From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V3 #40 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, February 8 2003 Volume 03 : Number 040 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] re: 2002 poll results ["Brian Block" ] Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system [Cardinal007 ] Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system [steve ] Re: [loud-fans] principled me and my wagon state v. federal [Cardinal007 ] Re: [loud-fans] 2002 poll results [Miles Goosens ] RE: [loud-fans] 2002 poll results ["G. Andrew Hamlin" ] RE: [loud-fans] 2002 poll results ["G. Andrew Hamlin" ] Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system ["John Swartzentruber" ] Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system [Gil Ray ] [loud-fans] Re: tell us, durn it! [Steve Holtebeck ] Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Re: tell us, durn it! ["G. Andrew Hamlin" ] Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system [Gil Ray ] Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system [Gil Ray ] Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system [jenny grover ] Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system [Cardinal007 ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 09:06:05 +0000 From: "Brian Block" Subject: [loud-fans] re: 2002 poll results Aaron - any chance you can post individual ballots, like you did last year? Those would be neat. thanks much for your annual polling efforts, - Brian _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 05:34:23 -0500 From: Cardinal007 Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system > From: steve > Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 21:35:29 -0600 > To: loud-fans@smoe.org > Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system > > I doubt you or Cardinal are going to drop names on this list, but you > keep making assertions like the above and expect them to be accepted on > nothing more than your word. Steve, you ignorant slut -- I defy you to find an assertion like Taylor's *anywhere* in my post. Indeed, I defy you to find an assertion, beyond asserting that I like olks who approach this with principle. And two-effs jeff, you said: <> Um, I didn't really have a subtext; my reference to wicked good reefer and to bongs was (a) to get back to the case at hand rather than digressing, and (b) a loser's attempt at humour. I defy anyone to accurately describe the suxtext. I mean "subtext." DEfy, do yo hear!! Defy!!! Ha ha ha ha. As to your substance, I think you slip past my point. The different reasons for having fed or state law govern*d0* exist. I think though, that their application should be principled, that people should defend their principles, and that ad hoc application when it "seems" a good idea is bad. A good starting place for developing principles might be, oh, the Constitution. Take a look at the enumerated powers, ponder why they might have been chosen as "national" rather than local, and see how they adhere. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:22:13 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system In a message dated 2/6/03 9:22:18 PM, paul.seeman@yale.edu writes, in reference to a medicinal marijuana club figure who just happens to carry around $13,000 in U.S. currency in Canada: << Not to be cute, but what better place to shop for the stuff at your leisure than in Canada? It's just good business. >> My understanding has always been that sanctioned medical marijuana groups had to grow their own stash, since the idea isn't to make it okay for select citizens to give money to drug dealers. Since we're talking about San Francisco, though, it's certainly possible no one bothered to make that distinction. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:37:45 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system In a message dated 2/6/03 9:43:15 PM, steveschiavo@mac.com writes: << Not certain big names, point out who it is that is making Bush's core fundamentalist supporters irrelevant. Carl Rove, Grover Norquist, some secret group of mid-level policy wonks? You imply that there are people actively working to cut them off. >> Actually, I state fairly plainly that the world's changed, no matter how many irrelevant boogeymen from the '80s are regularly cited by the Left. Some even try to act like Jerry Falwell has some say in the Republican Party. And you need to make up your mind if you want me to name Republican strategists outside the White House (which I can) or inside the White House (I really don't get invited to parties there). In either case, it's too inside baseball to bother the list with it. You'll always have major anti-Roe folks in the GOP, though. All indications are that their success rate isn't going to change. <> The Left cared an awful lot about state party chairs when Ralph Reed became one. Now that he's had a major success and still hasn't been able to advance his place in the national GOP, we're told the Left doesn't care. Isn't it nice that the GOP has given you one less monster to worry about? <> Well, at least you didn't call him a Nazi. Have you guys figured out that the "z" stands for Zocialist? And it's interesting to know that the 2002 elections were helped by the depressive effect of poor leftists believing they had their vote nullified. Just to confirm, wasn't the suggestion that votes were nullified in 2000 a big part of the leftist media, as heard on outlets like NPR? So they didn't tell you to stay home, but just kind of implied it didn't matter? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 07:48:22 -0600 From: "Keegstra, Russell" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] 2002 poll results Miles: >I don't think I've had the list's #1 as my #1 before, so I feel all >normal-Loud-Fan-y for once in my life. In contrast I am feeling all abnormal. No one else even voted for the album I had at #1 (Porcupine Tree), and only three of my top fifteen were on anyone else's list. I'm right down there with Mr. Hamlin. Hey! The Porcupine Tree album is great! My wife thinks so too. Russ, who tried very hard to like Wilco but ultimately failed. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 07:06:41 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 2002 poll results At Friday 2/7/2003 07:48 AM -0600, Keegstra, Russell wrote: >In contrast I am feeling all abnormal. No one else even voted for the >album I had at #1 (Porcupine Tree), and only three of my top fifteen >were on anyone else's list. I'm right down there with Mr. Hamlin. > >Hey! The Porcupine Tree album is great! My wife thinks so too. There's a good chance that had I actually voted, I would've voted the Porcupine Tree album #1. But I just didn't do enough listening or buying this year to justify voting. Whatever happened to THC tablets? Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 09:04:55 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 04:34 AM, Cardinal007 wrote: > Steve, you ignorant slut -- > > I defy you to find an assertion like Taylor's *anywhere* in my post. > Indeed, I defy you to find an assertion, beyond asserting that I like > olks > who approach this with principle. I didn't say it was in your post. Haven't you, in the past, stated that right wing judges are wonderful, intelligent, hard working public servants (or something to that effect), and therefor nothing to be afraid of? And principled, of course. But I see their principled federalist leanings as nothing more than enabling state majorities to enact oppressive laws. - - Steve __________ The United States is exploring the development of a 'space-bomber' which could destroy targets on the other side of the world within 30 minutes. - Ed Vulliamy, The Observer ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 10:22:28 -0500 From: Cardinal007 Subject: Re: [loud-fans] principled me and my wagon state v. federal steveschiavo@mac.com inquires of me: > I didn't say it was in your post. Haven't you, in the past, > stated > that right wing judges are wonderful, intelligent, hard working > public > servants (or something to that effect), and therefor nothing to be > afraid of? I believe my only reference to "right-wing judges" in the past was to chide John W. Sharples for mouthing one of two "standard" knocks on Priscilla Owen that I believed were unsupported by the record; I believe that i argued that, as a jurist, she was constrained as a jurist by principles of statutory contruction to construe the Texas abortion-notification statute as she did. It wasn't an endorsement of "right-wing" judges, to the best of my recollection. and some are intelligent, hard-working and major righteous, I'm sure. And some are not. I suspect that applies to those "left-wing' judges too. Telling Sharples to do his research and not use bumper-sticker bullshit didn't strike me as a wild endorsement of anyone. steveschiavo@mac.com adds: > > And principled, of course. But I see their principled federalist > leanings as nothing more than enabling state majorities to enact > oppressive laws. > As opposed to enabling federal majorities to enact oppressive laws? I agree that federalist leanings would have that effect. You may not have noticed, but I was silent on where my principles fall regarding the role of national v. state govt. You make my point, in a way. You argue that state majorities enact oppressive laws. But in the marijuana case that started this thread, the nat'l majority has enacted the oppressive law, at the expense of the states. If you have an opinion as to which should predominate [state or federal], live with the consequences. btw, I gave Sharples a reach-around and we're friends again .... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 09:30:27 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] 2002 poll results Me, then Aaron: >> All you folks who disqualify EPs -- which apparently must have included >> everyone besides me who bought Wire's READ AND BURN 01 and 02 -- > >Hey! I just didn't like them that much. As reunion, mail-order-only >releases go they're very good, but they made me anticipate Send more than >they made me want to listen to them themselves. Whereas each one of them was practically all I listened to for a couple of weeks after each one's release. No qualifiers, either -- for me, they're not just the winners of some "reunion," "mail-order only" subcategory, they're outstanding in any category! >The all-R&B live show definitely beat the Boston leg of the 2000 reunion >tour, though. (I saw them twice in 2000, and the NYC show the next night >was very good, but