From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V3 #13 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 Wednesday, January 15 2003 Volume 03 : Number 013 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Townshend [Michael Bowen ] [loud-fans] Mauritania in the news ["Brendan Curry" ] [loud-fans] Fwd: Re: "you didn't hear it, you didn't see it, you won't say nothing to no one" [Jeffrey with 2 Fs ] Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: Re: "you didn't hear it, you didn't see it, you won't say nothing to no one" [Dan Sallit] Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: Re: "you didn't hear it, you didn't see it, you won't say nothing to no one" [Cardinal0] Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: Re: "you didn't hear it, you didn't see it, you won't say nothing to no one" ["John Swartzentrub] [loud-fans] Golden Palominos ["Michael Zwirn" ] [loud-fans] Maybe I'm misinterpreting this. [Elizabeth Brion ] Re: [loud-fans] NPR ID Help [Michael Mitton ] [loud-fans] Kathleen Edwards [Bill Silvers ] Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: Re: "you didn't hear it, you didn't see it, you won't say nothing to no one" [Jeffrey with] Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: Re: "you didn't hear it, you didn't see it, you won't say nothing to no one" [Dan Sall] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:02:15 -0500 From: Michael Bowen Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Townshend The saddest part about this whole circus is Townshend latching on to the whole "repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse" schtick after it's already been done to death. He used to be better at keeping up with trends. MB ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 15:02:17 +0000 From: "Brendan Curry" Subject: [loud-fans] Mauritania in the news Though the possibility is remote, in the future we may have a very good reason for not living in Mauritania. From slate.com's "International Papers" http://slate.msn.com/id/2076676/ Melhem's story and Crown Prince Abdullah's reference to Arab efforts to avoid a war dovetail by hinting at a possible last-ditch stab at convincing Saddam to go into voluntary exile. There have been recent reports (notably in the Christian Science Monitor) of Saudi efforts to persuade the Iraqi leader to bow out. Melhem writes that Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faysal is a leading proponent of the idea, though his request for more time has provoked derision in the United States, where officials cackled, "Will Saddam join [former Ugandan dictator] Idi Amin in a Jeddah hotel?" Prince Saud actually wants Saddam to go to Mauritania, hardly making acceptance likelier. _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 07:48:18 -0800 (PST) From: "Pete O." Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Mauritania in the news Hello. Please forgive me contacting you directly but time is of the essence. My name is Saddam Hussein. As former dictator of Iraq, I was privy to a number of highly prosperous oil ventures. Before I was deposed by the blasphemous infidels, I was able to deposit $US45.7 million in a numbered Swiss bank account. In order to retrieve my funds from my current location in Mauritania, I require the use of your bank account. Yadda, yadda, yadda... you will receive no less than $US5.12 million for your trouble. - --- Brendan Curry wrote: > Though the possibility is remote, in the future we may have a very good > reason for not living in Mauritania. > > From slate.com's "International Papers" http://slate.msn.com/id/2076676/ > > Melhem's story and Crown Prince Abdullah's reference to Arab efforts to > avoid a war dovetail by hinting at a possible last-ditch stab at convincing > Saddam to go into voluntary exile. There have been recent reports (notably > in the Christian Science Monitor) of Saudi efforts to persuade the Iraqi > leader to bow out. Melhem writes that Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faysal > is a leading proponent of the idea, though his request for more time has > provoked derision in the United States, where officials cackled, "Will > Saddam join [former Ugandan dictator] Idi Amin in a Jeddah hotel?" Prince > Saud actually wants Saddam to go to Mauritania, hardly making acceptance > likelier. Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:52:19 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: [loud-fans] Fwd: Re: "you didn't hear it, you didn't see it, you won't say nothing to no one" for some of you, this is crossposted: Someone else wrote: > I pretty much believe Pete Townsend, but it was still pretty damn > stupid. After all, there is the > phenomenon of people who were abused turning into abusers. Still, I > think in the West it's > historically amazing for there to be this degree of taboo about a kind > of *image.