From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #396 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 Thursday, November 14 2002 Volume 02 : Number 396 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Whole lotta namedropping going on [Dave Walker ] Re: [loud-fans] Whole lotta namedropping going on [JRT456@aol.com] [loud-fans] Short List (ns) [dana-boy@juno.com] Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Now RR [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries [John Sharples ] Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Now RR [Tim_Pintsch ] Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Now RR [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries [John Sharples ] [loud-fans] All we are saying... [Tim_Pintsch ] Re: [loud-fans] All we are saying... ["Aaron Milenski" ] [loud-fans] shameless self-promotion [jenny grover Subject: [loud-fans] Whole lotta namedropping going on http://www.shortlistofmusic.com/articles/read_article.asp?articleID=19 > "Established about a year ago, The Shortlist is an attempt to draw > attention to bands whose sales haven't been astonishing (less than > 500,000 sold), but whose music frequently is." rantor writes, "The 49 > nominees on the Longlist were edited down to the ten on the Shortlist > by listmakers including Beck, Baz Luhrman, Mos Def, Spike Jonze, and > other people cooler than me, and now, from that list (which included > such "indie"-types as Bjork and The Hives), a winner has been chosen: > N.E.R.D. Perhaps slightly better known as the production duo The > Neptunes, they have produced songs by Jay-Z, the Backstreet Boys, > Britney, your mother, etc. Their rock/rap fusion album In Search of... > garnered some good reviews and emerged as a clear winner (unlike last > year's apparently contentious choice of the ambient Sigur Ros)." found via: http://www.plastic.com/article.html?sid=02/11/12/19450497 Maybe I just read too much music journalism, but the main thing that struck me is how NOT obscure most of the stuff on their list is. I've read published reviews of most of this stuff already. -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:06:03 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Whole lotta namedropping going on On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Dave Walker wrote: > > attention to bands whose sales haven't been astonishing (less than > > 500,000 sold), but whose music frequently is." rantor writes, "The 49 > > nominees on the Longlist were edited down to the ten on the Shortlist > > by listmakers including Beck, Baz Luhrman, Mos Def, Spike Jonze, and > Maybe I just read too much music journalism, but the main thing > that struck me is how NOT obscure most of the stuff on > their list is. I've read published reviews of most of this stuff > already. The thing that struck me as fundamentally misbegotten about this from the get-go is that in order to be one of the longlist nominees, your music has to reach the appropriate (industry) tastemakers. Also, I don't wanna be unduly cyncial, but less than 500,000 is an interesting cut-off point -- it's about where the label starts to turn a profit on a moderately big-budget release. I'm sure (I hope!) the Hives record was much cheaper, but one way to look at this list would be as albums that have just about broken even or turned a slight profit for their label. At that point the label may be unlikely to drop the artist, but eager for something to give the record a renewed push and make it clear monetary winner. Anybody know what the New Pornographers record sold? 30K? 40K? (I'm just guessing blindly, maybe it did much better -- I can't afford to buy Soundscan data.) I have a feeling I'd be much more interested in a shortlist of really good stuff that sold under 50K -- but the majors aren't gonna be gearing up a whole lotta promo behind most records that do that poorly. - -- d. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:34:37 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Whole lotta namedropping going on The Shortlist is a joke in all kinds of ways, including how their idea of struggling acts have all received tons of adoring press. The organizers also talk about how they model the Shortlist on the U.K. Mercury Awards, which last year honored long-struggling underground artist David Bowie. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:05:12 GMT From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: [loud-fans] Short List (ns) Looking at the "Long List" there are a few things that seem somewhat interesting. I'm happy to see that Kim Gordon nominated Mary Timony, and I'm really wondering about Iggy Pop's choice of Death By Chocolate. Despite the talk of a 500,000 cutoff point, I'm guessing that both of the above acts sell a whole, whole, whole lot less than that, so I'm not sure that the enterprise is entirely worthless: anything that gives Mary T. more attention/sales is ok by me. It's too bad that the Clinic are getting so much publicity for what's by far their worst album, though. And where the hell is Enon? On a different topic, has anyone (I'm sure Stewart has) gotten the newish Stereolab comp? I can't imagine it not being good, but one never knows. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:22:32 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Now RR In a message dated 11/12/02 11:20:55 PM, steveschiavo@mac.com writes: << But when do you part company with your fellow travelers? After they get their two new Justices to overturn Roe but before they can begin to attack birth control? >> It's not difficult to find people on the left who are in favor of overturning Roe...and I'm not just referring to anti-abortion feminists. In that same spirit, there's strong right-wing support for the notion that Roe should remain intact, because Supreme Court decisions must remain above political pressure. Otherwise, their decisions could eventually become as corrupt and meaningless as opinions tendered by the Supreme Court of Florida or the Supreme Court of New Jersey. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:56:27 -0500 From: John Sharples Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries Quoting JRT456@aol.com: (But you folks on the left > might want to keep it to yourself when you complain about how the welfare > system has been a real problem for black people. Here's a clue: It's not just > black people on welfare.) The statement "welfare has been bad for blacks" in no way suggests that the speaker believes that "only blacks are on welfare." But then, principled reasoning has never been your strong suit. JS - ------------------------------- This mail sent through Brooklyn Law School WebMail http://www.brooklaw.edu/webmail - ------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:14:27 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries In a message dated 11/13/02 8:01:59 AM, jsharple@brooklaw.edu writes: << The statement "welfare has been bad for blacks" in no way suggests that the speaker believes that "only blacks are on welfare." But then, principled reasoning has never been your strong suit. >> Oh, relax, you big thilly. I just found it funny that you offended one of the more liberal members on this list with your unnecessarily assumptive statement. Of course, that was a conversation had off-list....but don't go getting all jealous that some people here actually get responses from me to their off-list e-mails. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:22:31 -0500 From: John Sharples Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Now RR Quoting JRT456@aol.com: > It's not difficult to find people on the left who are in favor of overturning > Roe... Well, I'm sure you could find *some*, it's a real big thing, "the left." But reproductive freedom has overwhelmingly broad support on the left. What's your point? >In that same > spirit, there's strong right-wing support for the notion that Roe should > remain intact, because Supreme Court decisions must remain above political > pressure. Dude, do you type this stuff with a straight face? The Bush administration is right now trying to pack the federal judiciary with right-wing judicial activists. I'm sure you've heard of Owen and Pickering, but they're just the tip. Soon-to-be Chief Justice Scalia went absolutely ballistic in his scathing dissent in CASEY (ROE *has* been partially overturned, by the way), and said the whole thing should be thrown out and returned to the states. This doesn't sound to me like "strong right-wing support for ROE." JS - ------------------------------- This mail sent through Brooklyn Law School WebMail http://www.brooklaw.edu/webmail - ------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:33:17 -0600 (CST) From: Tim_Pintsch Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Now RR A not so intelligent non-punk once said... "Can't we all just get along?" tim On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, John Sharples wrote: > Quoting JRT456@aol.com: > > > It's not difficult to find people on the left who are in favor of overturning > > Roe... > > Well, I'm sure you could find *some*, it's a real big thing, "the left." But > reproductive freedom has overwhelmingly broad support on the left. What's your > point? > > >In that same > > spirit, there's strong right-wing support for the notion that Roe should > > remain intact, because Supreme Court decisions must remain above political > > pressure. > > Dude, do you type this stuff with a straight face? The Bush administration is > right now trying to pack the federal judiciary with right-wing judicial > activists. I'm sure you've heard of Owen and Pickering, but they're just the > tip. > > Soon-to-be Chief Justice Scalia went absolutely ballistic in his scathing > dissent in CASEY (ROE *has* been partially overturned, by the way), and said > the whole thing should be thrown out and returned to the states. > > This doesn't sound to me like "strong right-wing support for ROE." > > JS > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > This mail sent through > Brooklyn Law School WebMail > http://www.brooklaw.edu/webmail > ------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:38:28 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Now RR In a message dated 11/13/02 8:28:14 AM, jsharple@brooklaw.edu writes: << Well, I'm sure you could find *some*, it's a real big thing, "the left." But reproductive freedom has overwhelmingly broad support on the left. What's your point? >> Yes, voices of the left against Roe are buried away in obscure underground journals like...um, Slate. I've been away for five days, deleted several posts, and I can still do a better job of keeping track of the conversations here. We were discussing the vagaries of making a commitment to either the right or the left, implicit within the left and the right both being "real big things." We all know you're screaming for attention from me, John, but it's only polite to your fellow Listers to try and follow a thread's topic. <> Again, the topic was the vagaries of defining beliefs as to the right and the left. Real big things, get it? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:36:45 -0500 From: John Sharples Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries Quoting JRT456@aol.com: Of course, that was a conversation had off-list....but don't go > getting all jealous that some people here actually get responses from me to > their off-list e-mails. *Huh*? Dude, seriously, have you gone off your meds or something? I honestly have no idea what the hell you're on about. You and I have had plenty of lengthy off-list exchanges, in fact I remember one where you kept pestering me and I had ask you to please drop it. Do you deny any of this? - ------------------------------- This mail sent through Brooklyn Law School WebMail http://www.brooklaw.edu/webmail - ------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:46:21 -0700 From: Tom Marcinko Subject: [loud-fans] Songs about child birth Somebody's probably already mentioned: "I Want to Pick You Up" by the Beach Boys, covered by Alex Chilton on CAROLINE NOW! "Holly up on Poppy" by XTC, for those toddler years. - --Tom - -- ___________________________ Tom Marcinko mailto:tomaq@mindspring.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:48:12 -0600 (CST) From: Tim_Pintsch Subject: [loud-fans] All we are saying... is give peace a chance... I mean we are all friends here, we all love Scott and his music, we all have a common bond, can't we just agree to disagree on some things? Lets cease hostilities and have some fun... Be well, tim ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:50:53 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] All we are saying... >I mean we are all friends here, we all love Scott and his music, we all >have a common bond, can't we just agree to disagree on some things? Lets >cease hostilities and have some fun... I think this is how Taylor and Sharples have their fun. _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:57:47 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries In a message dated 11/13/02 8:42:06 AM, jsharple@brooklaw.edu writes: << You and I have had plenty of lengthy off-list exchanges, in fact I remember one where you kept pestering me and I had ask you to please drop it. Do you deny any of this? >> Yes, and I deny it on-list...embarrassing as it to have to indulge my favorite cyberstalker. To the best of my recollection, I've sent John exactly one off-list note since mid-2000. That was early this year, when I returned from a vacation in New Orleans to find John had sent me more off-list e-mails carrying on about John Ashcroft giving an interview to that racist "Southern Partisan" magazine. I informed John that I had just met a Buffalo Soldier recreationist who thought "Southern Partisan" was a perfectly fine publication. I don't know what John's response was to that. I deleted his three off-list e-mails that followed. And what happened in mid-2000 that get me started in deleting John's off-list e-mails? Some of you have already heard this story (or were forwarded the original e-mail): John sent me an off-list e-mail (which was already fairly common) in which he announced that my opinions on the LoudList could no longer be taken seriously, due to my rampant "insincerity." He also added that my recent columns in NY Press were also marred by that same insincerity. Sadly, Sharples was unaware that I hadn't written a column for NY Press since signing my Playboy contract five months earlier. That was when I realized that Sharples need to debate me has nothing to do with politics. In fact, it has nothing to do with events on Planet Earth. My apologies for Listers who have to tolerate it. I hope some here find it to be kind of fun. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 12:24:10 -0500 From: John Sharples Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries Quoting JRT456@aol.com: > << You and I have had plenty of lengthy off-list exchanges, in fact I > remember one > where you kept pestering me and I had ask you to please drop it. > Do you deny any of this? > > Yes, and I deny it on-list. Oh. Well, I still have some of them. Anyway, the whole list knows you're lying because half of your responses to my off-list mail somehow ends up back on the list. >To the best of my recollection, I've sent John exactly > one off-list note since mid-2000. Oh. So before then doesn't count. Still, I can't understand the basis for your constant assertions that I'm jealous I don't get off-list mail from