I was primed with lower expectations, so I feel like >it's not a fair comparison.) I'm still perplexed by your reaction to the 2000 shows. Of course I wasn't at those particular shows, but the three I saw (Royal Festival Hall, London; Great American Music Hall, SF; Fillmore, SF) didn't just exceed my expectations, they blew them completely away. Of those three, my only quibble would be with the Fillmore show, which seemed to start a little slower than the others, but by the end it had caught fire to such a degree that I didn't think the crowd was actually going to leave, even after ten minutes of the lights being up and music playing over the PA. That being said, I'd rank the 2002 Chicago show just behind the Royal Festival Hall. Mike Bollman: >I hope there will be something at least slightly different about "Send", >so as not to render my "Read & Burn"s totally superfluous. Even if it's a >straight repackage, it'll still wind up on my list next year. I suspect that the mixes will be different (think of A BELL IS A CUP vs. IT'S BEGINNING TO AND BACK AGAIN), with attention paid to creating an album that flows well for 50-60 minutes rather than a 15-25 minute blast of noise. No word yet on whether 2002 live staple "Mr. Marx's Table" or other non-R&B tracks will be included. The R&B series will continue in 2003 as well. The band is very adamant about the R&B series always having something unique for the fan, both with the extras (the signed postcard with 01, the "Smell of You" with 02) and with musical content, so expect SEND to have some differences, even if it ends up consisting of all previously-released R&B songs. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 10:28:41 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Paul Seeman's CD mix reviewed On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Tim Walters wrote: > Dan, what's your album? Did you announce it here? Mine didn't make it > either--let's have a pity party sometime. Me either. *snif* Tim, yours was the one I was most chagrinned at having missed including. Big d'oh! moment there. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:19:00 -0800 (PST) From: "G. Andrew Hamlin" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] 2002 poll results > Miles: >>I don't think I've had the list's #1 as my #1 before, so I feel all >> normal-Loud-Fan-y for once in my life. Not even in those halcyon days When Scott Miller Was Making Records, Miles? > In contrast I am feeling all abnormal. No one else even voted for the > album I had at #1 (Porcupine Tree), and only three of my top fifteen > were on anyone else's list. I'm right down there with Mr. Hamlin. I'm feeling strangely chipper, myself. I didn't pay too much attention to how the voting works--Aaron, little help here?--but from the results I see six records from my ballot (out of ten, of course), which at I *think* at least one other person voted for. Again, Aaron could tell me if I'm right or wrong. If true, though, that's up from one record, last year. And yes I too would certainly like to see individual ballots, more of 'em, though perhaps that's up to the individuals. Number of my picks which finished lower than a certain album released two years, four months, and twenty-six days ago (unless you count the Japanese version with the bonus tracks): eight Number of my picks featuring mostly-previously-released tracks from a guy who's been dead about fourteen-and-a-half years: one And that's it for Hamlin's Index, Andy "You know how you occasionally read a review of some new Fall LP and they say the Fall are back on form and you just gotta hear this particular record and you get all excited and hopping cause if the Fall just got genuinely back on it (even briefly) U-Know it would be a pagan free-for-all to live for. And it has intriguing song titles like 'Dame J. Burchill Art Gulag' and a supposedly great cover version of Don Covays 'Its Better to Have & Dont Need (Than Need & Dont Have)'. And in that brief time between reading about the album and hearing the album, youre a kid again with a kids dreams and a whole world of possibilities (not just musical) is thrown up in front of you. Then you hear that new Fall record and its just more embittered semi-mystical coded fraudulent ramblings about NOTHING nothing NOTHING. BUT......... it does not matter because youve still enjoyed AND lived fully through those moments of possibilities." - --Julian Cope, from his review of the Boredoms' VISION CREATION NEW SUN, at http://www.headheritage.com/unsung/albumofthemonth/index.php?review_id=435 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 14:36:43 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: RE: [loud-fans] 2002 poll results At 12:19 PM 2/7/2003 -0800, G. Andrew Hamlin wrote: >> Miles: >>>I don't think I've had the list's #1 as my #1 before, so I feel all >>> normal-Loud-Fan-y for once in my life. > >Not even in those halcyon days When Scott Miller Was Making Records, Miles? The full quote was: >Aside from DAYS FOR DAYS, which almost doesn't count, I don't think I've had ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >the list's #1 as my #1 before, so I feel all normal-Loud-Fan-y for once in >my life. So I think I had that covered. Since DFD was the only GT/LF album to score a #1 for me, that's the only other time I recall that I've had the same #1 as the list as a whole. Here's how the LF fared with me during the days of the Loud-List: TTOOL - #8 of 1994 (did we do a list poll back then?) IBC - #2 of 1996 DFD - #1 of 1998 AN - #4 of 2000 I think IBC is actually a better record than DFD, but 1996 was a stronger year for albums. later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:41:51 -0800 (PST) From: "Pete O." Subject: RE: [loud-fans] 2002 poll results Wow! TSOOL was my #1 for 2001. - --- Miles Goosens wrote: > TTOOL - #8 of 1994 (did we do a list poll back then?) Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:54:53 -0800 (PST) From: "G. Andrew Hamlin" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] 2002 poll results > The full quote was: > > >Aside from DAYS FOR DAYS, which almost doesn't count, I don't think > I've had > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >the list's #1 as my #1 before, so I feel all normal-Loud-Fan-y for > once in my life. Ah yes. I'd chide Russ for pruning your quote, but my last email to Russ bounced. Russ, you okay out there? > TTOOL - #8 of 1994 (did we do a list poll back then?) > IBC - #2 of 1996 > DFD - #1 of 1998 > AN - #4 of 2000 You did forget one--PLANTS made your #3 of 1993. I don't know that I ever made a complete list for 1994, but since I spend most of my time pretending LINDA doesn't exist, I don't suppose LINDA would make that list. Oddly enough, DAYS FOR DAYS was the one non-LINDA Loud Family album that didn't make my own Number One for its given year; I went with Mary Lou Lord's GOT NO SHADOW (a record a lot of other people seem to hate) and later elevated MARK HOLLIS by Mark Hollis to co-status. All Others Are Number Two Or Lower, Andy "Rocknroll is life affirming. Rocknroll is life, full stop. Without it wed all be Christians. Christianity = death. Bye bye." - --Julian Cope, from his review of a bootleg of Alice Cooper performing "Don't Blow Your Mind," at http://www.headheritage.com/unsung/albumofthemonth/index.php?review_id=394 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:44:05 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 07:37 AM, JRT456@aol.com wrote: > Actually, I state fairly plainly that the world's changed, no matter > how many > irrelevant boogeymen from the '80s are regularly cited by the Left. Actually, it doesn't really matter, because I see little practical difference between the fundies and most of what comes out of the "regular" Republican party. I both cases it's basically "Shut up and do what we tell you." > Well, at least you didn't call him a Nazi. Have you guys figured out > that the > "z" stands for Zocialist? You're making the incorrect assumption that being to your left makes me a Leftist. - - Steve __________ "When we were getting ready to announce for the 1992 campaign, the Bush people said to us, 'Don't run this time -- wait four years and you'll have a free pass. If you do run, we'll destroy you.' And I said to Bill, 'What are they talking about -- how could they do that?' And now we're finding out." - Hillary Clinton to David Talbot, March 1998 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:58:47 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system In a message dated 2/7/03 1:45:29 PM, steveschiavo@mac.com writes: << You're making the incorrect assumption that being to your left makes me a Leftist. >> Gee, now how did I end up making that assumption? Was it the reference to Ashcroft as a "monster," which seems more like a centrist stand to a reasonable fellow like yourself? The good news is that Pat DiNizio is to my right, and he's still a Republican. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:03:34 -0500 From: "John Swartzentruber" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:58:47 EST, JRT456@aol.com wrote: >Gee, now how did I end up making that assumption? Was it the reference to >Ashcroft as a "monster," which seems more like a centrist stand to a >reasonable fellow like yourself? I think Stalin was a monster. I guess I'm a right winger. No, wait, I think Hitler was a monster, I guess that makes me a leftist. I'm so confused. And your analysis seemed so brilliant. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 14:15:25 -0800 From: Matthew Weber Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system >On Friday, February 7, 2003, at 07:37 AM, JRT456@aol.com wrote: > >>Well, at least you didn't call him a Nazi. Have you guys figured out that the >>"z" stands for Zocialist? Well, actually it stands for "-tional", as in "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei". Matthew Weber Curatorial Assistant Music Library University of California, Berkeley Suffer me that I may speak; and after that I have spoken, mock on. The Holy Bible (The Old Testament): _The Book of Job_, chapter 21, verse 3 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 18:35:46 -0500 From: jenny grover Subject: [loud-fans] tell us, durn it! dmw wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2003, Tim Walters wrote: > > > Dan, what's your album? Did you announce it here? Mine didn't make it > > either--let's have a pity party sometime. > > Me either. *snif* > > Tim, yours was the one I was most chagrinned at having missed including. > Big d'oh! moment there. Well, come on guys! Why don't you tell those of us who don't know what the titles of your albums are (band names would be helpful, too)? We cain't vote fer what'n we don't know exists. Jen - -- You can't pull yourself up by the bootstraps if you don't know where your bootstraps are. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:44:28 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system - --- JRT456@aol.com wrote: > Gee, now how did I end up making that assumption? > Was it the reference to > Ashcroft as a "monster," which seems more like a > centrist stand to a > reasonable fellow like yourself? The good news is > that Pat DiNizio is to my > right, and he's still a Republican. The better news is that Patti Smith is to my left, and she is way cooler than Pat DiNizio. Gil Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 16:04:00 -0800 From: Steve Holtebeck Subject: [loud-fans] Re: tell us, durn it! jenny grover wrote: > Well, come on guys! Why don't you tell those of us who don't know > what the titles of your albums are (band names would be helpful, too)? If these guys don't want to plug their own albums, I'll do it for them. Doug's release is FECKLESS BEAST (by Feckless Beast): http://www.fecklessbeast.com Tim's release is SNAKES AND LADDERS (by Slaw): http://www.doubtfulpalace.com/artists/Slaw/index.html Dan's release is ECSTATIC YOD (by Clarinette): http://www.forcedexposure.com/artists/clarinette.html (If any other loud-fans released albums in 2002, please plug them now..) Steve ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 19:47:00 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system In a message dated 2/7/03 2:04:31 PM, johnslists@mcswartz.org writes: << I think Stalin was a monster. I guess I'm a right winger. No, wait, I think Hitler was a monster, I guess that makes me a leftist. I'm so confused. And your analysis seemed so brilliant. >> So it seems logical to you to equate the actions of John Ashcroft with those of two genocidal dictators. If you like my analytical skills, do me a favor and keep that news to yourself. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 19:52:15 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system In a message dated 2/7/03 2:16:35 PM, mweber@library.berkeley.edu writes: << Well, actually it stands for "-tional", as in "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei". >> Yes, that would be the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany. Or, if you prefer, the National Socialist German Workers Party. In any case, Nazis. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:56:23 -0800 (PST) From: "G. Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: tell us, durn it! > Doug's release is FECKLESS BEAST (by Feckless Beast): > http://www.fecklessbeast.com I have no album to plug, but I'm still wondering if the female in the Feckless Beast photos is Bernd (BernD?), Dave, or John. Also, how do I buy one of those most excellent jumpsuits? Actually, if you do wish to hear some music from me and a few of my funky friends (blast from the past, 1989): http://www.muppetlabs.com/~deadman/Download/ Scroll down to "Shithouse Rap," Andy NEW YORK - A University of Tokyo professor claims he and his research team have developed a system that can make you 'invisible.' Engineering Professor Susumu Tachi is in the early stages of technology that he says will eventually enable camouflaged objects to be virtually transparent by wearing an optical device. Professor Tachi demonstrated the technology on Wednesday. In a photo of graduate student Kazutoshi Obana, it appears as if three men walking in the background can be seen 'through' Obana's green overcoat. The retroreflective material of the coat acts as a screen and gives a transparent - or invisible - effect. For the best effect - one that keeps the correct depth of focus - the observer needs to look through a pinhole. Tachi's second example shows the image of the skeleton being projected onto a sheet of the retroreflective material, giving the impression the body has become transparent. The technology could be useful in medicine, where surgeons might use it during operations to avoid having their fingers or surgical tools block their view. In aviation, cockpit floors could become 'invisible' to assist pilots in landing. Professor Tachi hopes to have a commercially viable system within a few years. [--an AP item from today's Yahoo! News] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 20:00:09 -0500 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system JRT456@aol.com wrote: > > Yes, that would be the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany. Or, if > you prefer, the National Socialist German Workers Party. In any case, Nazis. I'm glad I wasn't at that party. Jen - -- You can't pull yourself up by the bootstraps if you don't know where your bootstraps are. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 20:15:55 -0500 From: Dave Walker Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system BTW, I'm wondering why no one's invoked Godwin's Law on this thread yet. This post http://www.escribe.com/music/loudfans/m33701.html triggered it. -d.w. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 20:22:44 -0500 From: "John Swartzentruber" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 19:47:00 EST, JRT456@aol.com wrote: >So it seems logical to you to equate the actions of John Ashcroft with those >of two genocidal dictators. If you like my analytical skills, do me a favor >and keep that news to yourself. Ah, I'm glad you don't disappoint. I don't recall even mentioning John Ashcroft, much less equating him with two genocidal dictators. I'm a bit surprised that you would consider him comparable. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 20:24:54 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system In a message dated 2/7/03 5:16:26 PM, dwalker@freeke.org writes: << BTW, I'm wondering why no one's invoked Godwin's Law on this thread yet. >> I've always considered the application of Godwin's Law to be much like the kind of fascist oppression we saw in Nazi Germany. Or is that an old joke by now? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 18:29:45 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system At Friday 2/7/2003 03:44 PM -0800, Gil Ray wrote: >The better news is that Patti Smith is to my left, and >she is way cooler than Pat DiNizio. You stood next to Patti Smith?? I always liked her work fronting Scandal better than her solo stuff. Latre. --Rog ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 20:42:55 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system In a message dated 2/7/03 5:23:33 PM, johnslists@mcswartz.org writes: << Ah, I'm glad you don't disappoint. I don't recall even mentioning John Ashcroft, much less equating him with two genocidal dictators. I'm a bit surprised that you would consider him comparable. >> Actually, I specifically avoided saying that you had equated John Ashcroft with genocidal dictators. I simply noted that it seemed logical to you when others do so. And if that wasn't your point...well, then you really didn't seem to have one at all. To be fair, you did note that you're confused. Maybe we could start this all over, but it would probably be polite to do so off-list. And be sure to visit our lovely archives at: http://www.escribe.com/music/loudfans/index.html. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 20:46:57 -0500 From: "John Swartzentruber" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system On Fri, 7 Feb 2003 20:42:55 EST, JRT456@aol.com wrote: >Actually, I specifically avoided saying that you had equated John Ashcroft >with genocidal dictators. I simply noted that it seemed logical to you when >others do so. And if that wasn't your point...well, then you really didn't >seem to have one at all. Since there is some confusion, here was my point, which I thought was quite clear: "Thinking someone is a monster makes no implications on your politics." A reasonable secondary conclusion: "There are monsters at all points on the political spectrum." Sorry for the confusion. And be sure to visit our lovely archives at: http://www.escribe.com/music/loudfans/index.html. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 20:59:37 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system In a message dated 2/7/03 5:47:41 PM, johnslists@mcswartz.org writes: << "Thinking someone is a monster makes no implications on your politics." A reasonable secondary conclusion: "There are monsters at all points on the political spectrum." >> Those are both reasonable points. I prefer the latter, although Stalin and Hitler still seem to be on the far end of the same spectrum. Anyway, it first seemed to me as if you were actually defending the notion that intelligent political debate includes calling political figures serving our own great nation anything like "monsters." I doubt that anybody's even reading at this point, so I'll add that Boy George put out a really good album last year in the UK. "U Can Never B2 Straight" is an acoustic revamping of songs from his solo career, and I'm glad I didn't hear it until 2003. Otherwise, my Top 10 would've been even more gay than it already is. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 19:44:24 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system At Friday 2/7/2003 08:46 PM -0500, John Swartzentruber wrote: >Since there is some confusion, here was my point, which I thought was >quite clear: > >"Thinking someone is a monster makes no implications on your politics." > >A reasonable secondary conclusion: "There are monsters at all points on >the political spectrum." > >Sorry for the confusion. Someone who would so blatantly wear a dead animal on their head (see the photo at http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/ashcroftbio.html for just one example) MUST be a monster. Latre. --Rog (I'm really bored this evening) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 22:27:38 -0500 From: Dana Paoli Subject: [loud-fans] Joy Zipper (ns) Has anyone gotten anything by them? Thoughts? The realaudio I heard sounds intriguing and Mojo digs 'em, and yet, I'm just not sure... eMusic has the recent Camper Van Beethoven box set, which makes me very happy 'cause I didn't really want to buy the thing just for the live CD and a couple of rarities. Go eMusic!! The new-ish Delgados album should make fans of Mercury Rev very, very happy. I only like one Mercury Rev album, so it's just making me happy. Best song I've heard all month: "Carnival in Rio (Punk Was)" by Die Toten Hosen from an old CD of theirs that turned up at the Salvation Army. For fans of "Flogging a Dead Horse." Gotta go watch Spy Kids 2. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 19:46:43 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system - --- Roger Winston wrote: > Someone who would so blatantly wear a dead animal on > their head (see the > photo at http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/ashcroftbio.html > for just one example) > MUST be a monster. > > Latre. --Rog (I'm really bored this evening) Good god, Roger.... Gil :) Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 19:53:18 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system - --- jenny grover wrote: > JRT456@aol.com wrote: > > > > Yes, that would be the National Socialist Workers > Party of Germany. Or, if > > you prefer, the National Socialist German Workers > Party. In any case, Nazis. > > I'm glad I wasn't at that party. > > Jen Party?! There's a party? Anyone got any pot? Gil Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 22:59:32 -0500 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system Gil Ray wrote: > > Party?! There's a party? Anyone got any pot? > Gil You're from SF. I thought you were bringing it. Jen - -- You can't pull yourself up by the bootstraps if you don't know where your bootstraps are. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 20:56:16 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system - --- jenny grover wrote: > Gil Ray wrote: > > > > Party?! There's a party? Anyone got any pot? > > Gil > > You're from SF. I thought you were bringing it. I was.....Feds took it. Gil Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 00:39:56 -0500 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system Gil Ray wrote: > > I was.....Feds took it. Shit. I bet they just took it up to Canada and sold it to some left-wing hippie draft-dodgers (although I bet it's damn hard to dodge drafts in Canada this time of year). Jen - -- You can't pull yourself up by the bootstraps if you don't know where your bootstraps are. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 23:41:16 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system > Attorney General Ashcroft is committed to confronting injustice by > leading a professional Justice Department free from politics, defined > by integrity and dedicated to upholding the rule of law. He will make > certain that the Justice Department fulfills its promise and honors > its heritage-not only by enforcing the rule of law, but by > guaranteeing rights for the advancement of all Americans. Considering the news today about the DoJ's proposed new legislation, the Palmer Raids are probably the heritage Ashcroft has in mind. - - Steve __________ Embarrassing but true: Just one month ago the James A. Baker III Institute presented Alan Greenspan with its Enron Prize. I'm not suggesting any impropriety; it was just another indication of how deeply the failed energy company was enmeshed with our ruling elite. - Paul Krugman, 12/14/01 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 00:48:02 -0500 From: Cardinal007 Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system > From: jenny grover > Reply-To: sleeveless@citynet.net > Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003 00:39:56 -0500 > Cc: loud-fans@smoe.org > Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system > > left-wing hippie draft-dodgers Monsters!!!! ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 02:14:16 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Joy Zipper (ns) > The new-ish Delgados album should make fans of Mercury Rev very, very > happy. I only like one Mercury Rev album, so it's just making me happy. Well, as a huge Delgados fan, I've been disappointed by their new one. (The only Mercury Rev I have is "All is Dream" and based on that, I don't really see any comparison.) Each of the previous three Delgados albums were very different from each other, although they were moving in one direction. But I can't get over the idea that HATE is just a rehash of THE GREAT EASTERN. I'm not really opposed to a band rehashing, but I am when it's not as good. TGE, for all the lush orchestration, was still jarring in the way it obviously shifts time signatures while moving from pop hook to pop hook. I played "No Danger" for my Mom, and a few days later, she called to complain that she still hadn't gotten the melody out of her head. Anyway, HATE seems too straightforward, making the orchestration play too prominently to me. The lyrics also don't seem half as interesting. I still like the album, so I don't mean to rag on it--it just didn't live up to my probably unrealistic expectations. - --Michael np Delgados THE GREAT EASTERN ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 23:57:51 -0800 (PST) From: Gil Ray Subject: Re: [loud-fans] our wonderful legal system - --- jenny grover wrote: > Gil Ray wrote: > > > > I was.....Feds took it. > > Shit. I bet they just took it up to Canada and sold > it to some > left-wing hippie draft-dodgers (although I bet it's > damn hard to dodge > drafts in Canada this time of year). Humpf....Canada. I say we get preemptive on it's ass! Gil Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V3 #40 ******************************