From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V4 #36 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 7 2004 Volume 04 : Number 036 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] savor this! ["Chris Murtland" ] [loud-fans] Annoyances of Los Angeles ["Rex.Broome" ] Re: [loud-fans] Annoyances of Los Angeles [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] Annoyances of Los Angeles ["Fortissimo" ] Re: [loud-fans] The Q&A [JRT456@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 03:36:12 -0500 From: "Chris Murtland" Subject: [loud-fans] savor this! Okay, so I'm just now realizing what my friend Michael Slawter was laughing about (in email) when he told me I was the most normal loud fan, since I just read the poll results. I ignored his email because I thought he was drunk. Well, yes, I only voted for two records. At first, I thought those were the only two I purchased in 2003. Then I realized, after I read the poll results, that I also bought Stephen Malkmus and the Jicks' "Pig Lib" (and while I like that record well enough, my initial reaction was "Steve Malkmus is the Jimmy Buffet of indie rock," whatever that means). Oh well. I thought it was fair to only vote for albums that I have heard. Now that I have a list of things to choose from, I will actually try to hear some of these things that I had no idea came out in '03. I was just waiting for someone to do my homework. I do get a tiny thrill from being both normal and unsavory at the same time. Oh, and I know you care. dr. murt ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 09:41:21 -0800 From: "Rex.Broome" Subject: [loud-fans] Annoyances of Los Angeles Douglas: >>Rex - Go to Amoeba. Probably not something you could do at lunch - maybe >>set aside an entire day. Yeah, bit of a slog from Burbank. Big but pricey, and I've always been disappointed that it doesn't seem as cool as the one in Berkley (to me). I think that partially stems from the phenomenon where it seems like there are more copies of different records in the used bins in different cities, so the bins in other cities seem more... exotic or something. I've found some oddball things in the LA Amoeba bins, but they're also saturated with the same stamped promos dumped by industry weasels in all the other LA record stores, just in greater volume. >>And am I to believe you're supporting the grocery strike? Huh? I thought everyone was, based on the empty parking lots. I'm from West Virginia... strike central. Miners, yeah, but my folks (teachers) also went on strike when I was a kid... yeah, I honor picket lines. It's been a real pain, but there you go. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 10:31:13 -0800 (PST) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] The Q&A On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, Rex.Broome wrote: > In my defense, it was (I think) Slate who first focused in on > Rumsfeld's's bizarre form of address by framing his statements as > "poetry". It became sort of a game around the office here to pore > over his Pentagon transcripts looking for really good nuggets to > extract and appreciate for the dada jewels they are. The paragon of which is the unknown unknowns speech, which, when broken down makes sense, in a tautological way: There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things we know we don't know. But, there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we don't know we don't know. Joe Mallon jmmallon@joescafe.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:04:45 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Annoyances of Los Angeles On Fri, 6 Feb 2004, Rex.Broome wrote: > in Berkley (to me). I think that partially stems from the > phenomenon where it seems like there are more copies of > different records in the used bins in different cities, so the > bins in other cities seem more... exotic or something. I've i was consistently amazed at how often i would see cds by unknown dc bands -- the kind that were unknown enough that i gigged with 'em -- in the bins at amoeba sf (i haven't been to the berkeley store as much)... it seemed to suggest that at least one copy of every unwanted promo cd MUST eventually wind up at amoeba. i can only assume there's at least one copy of the feckless beast disc there by now. - -- d. np something by milemarker ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:37:10 -0600 From: "Fortissimo" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Annoyances of Los Angeles On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:04:45 -0500 (EST), "dmw" said: > i was consistently amazed at how often i would see cds by unknown > dc bands -- the kind that were unknown enough that i gigged with > 'em -- in the bins at amoeba sf (i haven't been to the berkeley > store as much)... Another place that's true of is Used Kids in Columbus, Ohio - every year when we visit the Ingraham Dwyers, we make a pilgrimage there...and I invariably see copies of CDs by several Milwaukee acts that, so far as I know, seldom even play outside the city. Weird. - ------------------------------- ...Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ :: "In two thousand years, they'll still be looking for Elvis - :: this is nothing new," said the priest. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:45:39 -0500 From: "Larry Tucker" Subject: [loud-fans] FW: [Television-group] Hey, this is cool! Thought I'd share this courtesy of the Television-group. Interesting idea. I wonder how much the discs will cost when available? Careful with that disc burner Eugene. Larry -----Original Message----- From: Keith Allison [mailto:keith@marquee.demon.co.uk] Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 3:00 PM To: Television-group@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Television-group] Hey, this is cool! http://www.lightscribe.com/user/usrHom.aspx Keith ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:57:49 -0800 (PST) From: "Pete O." Subject: [loud-fans] ... and speaking of L.A. (or thereabouts) From the AP wire... ========================= WEST SACRAMENTO, Calif.  Tower Records, the pioneering record retailer that invented the music megastore, is likely to file for bankruptcy in the next week, a source close to the matter said today. The bankruptcy could clear the way for a potential buyer, the source said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. MTS Inc., the privately held parent of the West Sacramento-based chain, declined to comment on the possible court filing. Such a filing would be nearly a year after MTS decided to sell Tower because it could not pay off $5.2 million (U.S.) in debt. Tower Records was launched with a single store in 1960  the same year as the Twist dance craze  and soon became internationally recognized for its in-store concerts and a deep selection of popular and obscure music. But the chain has fallen victim to a slump in the music business and its own missteps in a rapidly changing retailing environment. "It doesn't surprise me," said Phil Leigh, digital music analyst with Digital Inside Media. "The brick-and-mortar retailers are facing a serious problem. They've got to deal with Borders and Wal-Mart and the trend toward digital distribution." Tower Records owns about 100 stores, down from 171 during its heyday when annual sales topping $1 billion were routine. The retailer's decline began in 1998 as falling sales, lack of hits and discounters such as Best Buy and Wal-Mart cut into profits of traditional record stores. - - __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 21:28:04 -0500 From: "Paul King" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] The Q&A > The paragon of which is the unknown unknowns speech, which, when broken > down makes sense, in a tautological way: > > There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are > known unknowns. That is to say, there are things we know we don't know. But, > there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we don't know we don't > know. > > Joe Mallon > jmmallon@joescafe.com To be fair, Rumsfeldt may well not be the originator of the gaffe. He may as well have inherited his gaffe from his therapist instead. The following document was found on the net after entering "things we do not know we do not know" as a search string on Google (quotes included). SOURCE: Ignorance - the Art in Psychotherapy: A Self Psychological Approach Presented to Colleagues in Canberra in February 1998 by Dr Robert Gordon (http://www.robertgordon.net/papers/seven.html) Cites Anne Kerwin, who runs a "Department of Ignorance" (sic) at a medical school in Tucson, Arizona, is the likely originator of the Rumsfeld gaffe. Kerwin says that there are several "levels of ignorance" that form a part of her concept of human nature. While many investigators look at "ways of knowing", Kerwin studies the ways by which we are ignorant. There are: THE KNOWN UNKNOWNS: That is all the things we know we do not know. THE UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS: That is all the things we do not know we do not know. ERROR: All the things we think we know, but don't know. TACIT KNOWING: All the things we do not know we know. ALL TABOOS OR FORBIDDEN KNOWLEDGE: The things we are not supposed to know. THE THINGS WE CANNOT KNOW, as there is no information. ALL DENIALS: The things too painful to know which we energetically suppress (as long as we can). She adds something interesting, according to Robert Gordon, that adds a modicum of context to all this: "learning presupposes ignorance, that from ignorance stems wondering, questioning, pondering, poetry, fantasy, mystery, intuition, silence, imagination, and self reflection." At the end of the day, however, taking this out of context and importing this to explaining preemptive war and WMDs is a bit of a stretch. Could Kerwin have ever intended her words to be used in this way? Paul King Oakville, ON Canada ========================================================= Paul King http://www3.sympatico.ca/pking123/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 22:22:21 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] The Q&A In a message dated 2/6/04 9:33:59 PM, pking123@sympatico.ca writes: > At the end of the day, however, taking this out of context and importing > this > to explaining preemptive war and WMDs is a bit of a stretch. Could Kerwin > have > ever intended her words to be used in this way? > You guys aren't respecting Donald Rumsfeld's true freestyling skillz. That quote goes on with this qualifier: "There's another way to phrase that, and that is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way." And don't forget that Rumsfeld said during his confirmation hearings that his greatest concern in any military action has always been the quality of the intelligence. I'd like some assurance that Kerwin isn't on Rumsfeld's tip. ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V4 #36 ******************************