From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V4 #282 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 Sunday, October 17 2004 Volume 04 : Number 282 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) [LkDylaninthmvies@aol] Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) [steve I thought you guys didn't do "nuance" - it's like French or something. > It was a perfume by Coty. Wait...did that sound gay? - --Mark S., who is actually bi for the record (but always monogamous in a relationship), owns no Streisand or Garland, and doesn't like the cliche ridden QUEER EYE (though the food guy seems really smart and would be interesting to talk to) and WILL AND GRACE "BUSH IS A REDNECK" (a bumper sticker I saw on the back of a confederate flagged F-150 the other week...they have it like it's a good thing) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 07:33:44 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) > In a message dated 10/16/04 12:52:24 AM, steveschiavo@mac.com writes: >> >> Come on JR, you're fucking with us, right? Because we know you're not >> stupid, but this is your third Smelly Toad in a row. >> On Oct 16, 2004, at 12:04 AM, JRT456@aol.com wrote: > I'm not familiar with that Alanis Morissette song. Take a look at your > last > few postings, and you're obviously trying to make some kind of point > about > Phyllis Schlafly having a gay son. It obviously doesn't bother her, so > why > don't you just try clearly stating why it's such a concern to you? JR, you're forever throwing out snide little diversions when Mark or somebody makes what you consider to be a stupid lefty comment. Like your assertion that I was attacking Schlafly's son, despite the fact that I had stated that I don't care about his sexual orientation. I figure you're just being intentionally obtuse, and I'm long past the time when I'm interested in some multi-pointed debate. Bottom line, when you strip away all the love the sinner crapola, looks to me that the basis for the cultural conservative crusade against gay marriage is nothing more than simple bigotry, and the unwillingness to let anybody live a life that is different from their own. It's worse coming from people like Schlafly and Keyes, because having gay offspring ought to be a mitigating factor. - - Steve __________ A coward, a bully, a bigmouth, and a queer-basher. Yes, we have been here before. The word is fascism, in case you are wondering, and we don't have to sit through that movie again. - Christopher Hitchens, on Mel Gibson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:43:02 -0500 From: "Paul King" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) > On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Michael Mitton wrote: > > > Of course, Oregon year in year out has the most ballot initiatives of > > any state in the country, occasionally more than the other 49 states > > put together. > > Which has led to charmers like 2000's Proposition 9: > > Section 1. ORS 336.067 is amended to read (new section): > > "(e) Sexual Orientation as it relates to homosexuality and bisexuality, > is a divisive subject matter not necessary to the instruction of > students in public schools. Notwithstanding any other law or rule, the > instruction of behaviors relating to homosexuality and bisexuality shall not > be presented in a public school in a manner which encourages, promotes or > sanctions such behaviors." actually, as a teacher, I have other problems with it: If something is a "divisive matter", then how on earth could it "not [be] necessary" for the "instruction of students in public schools"? What do you think would happen if all of our discussions involved subject matter that wasn't divisive? And if we are merely discussing something everyone agrees on, can you possibly justify it as requiring any instruction at all? Paul King ========================================================= Paul King http://www3.sympatico.ca/pking123/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 08:49:06 -0500 From: Chris Prew Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) On Oct 16, 2004, at 8:43 AM, Paul King wrote: > > actually, as a teacher, I have other problems with it: If something is > a > "divisive matter", then how on earth could it "not [be] necessary" for > the > "instruction of students in public schools"? What do you think would > happen if > all of our discussions involved subject matter that wasn't divisive? > And if we > are merely discussing something everyone agrees on, can you possibly > justify it > as requiring any instruction at all? > And how are you supposed to have American kids excel at science and engineering if you can't teach them division? Chris ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:01:08 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) In a message dated 10/16/04 8:38:31 AM, steveschiavo@mac.com writes: > It's worse > coming from people like Schlafly and Keyes, because having gay > offspring ought to be a mitigating factor. > And since your prejudices couldn't allow you to consider that John Schlafly is himself part of a cultural conservative brigade, you tried to make the point that he must really be an embarrassment to his mother. I can see why you avoid multi-pointed debate. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:03:51 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE teach) In a message dated 10/16/04 9:30:05 AM, pking123@sympatico.ca writes: > actually, as a teacher, I have other problems with it: > It's hard to keep track on this List, so are you the kind of teacher who delivers pizza, or are you the kind of teacher who brings coffee and keeps the copier trays filled? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:33:32 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:01:08 EDT, jrt456@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/16/04 8:38:31 AM, steveschiavo@mac.com writes: > > > > It's worse > > coming from people like Schlafly and Keyes, because having gay > > offspring ought to be a mitigating factor. > > > > And since your prejudices couldn't allow you to consider that John Schlafly > is himself part of a cultural conservative brigade, you tried to make the point > that he must really be an embarrassment to his mother. I can see why you > avoid multi-pointed debate. John Schlafly may well be "part of a cultural conservative brigade," but I suspect he's not part of an anti-gay cultural conservative brigade. Steve wrote: > Schlafly gets points for not disowning her gay son, but loses points > for making/letting him become gay in the first place. No Moral > Exemplar status for her. Once again, I have no expectations for or > about him. I interpreted this as ironic, in that I don't think Steve actually believes parents make or let their children "become gay." The status of "moral exemplar" would be in the view of cultural conservatives...who typically though not exclusively regard homosexuality as both a choice and an immoral choice. If I'm wrong, and Steve really thinks parents make or let their kids become gay - then Steve's wrong. But if he thinks that, it would surprise me: it's inconsistent with the rest of the picture I get of him from his posts. Then again, when someone else who calls himself a "Christian" but seldom acts in anything approaching a Christian manner, I could just be assuming more consistency, and less hypocrisy, than circumstances warrant. - -- ++Jeff++ The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 13:40:01 EDT From: LkDylaninthmvies@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) In a message dated 10/16/04 9:30:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, pking123@sympatico.ca writes: > actually, as a teacher, I have other problems with it: If something is a > "divisive matter", then how on earth could it "not [be] necessary" for the > "instruction of students in public schools"? What do you think would happen > if > all of our discussions involved subject matter that wasn't divisive? And if > we > are merely discussing something everyone agrees on, can you possibly justify > it > as requiring any instruction at all? > > Paul King > > I see your point, but I can tell you that I have learned from the divisiveness the gay issue has caused in my own family about me (since it's always about me Me ME!!!) that I'm not gonna touch it in my classroom wearing thick rubber gloves lined in asbestos. People have a public face on the issue, but it can morph pretty damned ugly if it involves their own family, especially their children. I used to be closest to my sister in my family until I came out when I was 30 (yes, I said 30...in 1997). She distanced herself from me, but allowed me in her life, but the poop hit the Galaxie when I took her son to a fun park for the afternoon when he was 12, in 2001, and I was playing a Morrissey album in the car. He asked me if Morrissey was gay. I said, "If he is, does it matter? His music is good, don't you think?" He told my sister that I said it was okay to be gay, and that is not what I was saying at all. What I was saying is that one should separate one's sexuality or judgments on that sexuality from musical talent. I did this, thinking I was actually respecting my sister here. I thought, at 12, he'd understand what I was saying, but I guessed wrong. Now my sister and I, because of this, and her "disgust" with my "lifestyle," (I didn't know I had one) doesn't speak to me at all. Or my mother, because of her support of me. Also, delivering pizza isn't a bad gig. I'm gonna listen to the latest Andrew Sandoval album again tonight while I'm working so I can review it for our lovely, non-homomphobic Miss Grover. I'll have to deliver in the summer to make ends meet (But, for some good news, I've been told by the Charleston County Schools recruitment lady in an e-mail yesterday that I'm good as hired, just get my paperwork done for the application. Charleston is a lot more culturally advanced than Greenville...movies like BEFORE SUNSET play