you. I think you're desperate for some ad hominem material, frankly. > He also added > that my recent columns in NY Press were also marred by that same insincerity. > Sadly, Sharples was unaware that I hadn't written a column for NY Press since > signing my Playboy contract five months earlier. Well, of course I wasn't aware. I had stopped reading your column! Also, I don't think I called them "insincere." I think I said "unsophisticated political analysis." Take it off-list if you want to respond, okay pal? I felt I had to make this on-list assertion that your recent personal attacks on me were baseless. JS - ------------------------------- This mail sent through Brooklyn Law School WebMail http://www.brooklaw.edu/webmail - ------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:57:52 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Ignorance is Strength: Big Brother in Libraries In a message dated 11/13/02 9:28:00 AM, jsharple@brooklaw.edu writes: << Take it off-list if you want to respond, okay pal? I felt I had to make this on-list assertion that your recent personal attacks on me were baseless. >> Well, there you have it, folks. There's nothing weird about two-and-a-half years of getting e-mails from a person to whom you've only responded once (and partly to explain that you've only been deleting his e-mails). And, of course, it's perfectly normal for a person to repeatedly send e-mails (even three in one day) to a guy who's already announced that he'll continue a tradition of deleting off-list e-mails. But don't worry, fight fans. We'll be having another political debate soon enough, and the thread will suddenly feature either a sudden fit of name-calling or an obviously stupid statement later explained as somebody's desire to "play" with me. Then I (and, sadly, you) will once again be in SharplesWorld. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to delete a newly-arrived off-list e-mail that's marked "No Subject" and comes from "jsharple@brooklaw.edu." But that's surely just some innocent note from, perhaps, Julia Sharple, who's never even heard of the LoudList. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:52:49 -0500 From: John Sharples Subject: [loud-fans] Scalia's dissent in CASEY I've had a few off-list requests for this: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZX4.html It's a pretty stunning piece of rhetoric. I think the guy's wrong most of the time, but I never said he couldn't argue. JS - ------------------------------- This mail sent through Brooklyn Law School WebMail http://www.brooklaw.edu/webmail - ------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:33:06 -0700 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Scalia's dissent in CASEY John Sharples on 11/13/2002 12:52:49 PM wrote: > I've had a few off-list requests for this: > > http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZX4.html > > It's a pretty stunning piece of rhetoric. I think the guy's wrong most of the > time, but I never said he couldn't argue. What does this have to do with Buffy or Grand Theft Auto? Latre. --Rog P.S. Personally, I'm enjoying the on-list Sharples/JRT exchanges. But it's in a bemused soap opera-ish when-will-they-realize-their-mutual-antagonism-is-really-attraction? kinda way. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:54:39 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Scalia's dissent in CASEY At 01:33 PM 11/13/2002 -0700, Roger Winston wrote: >John Sharples on 11/13/2002 12:52:49 PM wrote: > >> I've had a few off-list requests for this: >> >> http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZX4.html >> >> It's a pretty stunning piece of rhetoric. I think the guy's wrong most of >the >> time, but I never said he couldn't argue. > >What does this have to do with Buffy or Grand Theft Auto? You haven't gotten to the GTA:VC mission where Edward James Olmos visits you from the future, charging you with hunting down Justice Rehnquist (who's conveniently visiting Vice City not only for a little sun but to consult with Versace on the Big R's new robe design) and driving a stake through his heart to keep him from becoming Chief Justice, have you? later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:04:51 -0600 (CST) From: Tim_Pintsch Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Scalia's dissent in CASEY Miles, you are a sick, sick man... but... "It's my happening baby, and it freaks me out!" Be well, tim On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Miles Goosens wrote: > At 01:33 PM 11/13/2002 -0700, Roger Winston wrote: > >John Sharples on 11/13/2002 12:52:49 PM wrote: > > > >> I've had a few off-list requests for this: > >> > >> http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZX4.html > >> > >> It's a pretty stunning piece of rhetoric. I think the guy's wrong most of > >the > >> time, but I never said he couldn't argue. > > > >What does this have to do with Buffy or Grand Theft Auto? > > You haven't gotten to the GTA:VC mission where Edward James Olmos visits > you from the future, charging you with hunting down Justice Rehnquist > (who's conveniently visiting Vice City not only for a little sun but to > consult with Versace