* We are, > after all, allowed to see pictures of the Holocaust. There are lots of > other things people do that > kill and hurt kids. Sometimes I think an image of kiddie porn should go > into a time capsule > somewhere to show another part of what we are. Along with the napalmed > kid from Vietnam. I > mean there's a level of hysteria about kiddie porn that at least ought > to be extended to other > things as well. For instance, there was recently a ruling that made illegal the possession of digital *imitations* of child porn. I cannot think of anything horrible enough to have happen to the people who abuse and photograph children (and I mean children: not adolescents)... at the same time, I think the hysteria - whereby even looking at an image of child porn that isn't even real can send someone to jail - is a bit much. Reminds me of the absurd mania over "ritual Satanic child abuse" a decade or so back - many of whose cases would be funny if they didn't ruin people's lives. (NB: not one case of RSCA ever stood up upon examination. More generally, patently absurd statements, clearly led on to by investigators, were taken at face value.) And as far as hysteria over other things: let's start with the producers of child porn under another name, those who run "beauty pageants" for children wherein the kids are tarted up like Christina Aguilera - the murdered Jon-Benet Ramsay is the posterchild for this sort of thing. What kind of mind makes a six-year-old girl look like a twenty-year-old slut? - -------- As for Michael Bowen's comment: I don't think Townshend directly claimed he'd had "repressed memories." The phrasing was more suggestive to me of a man not fully wanting to admit what he knows happened to him ("I believe I might have been..."). ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: sex, drugs, revolt, Eskimos, atheism - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:00:53 -0500 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: Re: "you didn't hear it, you didn't see it, you won't say nothing to no one" > For instance, there was recently a ruling that made illegal the possession > of digital *imitations* of child porn. Where did this ruling take effect? Was it a state ruling, or a local one, or...? - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:44:39 -0500 From: Cardinal007 Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: Re: "you didn't hear it, you didn't see it, you won't say nothing to no one" Last term, the Supreme Court STRUCK DOWN a statute barring "virtual child pornorgraphy" as unduly restrictive of free speech. The opinions can be found at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html Kennedy wrote for the majority, holding in part that the images captured no crime and that virtual child pornography is not so "intrinsically related" to the sexual abuse of children as to justify a ban on such images. He was joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Clarence Thomas also concurred in the result. O'Connors and rehnquist led the charge for those seeking to uphold the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996, which sought to ban "virtual child pornography." Has Jeffrey with Two Effs run across a newer line of cases seeking to uphold a prohibition on possession of such images? - ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan Sallitt Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 2:00 pm Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: Re: "you didn't hear it, you didn't see it, you won't say nothing to no one" > > For instance, there was recently a ruling that made illegal the > possession> of digital *imitations* of child porn. > > Where did this ruling take effect? Was it a state ruling, or a > local > one, or...? - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:52:22 -0500 From: "John Swartzentruber" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: Re: "you didn't hear it, you didn't see it, you won't say nothing to no one" On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:44:39 -0500, Cardinal007 wrote: >Has Jeffrey with Two Effs run across a newer line of cases seeking to >uphold a prohibition on possession of such images? I believe the article that JeFFrey linked to mentioned an English law that prohibits these virtual images. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:29:34 -0800 From: "Michael Zwirn" Subject: [loud-fans] Golden Palominos Is there any kind of up-to-date compilation available for the Golden Palominos? I somewhat carelessly bought Thundering Herd, which is a 2-discer, only to find that it only compiles stuff from around 1985-1991. I'm not so excited by the prospect of tracking down all the individual albums, as they're by design inconsistent in style and executive. But a history-spanning comp would be great. n.p. Sleeper, Smart - ------ Michael Zwirn, michael@zwirn.com http://zwirn.com (t) 503-232-8919 (c) 503-887-9800 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:32:35 -0800 From: Elizabeth Brion Subject: [loud-fans] Maybe I'm misinterpreting this. I don't think I've posted for a while, so you KNOW this has got to be important. So I was resetting the clock on my TV set to coincide with the cable box, which for whatever reason requires me to tune in the local PBS channel. Which happened to be showing Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, which was featuring a visit to Koko the gorilla. Koko told Mister Rogers she loved him. Once this was translated, he replied, "Thank you, Koko. I love visiting with you too." It's not that I've