there, there's the Spoleto festival, historic district, beaches, etc.) but driving around listening to albums and public radio isn't so terrible. If I gave Gil Ray a dollar for every time I'd played a GT/LF album he played drums on while I was delivering pizza, he could probably buy a damned nice set of drums. - --Mark S., who needs to watch the "stupid lefty" comments. I've been called stupid and am left-handed, so I don't want to be a hypocrite he-he ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 14:49:40 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE teach) JRT456@aol.com wrote: >It's hard to keep track on this List, so are you the kind of teacher who >delivers pizza, or are you the kind of teacher who brings coffee and keeps the >copier trays filled? > > > You know, what really disgusts me is the occasional grade school level jab by the occasional listmember that somehow service and blue collar jobs are beneath dignity. It's every bit as bigoted as other forms of discriminatory thinking and rhetoric and shows great poverty of human spirit. Maybe some of you think we should go back to slavery and just own the people who cook, clean, nurse, manufacture, and otherwise break a sweat or do a menial task for us. I'll warrant Mark is making better money as a pizza deliveryman (no, he's not a delivery "boy") than I made in my last distinctly white collar, skilled job in my "field" and that he's not pushed to the verge of medical disability by job stress like I was. There are numerous reasons people choose to work jobs that snobs consider inferior, and stupidity, lack of education, and mental laziness are not requirements. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 15:16:33 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) > In a message dated 10/16/04 8:38:31 AM, steveschiavo@mac.com writes: > >> It's worse >> coming from people like Schlafly and Keyes, because having gay >> offspring ought to be a mitigating factor. >> On Oct 16, 2004, at 9:01 AM, JRT456@aol.com wrote: > And since your prejudices couldn't allow you to consider that John > Schlafly > is himself part of a cultural conservative brigade, you tried to make > the point > that he must really be an embarrassment to his mother. I listen to the crazy Jeezers on Point of View when the talk show on the local NPR station turns to travel or wine, so I've heard of the good relationship between Schlafly and her son. Nowhere did I say that he must be an embarrassment to his mother. He's too old for adolescent rebellion, so maybe he's secretly angry at God. Or maybe he accidently saw his mother naked when he was 3, and it turned him gay. Who can say? - - Steve __________ Miyazaki combines a grownup's humanity with the free imagination that many of us possessed at the age of 7 and that all but the geniuses lost. - Sarah Kerr, Vogue ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:55:45 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) In a message dated 10/16/04 4:25:56 PM, steveschiavo@mac.com writes: > Nowhere did I say that > he must be an embarrassment to his mother. > You asked "what's the deal?" with John Schlafly, before asking if he was gay as the result of "bad parenting or bad genes?" Then you wondered if parents like Phyllis Schlafly "failed to rear their children correctly." Professor Secretary may define that as irony, but it isn't. If you were aware that John Schlafly is very much part of what Professor Secretary imagines as an "anti-gay cultural conservative brigade," then you would've known better than to try to use John to make...well, whatever point you're trying to make by supposedly posing as a bigot. To be honest, weren't you just delighting in what you hoped was an embarrassment for a prominent conservative? Meaning Schlafly, of course. I have no idea what Keyes is supposed to be. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 18:05:36 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE teach) In a message dated 10/16/04 3:56:44 PM, sleeveless@zoominternet.net writes: > You know, what really disgusts me is the occasional grade school level > jab by the occasional listmember that somehow service and blue collar > jobs are beneath dignity. > Hey, I certainly have respect for anybody who contributes to society by holding a job. And I'm sure that certain "teachers" on this list will outgrow the need to constantly invoke their imagined trade once they've grown up and can actually make a living at their chosen profession. I'm also confident that these bright young men will make their dreams come true before...well, certainly before they're in their thirties. Hey, Jen, remember that creep on this List who once expressed her amazement at how a mere phone company employee could define "palindrome?" We were both really polite not to express how pathetic that was. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:04:49 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE teach) JRT456@aol.com wrote: >Hey, Jen, remember that creep on this List who once expressed her amazement >at how a mere phone company employee could define "palindrome?" We were both >really polite not to express how pathetic that was. > > > That does sound familiar, and I recall from time to time hearing other job-related jabs I thought were pathetic. That's why I addressed the situation to plural listers over a non-specific time frame. Call it the straw that broke the camel's back syndrome. That being said, I still have to call you on insinuating that people not making a living in their chosen field, including teachers, have somehow not "grown up" yet, or that someone formerly out on his own in the working world who has fallen on hard times and had to rethink his career path and gain additional training to pursue a new tack has not grown up and is not allowed to temporarily rely on sharing accomodations with family members. If you lived in as economically depressed an area as I do now, where even teachers who had successful jobs have lost them to school consolidation, and scores of other people in other professions have lost skilled jobs through no shortcomings of their own, simply because those jobs have ceased to exist and not been replaced, you might not be so snide. It's a truly sad sight to see 14,000 people lined up around the block, some having camped out for days, for 200 telemarketer jobs simply because that's all that had been on offer for months after a series of corporate closings and consolidations. If I'm not currently working an art-related job, do I lose the right to call myself an artist? If Scott works a day job outside the music field to make ends meet, does he lose the right to call himself a musician? If a teacher doesn't have a fulltime teaching job, but continues to teach in short term situations like substitute teaching, does he lose the right to call himself a teacher? Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:55:18 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:55:45 EDT, jrt456@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/16/04 4:25:56 PM, steveschiavo@mac.com writes: > > > Nowhere did I say that > > he must be an embarrassment to his mother. > > > You asked "what's the deal?" with John Schlafly, before asking if he was gay > as the result of "bad parenting or bad genes?" Then you wondered if parents > like Phyllis Schlafly "failed to rear their children correctly." Professor > Secretary may define that as irony, but it isn't. If Steve meant what I thought he meant, it certainly is a species of irony. By the way: I've never fetched anyone coffee in my life, not that I'd have a problem with that if it were part of my job. (I'm also not a professor.) If you had any clue whatsoever concerning the academic job market and the typical time-to-completion for advanced degrees, you wouldn't make ignorant remarks about what people are supposed to do, according to you, by the time they're thirty. I've been teaching for more than ten years now. It's what I am trained to do, it's what I earn most my money doing, and I see no reason to put quotation marks around the word "teacher" should I need to refer to myself as such. Whereas all the quotation marks in Bartlett couldn't begin to encompass the hypocrisy of your claimed status as "Christian." > If you were aware that John > Schlafly is very much part of what Professor Secretary imagines as an "anti-gay > cultural conservative brigade" "Imagines as"? The phrase "cultural conservative brigade" was quoted from...you. We were talking about anti-gay attitudes in general, so I have no idea what you could possibly mean by saying "imagines as an 'anti-gay cultural conservative brigade.'" Leaving aside the nonsense-making phrase "imagines as," I do have to wonder how much sense it makes for a gay man to be part of an anti-gay anything, brigade or not. It seems you're asserting that he is. That only underlines the idiocy and incoherence of the movement's zealots. - -- ++Jeff++ The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:33:31 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) In a message dated 10/16/04 8:56:10 PM, jeffreyw2fs@gmail.com writes: > Whereas all the quotation marks in Bartlett couldn't > begin to encompass the hypocrisy of your claimed status as > "Christian." > This post ends with the URL for the LoudFans archives. Feel free to provide an example of when I've ever referred to myself as a "Christian" in a self-glorifying sense. I doubt you'll find one there, or anywhere else. You might get results by searching "bad Christian," though. That's usually how I describe myself when discussing my faith. You can also use the archives to find that you created the term "anti-gay cultural conservative brigade." John Schlafly represents the group that you refer to by that term. As a gay man, I'm sure he can set you straight on your imaginings. Of course, you'd rather just accuse him of "idiocy and incoherence" for not thinking like...well, however you imagine all gay men are supposed to think. And, yes, we're