on the Big R's new robe design) and driving a stake > through his heart to keep him from becoming Chief Justice, have you? > > later, > > Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:45:44 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Scalia's dissent in CASEY In a message dated 11/13/02 12:34:13 PM, rwinston@tde.com writes: << P.S. Personally, I'm enjoying the on-list Sharples/JRT exchanges. But it's in a bemused soap opera-ish when-will-they-realize-their-mutual-antagonism-is-really-attraction? kinda way. >> Ya bastard. However, for those enjoying all this, I just got a good idea that I'm going to pretend was mine: I meant to do a screen print-out of Sharple's latest unopened e-mail, so I didn't delete it after sending off that last posting. (In this age of frivolous lawsuits, it seemed like a good idea to start a Sharples File a few years ago.) My procrastination is now your gain,with this exciting offer to READ JOHN SHARPLES' OFF-LIST E-MAIL! That's right, folks! You haven't seen this kind of suspense since Geraldo outside of Al Capone's vault! What is in this mysterious parcel marked "No Subject"? Will it be one of Sharples' scary supervillain rants? Perhaps a cryptic snide comment? Another offer of drinks with a reminder that he looks like George Clooney? Maybe even a surprising moment of reasonableness? Or, most terrifying of all, WILL IT BE ONE OF SHARPLES' CHUMMY "LET'S-BE-FRIENDS" EXPRESSIONS OF GOODWILL? (Note: I am not responsible for any psychological damage done by Sharples' chummy "let's-be-friends" expressions of goodwill.) WHAT WILL BE INSIDE THIS MYSTERIOUS E-MAIL? I never know! And usually never bother to find out! But I'll now open this Pandora's box and forward it to the first lucky 10 people who contact me off-list! Yes, there are only 10 opportunities to join in on this exciting adventure....and one of those seats is already filled! Don't delay! Act now! And, um....Sandinista! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 22:01:14 GMT From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: Re:Re: [loud-fans] Scalia's dissent in CASEY That's right, folks! You haven't seen this kind of suspense since Geraldo outside of Al Capone's vault! What is in this mysterious parcel marked "No Subject"? Will it be one of Sharples' scary supervillain rants? Perhaps a cryptic snide comment? Another offer of drinks with a reminder that he looks like George Clooney? >>>>>>>>> It is true, though, that he does look like George Clooney... ...not that I've read any of the recent posts, as I'm now filtering everything that doesn't contain the words "foxy redhead." And I'm still not sure I want to risk my $ on Nakkidnerds when so many of their links don't work. Hmmmm. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:10:34 -0700 From: "Roger Winston" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Scalia's dissent in CASEY JRT456@aol.com on 11/13/2002 2:45:44 PM wrote: > My procrastination is now your > gain,with this exciting offer to READ JOHN SHARPLES' OFF-LIST E-MAIL! Hey, that's just plain evil. Play nice. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:19:08 -0500 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Scalia's dissent in CASEY On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 03:33 PM, Roger Winston wrote: > What does this have to do with Buffy or Grand Theft Auto? Speaking of GTA:VC (acronyms are The New English), I'm still loving the radio stations. One of the things that struck me (listening to _Emotion_, the, er... power ballad station, was how completely bizarre the production on REO Speedwagon's "Keep On Loving You" is. It's completely weird in an airless, not-touched-by-human-hands way. Nothing in the song sounds like it was produced by anything like an actual guitar or drum kit; it's this gauzy, alien, infinitely chorused reverbing sound that's every bit as synthetic as, say, Kraftwerk. And people ate it up. -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:42:38 -0500 From: John Sharples Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Scalia's dissent in CASEY Quoting Roger Winston : > Hey, that's just plain evil. Play nice. Sorry, Rog, it's my fault. What's this, like four posts from him today, each more shrill and hysterical than the last, ranting and raving like I'm the anti- Christ? (And he says *I'm* obssessed!) I always forget, I think he'll be able to handle it, but then it usually ends with him in an emotional meltdown like this, doesn't it? I shouldn't pick on him, I know. JS - ------------------------------- This mail sent through Brooklyn Law School WebMail http://www.brooklaw.edu/webmail - ------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 20:16:25 -0500 From: "David Seldin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fun for ages 7-10 loud family is about to be put back into the public television fish bowl loud family is capable of playing quiet loud family is some of loud family is big star loud family is arcane loud family is at it again loud family is the aftermath loud family is no doubt the inspiration for edtv loud family is currently in progress loud family is immeasurable loud family is gonna be playing in just