never seen the polite letdown when one party in a relationship says "I love you" first - it's just that I never quite expected to see Mister Rogers doing it to a gorilla. Man. This isn't quite as startling as the time I was flipping around and flashed past ol' Fred shooting the double bird to the audience (a quick backflip explained this, as he was singing a song that went, "Where is Tall Man? Where is Tall Man? Here I am, here I am," but you can see how it would still be upsetting). But still. Elizabeth ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:17:04 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Mitton Subject: [loud-fans] NPR ID Help Did anyone else listen to All Things Considered this evening? They reviewed a female artist tonight who sounded great--sort of alt-countryish, Sarah Harmer-ish. But for the life of me I can't remember who it was. Making matters worse, I never did understand the name of the album; at first I thought it was "Failure" but that's not right, and "Feller" seems too dumb (I checked allmusic, and neither of these were right). So if anyone knows who this was, please tell me. Opinions are also welcome. - --Michael NP Interpol ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:22:48 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] NPR ID Help And then it occurs to me that I should check the NPR web site. It's Kathleen Edwards, and the album is called FAILER. Anyway, opinions are still welcome. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:26:56 -0500 From: "Miles Goosens" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] NPR ID Help Everything's archived at http://www.npr.org -- you should be able to find the show archived there, search by date or segment, and even buy (if you wish) a tape of the hour it appeared in. Looking at this afternoon's show, I'd say Kathleen Edwards. best, Miles On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:17:04 -0500 (EST) Michael Mitton wrote: > Did anyone else listen to All Things Considered > this evening? They > reviewed a female artist tonight who sounded > great--sort of > alt-countryish, Sarah Harmer-ish. But for the > life of me I can't remember > who it was. Making matters worse, I never did > understand the name of the > album; at first I thought it was "Failure" but > that's not right, and > "Feller" seems too dumb (I checked allmusic, > and neither of these were > right). So if anyone knows who this was, > please tell me. Opinions are > also welcome. > > --Michael > > NP Interpol ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 21:39:09 -0600 From: Bill Silvers Subject: [loud-fans] Kathleen Edwards Michael Mitton wrote: >And then it occurs to me that I should check the NPR web site. It's >Kathleen Edwards, and the album is called FAILER. Anyway, opinions are >still welcome. I haven't heard the record yet- it just came out today and I wasn't able to cadge a review copy beforehand. Hers is the first significant roots/Americana release of the year, so it's gotten a little more attention (She's on the cover of the latest Country Standard Time, anyway. See http://www.countrystandardtime.com/kathleenedwardsFEATURE.html ). It looks like she'll be On Letterman this coming Friday night. I've liked what little I've heard so far. I've heard the Sarah Harmer comparison, but the most frequent one thus far has been to Lucinda Williams, vocally at least. Whether Ms. Edwards has the same sort of songwriting skills has yet to be seen. b.s. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 21:42:32 -0600 From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: Re: "you didn't hear it, you didn't see it, you won't say nothing to no one" Quoting Cardinal007 : > Last term, the Supreme Court STRUCK DOWN a statute barring "virtual > child pornorgraphy" as unduly restrictive of free speech. The > opinions can be found at > > http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html > > Has Jeffrey with Two Effs run across a newer line of cases seeking to > uphold a prohibition on possession of such images? No - I was misremembering the case. But then, my point was that someone had attempted to make virtual child porn illegal - thus, the statute (which was struck down). ..Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html :: "In two thousand years, they'll still be looking for Elvis - :: this is nothing new," said the priest. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:59:46 -0500 From: Dan Sallitt Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Fwd: Re: "you didn't hear it, you didn't see it, you won't say nothing to no one" >>Has Jeffrey with Two Effs run across a newer line of cases seeking to >>uphold a prohibition on possession of such images? > > No - I was misremembering the case. But then, my point was that someone had > attempted to make virtual child porn illegal - thus, the statute (which was > struck down). And which seems to have been in effect for five years. From the link that Scott posted, one senses that it wouldn't be that far-fetched for the court to have upheld this statute. Three justices thought there were precedents for it. - Dan ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V3 #13 ******************************