing arguments - plus, a contest! At 7:58 PM -0500 6/28/02, steve wrote: >On Friday, June 28, 2002, at 01:13 AM, Matthew Weber wrote: > >>Al Gore botched his own campaign. Blaming Nader, or those who >>voted for him, doesn't relieve him of one iota of responsibility. > >I would point out that Gore got the second highest vote total ever, >even though Bill Clinton's blow jobs from a fat girl probably cost >him 3 to 5 percentage points. Yeah, Gore is a stiff, and the media >pounded the shit out of him for every little mistake, while mostly >failing to point out that Bush is a hollow man. For one thing, it seemed to me that Gore kept the kid gloves on during the whole campaign. If anyone was in a position to expose Bush's hollowness, it was he, but he never went for the jugular (despite the Republicans' willingness to fight dirty). This seems to me an inexcusable tactical error. The media's love affair with W is another one of those things I'll never understand, but I guess he does photograph well. >In an election as close as 2000 every little negative turns out to >be huge, but I think people who say that Gore botched his own >campaign are probably deeply cocooned in a blue state and >fundamentally misunderstand the American voting public. Gore hasn't a strong presence (nothing to be done about that now), nor did he have a compelling platform: vague gestures toward environmentalism, moderate stances on nearly everything, designed no doubt to pull in as many swing votes as possible. And he refused to have Clinton stump for him, probably to avoid alienating swing voters. I can't say that I've made an exhaustive study of the election, but it appears to me as though in his eagerness to be all things to all people he neglected the left wing of the Democratic party to the extent that a number of lefty Democrats decided to pass on him and vote Green. (It probably wouldn't have taken much--just an environmental policy with some teeth, or a commitment to social welfare programs would have done him a world of good with the left) >I've got nothing negative to say about Nader voters who would never >vote for anybody other than Ralph. But if there were 1000 Nader >voters in Florida who usually would have voted Democratic, then I'd >say they fucked up big time. I'm sure they're happy with the 5 >percent (maybe) of the Bush administration decisions that they agree >with. Again, I think it's a question of disaffection, and probably an attempt to send a message to the DLC (who of course won't receive or understand it--they'll continue their efforts to make the Democratic party into a centrist Republican group). I voted for Nader because, for the most part, he represented my views and my wishes--not because he seemed more dynamic, or a "better leader" (whatever the fuck that is--are we electing presidents or kings in this country?). >I would also point out that Lieberman is currently a free agent, >rather than in a position that has no real power. The position holding no real power being the Vice-Presidency, right? As far as I'm concerned, both major Veep choices were pretty horrifying; I'll pray just as hard for the well-being of GWB as I would for that of Al Gore if he'd been elected! > > > > >Interesting how Scott's vocals are mixed so forward on FRTR. FRTR kicks ass, by the way. Knowing that I'm one of those tipsy louts in the background yelling "whooooooo!" after the songs recorded at the BotH adds an extra dimension for me. :) Matt It must be so--Plato, thou reason'st well!-- Else whence this pleasing hope, this fond desire, This longing after immortality? Or whence this secret dread, and inward horror, Of falling into naught? Why shrinks the soul Back on herself, and startles at destruction? 'Tis the divinity that stirs within us; 'Tis heaven itself, that points out an hereafter, And intimates eternity to man. Eternity! thou pleasing, dreadful thought! Joseph Addison (1672-1719), Cato, V.i.1 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 21:39:16 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] convincing arguments - plus, a contest! steve wrote: > > Yeah, Gore is a stiff, and the media pounded the > shit out of him for every little mistake, while mostly failing to point > out that Bush is a hollow man. Would that politicians were as interesting and enjoyable as the Stiffs and the Hollowmen, but they're more like Bush. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 21:51:27 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] convincing arguments - plus, a contest! In a message dated 6/28/02 5:59:42 PM, steveschiavo@mac.com writes: << I would point out that Gore got the second highest vote total ever, even though Bill Clinton's blow jobs from a fat girl probably cost him 3 to 5 percentage points. >> Of course, many of us were just bothered by the perjury Clinton committed to cover up his actions in a sexual-harassment suit. If we give certain Nader voters credit for being old-fashioned feminists, then the scandal could have cost Gore as much as 10 percentage points. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:56:27 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] convincing arguments - plus, a contest! People! Please! Whenever I see liberals fighting amongst themselves on this List, it makes me want to join the Libertarian Party! Oh, how I weep. Can't we all just get along? Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 22:40:30 -0700 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] convincing arguments(?) - plus (no, really) a contest! >People! Please! Whenever I see liberals fighting amongst themselves on >this List, it makes me want to join the Libertarian Party! Oh, how I >weep. Can't we all just get along? Well I wouldn't go that far, but I find it odd how this bandwidth's buzzing much louder from rehashed election yadda (thank you Brian Block) than, say, the death of a founding member of one of the greatest rock bands ever. The tour's back on, I see. No word on the bass player though. Flea, Paul Cook, or James William Guerico--cast your vote now! Anyone wanna say which Scottfave gets covered by Bowie on HEATHEN, or should I just spill the beans, Andy Hannibal Pledge Allegiance to the darn flag of the United States of the darn LA Underground and to that darn Republic for which it stands, one Nation under The Almighty T, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Don't touch my van, sucka! (you figure it out) ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #227 *******************************