loud family is a great band that features ex loud family is interesting from a psychological point of view loud family is the shit loud family is not high on loud family is between albums loud family is my favorite american rock band of the nineties loud family is heavily influenced by game theory loud family is rising out of the defunct band's ashes loud family is the greatest living songwriter loud family is either average or typical loud family is for loud family is no more or less passive than a living substance vis loud family is indescribable loud family is the equivalent of preferring til tuesday to aimee mann's loud family is the one who made this comparison loud family is mostly the brainchild of scott miller loud family is genius loud family is pretty good too loud family is an outstanding rock band - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Murtland" To: Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 1:48 AM Subject: [loud-fans] fun for ages 7-10 > www.googlism.com > > A site that lets you input data into a form field (of type text), submit the form, and view results based on your input. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 19:38:12 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Scalia's dissent in CASEY Quoting JRT456@aol.com: > That's right, folks! You haven't seen this kind of suspense since Geraldo > outside of Al Capone's vault! What is in this mysterious parcel marked "No > Subject"? Will it be one of Sharples' scary supervillain rants? Perhaps a > cryptic snide comment? Another offer of drinks with a reminder that he looks > like George Clooney? Maybe even a surprising moment of reasonableness? Or, > most terrifying of all, WILL IT BE ONE OF SHARPLES' CHUMMY "LET'S-BE-FRIENDS" > EXPRESSIONS OF GOODWILL? (Note: I am not responsible for any psychological > damage done by Sharples' chummy "let's-be-friends" expressions of goodwill.) > WHAT WILL BE INSIDE THIS MYSTERIOUS E-MAIL? I never know! And usually never > bother to find out! But I'll now open this Pandora's box and forward it to > the first lucky 10 people who contact me off-list! Yes, there are only 10 > opportunities to join in on this exciting adventure....and one of those seats > is already filled! Don't delay! Act now! And, um....Sandinista! I apologize, folks: I attempted to reprogram the JRT2000 bot by adjusting its parameters in hopes of reducing its go-for-the-throat paranoia, but I inadvertently jiggered the "cheery madcap scenario" setting way too high - resulting in this bizarrely uncharacteristic post. Almost sounds as if he's in a good mood, doesn't it. Love will do that to a man - or to a bot. Oh, and about that REO Speedwagon track: Dave is correct; that's a very weird sound. And Kevin Cronin is neck and neck with Mark E. Smith in the Superfluous Final Vowel Sound competition. (Both, however, trail The Stereotpyical Italian Chef by quite a ways.) ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: I suspect that the first dictator of this country will be called "Coach" :: --William Gass ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:55:13 -0800 From: Matthew Weber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fun for ages 7-10 At 8:16 PM -0500 11/13/02, David Seldin wrote: >loud family is about to be put back into the public television fish bowl >loud family is capable of playing quiet >loud family is some of >loud family is big star >loud family is arcane >loud family is at it again >loud family is the aftermath >loud family is no doubt the inspiration for edtv >loud family is currently in progress >loud family is immeasurable >loud family is gonna be playing in just >loud family is a great band that features ex >loud family is interesting from a psychological point of view >loud family is the shit >loud family is not high on >loud family is between albums >loud family is my favorite american rock band of the nineties >loud family is heavily influenced by game theory >loud family is rising out of the defunct band's ashes >loud family is the greatest living songwriter >loud family is either average or typical >loud family is for >loud family is no more or less passive than a living substance vis >loud family is indescribable >loud family is the equivalent of preferring til tuesday to aimee mann's >loud family is the one who made this comparison >loud family is mostly the brainchild of scott miller >loud family is genius >loud family is pretty good too >loud family is an outstanding rock band My God, it's Andre Breton! Matt Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, The Bed be blest that I lie on. Four angels to my bed, Four angels round my head, One to watch, and one to pray, And two to bear my soul away. Thomas Ady, A Candle in the Dark (1656) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 21:14:49 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Scalia's dissent in CASEY In a message dated 11/13/02 5:39:03 PM, jenor@uwm.edu writes: << I attempted to reprogram the JRT2000 bot by adjusting its parameters in hopes of reducing its go-for-the-throat paranoia, but I inadvertently jiggered the "cheery madcap scenario" setting way too high - resulting in this bizarrely uncharacteristic post. >> I don't know if "paranoia" is the word. It's actually kind of fun to delete unread three e-mails (all in a row with the same subject heading) from a cyberstalking douchebag (although he certainly churns out e-mails like a good little 'bot). You have to figure Sharples put a lot of thought into those ramblings that will never be read. But then he'll send a fourth e-mail with a new heading of "And one more thing..." Yeah, that's pretty creepy. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 20:31:56 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] fun for ages 7-10 Quoting Matthew Weber : > At 8:16 PM -0500 11/13/02, David Seldin wrote: > >loud family is about to be put back into the public television fish bowl > >loud family is capable of playing quiet > >loud family is some of > My God, it's Andre Breton! No, that would be: andre breton is difficult andre breton is painfully flawed andre breton is naively psycho andre breton is alluded to in the catalogue andre breton is rolling in his grave andre breton is credited with discovering andre breton is often quoted as saying that "music is the least surrealist art form" andre breton is helemaal weg van freud andre breton is andre breton is channelled through the voice of a chinese woman who repeatedly asks '& then?' through a drivethrough intercom andre breton is quoted in the souvenir book andre breton is a transformer in surrealism andre breton is the gentleman on the left andre breton is another theoretician of dada andre breton is a man who truly knows the meaning of surrealism and how to analyze it andre breton is said to have described this figure as" expressing the idea of a constant andre breton is not m andre breton is sweating sweet words of broccoli 6 degrees ..Jeff 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: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 20:55:47 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: OT -- Now RR On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 09:22 AM, JRT456@aol.com wrote: > << But when do you part company with your fellow travelers? After they > get their two new Justices to overturn Roe but before they can begin to > attack birth control? >> > > It's not difficult to find people on the left who are in favor of > overturning > Roe...and I'm not just referring to anti-abortion feminists. In that > same > spirit, there's strong right-wing support for the notion that Roe > should > remain intact, because Supreme Court decisions must remain above > political > pressure. Otherwise, their decisions could eventually become as > corrupt and > meaningless as opinions tendered by the Supreme Court of Florida or the > Supreme Court of New Jersey. Yeah, I happened to look at kausfiles yesterday, and the link to the Dana Milbank article - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40763-2002Nov11.html > Abortion opponents also expect a boost from Bush's judicial > nominations, including the likely reconsideration of Texas Supreme > Court Judge Priscilla Owen, who had been rejected by the Senate > Judiciary Committee for a federal appeals court. "We're going to see a > philosophical revolution in the courts," said Bruce Fein, a Reagan > administration lawyer. Though he said the courts will let stand the > landmark Roe v. Wade decision because undoing it would be "too > wrenching," he said Bush's nominees will impose a variety of new > abortion restrictions. "The impact will be enormous," he said. "It > will be almost as profound as if [Supreme Court nominee Robert] Bork > had been confirmed." But my question to 007 wasn't just about abortion. It was about how much of their social agenda you're willing to give to the Religious Right in return for your New Federalism or Law & Economics or whatever it is that floats your boat. A serious question, I thought. Perhaps I am mistaken in my recollection that 007 once said he is pro-choice, not to mention his school prayer comment. >> Otherwise, their decisions could eventually become as corrupt and >> meaningless as opinions tendered by the Supreme Court of Florida or >> the >> Supreme Court of New Jersey. Bush v. Gore, anybody? And is there some secret room over at the Federalist Society where Bruce Fein is talking to potential SC nominees about whether they're down with the idea of letting Roe stand but making it ineffective so as not to piss off the pro-choice Republican ladies? How principled is that? - - Steve __________ It's something new to see crises  especially a crisis as shocking as the terrorist attack  consistently addressed with legislation that does almost nothing to address the actual problem, and is almost entirely aimed at advancing a pre-existing agenda. - Paul Krugman ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 00:05:37 -0500 From: jenny grover Subject: [loud-fans] shameless self-promotion Do some holiday shopping and help support a Loud-fan. *snicker* Okay, I hate to spam the list (or do I?), but I have some new music-themed earrings up for sale, if anyone is interested. http://www.guitarstringnecklaces.com/earrings.htm Jen ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #396 *******************************