all sure you can provide many compelling reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with your own abilities to explain why someone can still be looking for full-time employment in academia at an age when others have established tenure. Don't forget to include the Reagan administration! http://www.smoe.org/lists/loud-fans/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 22:20:06 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) JRT456@aol.com wrote: >And, yes, we're all sure you can provide many compelling reasons that have >absolutely nothing to do with your own abilities to explain why someone can >still be looking for full-time employment in academia at an age when others have >established tenure. > I'm not Jeffrey and I don't feel compelled to include the Reagan administration, but one big reason I can think of is that, especially in college and graduate school academia, there are far more people seeking a tenured position than there are tenure track positions available. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 22:58:47 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) In a message dated 10/16/04 10:28:00 PM, sleeveless@zoominternet.net writes: > I'm not Jeffrey and I don't feel compelled to include the Reagan > administration, but one big reason I can think of is that, especially in > college and graduate school academia, there are far more people seeking > a tenured position than there are tenure track positions available. > Yes, it saddens me to think of the five people I knew in the '80s who mentioned an interest in teaching at the college level, and how they're all now...well, enjoying their long careers as full-time instructors at respected universities. One of them may have left for the private sector, though. For the record, I certainly won't be surprised when Jeffrey finally scores full-time employment. I see by his blog bio that his only writing experience was working for free at a fanzine. Those who can, do. Those who can't... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 22:45:51 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) At Saturday 10/16/2004 08:58 PM, JRT456@aol.com wrote: >I certainly won't be surprised when Jeffrey finally scores full-time >employment. I've been woefully unsuccessful in finding full-time (or any) employment in my chosen career path of "porn star", and have had to settle for the increasingly downsized IT field (and will probably soon have to shift over to Wal-Mart Greeter or Pizza Delivery Man). Any tips? Thanks. Latre. --Rog - -- Distance, Redefined: http://www.reignoffrogs.com/flasshe ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:55:55 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) JRT456@aol.com wrote: >Yes, it saddens me to think of the five people I knew in the '80s who >mentioned an interest in teaching at the college level, and how they're all >now...well, enjoying their long careers as full-time instructors at respected >universities. One of them may have left for the private sector, though. For the record, >I certainly won't be surprised when Jeffrey finally scores full-time >employment. I see by his blog bio that his only writing experience was working for >free at a fanzine. Those who can, do. Those who can't... > > Well, it depends very much which subject area one chooses (how competitive or specialized it is and which other requirements go with the job, which depends largely on which institution one chooses to teach at) , which part of the country one lives in or is willing to move to, which institution one's degree came from, what pay and benefit requirements one sets, and other quality of life issues. It depends largely, as well, on what one considers an "enjoyable" career. Changes in administration and policies can turn a good teaching position into a hellish one, and even a tenured professor's department might be phased out, in which case, if he is guaranteed a replacement job, it might not be one he wants and might not even be a teaching position. At the time my husband accepted his current job, there were only four jobs open in his field in the entire country, and at least one of them was not a teaching position. However, if he had chosen to be an English professor, he could likely snap something up somewhere at will. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:59:24 -0400 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) Roger Winston wrote: > I've been woefully unsuccessful in finding full-time (or any) > employment in my chosen career path of "porn star", and have had to > settle for the increasingly downsized IT field (and will probably soon > have to shift over to Wal-Mart Greeter or Pizza Delivery Man). Any > tips? Thanks. Pizza delivery men often get tips, but I don't think Wal-Mart greeters ever do. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:31:02 -0500 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 21:33:31 EDT, jrt456@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/16/04 8:56:10 PM, jeffreyw2fs@gmail.com writes: > > > > Whereas all the quotation marks in Bartlett couldn't > > begin to encompass the hypocrisy of your claimed status as > > "Christian." > > This post ends with the URL for the LoudFans archives. Feel free to provide > an example of when I've ever referred to myself as a "Christian" in a > self-glorifying sense. Who said anything about self-glorification? I doubt you'll find one there, or anywhere else. You might get > results by searching "bad Christian," though. That's usually how I describe > myself when discussing my faith. I accused you of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy isn't falling short of one's goals; hypocrisy is (among other things) not even trying to achieve them. I cannot believe that your persistent and gratuitous personal attacks of, oh, half the people on this list recur *despite* your efforts not to do them, in line with what I understand to be Christian ethics. If, in fact, they do - if they're that much of a compulsion for you - some sort of professional help is indicated. And I'm not saying that insultingly. > You can also use the archives to find that you created the term "anti-gay > cultural conservative brigade." This gmail is kind of a cool thing, in that I just archive every piece of e-mail that comes from and goes into my account. And it's all searchable. And when I enter the phrase "cultural conservative brigade," the earliest entry that comes up is dated "Sat, 16 Oct 2004 10:01:08 EDT" and comes from one "jrt456@aol.com." If that's not you, then someone's spoofing your e-mail address. I suppose you're going to claim that such "cultural conservative brigades" (your term, or that of the person spoofing your e-mail or stealing your identity) have absolutely no association with any sort of anti-gay message or thought. Good luck with that. > John Schlafly represents the group that you refer > to by that term. As a gay man, I'm sure he can set you straight on your > imaginings. Of course, you'd rather just accuse him of "idiocy and incoherence" for > not thinking like...well, however you imagine all gay men are supposed to > think. It would be idiotic and incoherent for a gay man to be part of an anti-gay movement. That's not a question of my imposing my preconceptions of what "all gay men are supposed to think" - I should think it's blatantly obvious. > And, yes, we're all sure you can provide many compelling reasons that have > absolutely nothing to do with your own abilities to explain why someone can > still be looking for full-time employment in academia at an age when others have > established tenure. Don't forget to include the Reagan administration! Who the hell's "we"? Regardless, and for what it's worth: The chief reason I am not employed full-time in academia is that I have never seriously looked for a full-time job in academia. And the reason I have never done that is that I know I do not have the paper qualifications to get such a job. And the reason I do not have those qualifications is that I stopped work on my Ph.D. because it seemed utterly fruitless to me. On the one hand, I could spend years writing a pointless document for a committee that didn't care about what I was writing about (and frankly, I didn't care about what I was writing about either), to enter a job market that, if my experience were to be typical, would result four or five years later in a job teaching composition and the occasional lit course in a college in East Dustfuck, Montana, uprooting my wife from a fulfilling and wellpaid job she loved in the process. On the other hand, I could stop wasting my time and effort writing crap I didn't care about, keep the lecturer position I still have, stay in the lovely house my wife and I bought six years ago, continue to live in the city I've come more and more to love, and remain happy, even if to do so also required working a part-time, moderately enjoyable job that some people think is of low status not that I give a rat's ass, and even if the resulting cumulative income is lower than it might have been. I don't care; I'm happy with what I've got and where I live and who I am. As for my writing experience: I'm not sure why you think my blog profile would necessarily list every piece of writing I've ever done...but similarly, I didn't pursue a career writing music criticism because I realized early on that I wanted to write only for a particular audience, and not for an audience to whom I'd have to explain who Bob Dylan was; that I didn't particularly enjoy deadlines; and that I enjoyed my teaching more than I enjoyed the possibility of making a career of writing. It was, and remains, in other words, an avocation. For what it's worth, the quality of writing at _Milk_ was for the most part (I exclude my own work from consideration) easily the equal of most other music magazines serving a similar market, as evidenced by several of its writers publishing in those outlets after it folded a few years back. (Jon M. Gilbertson writes for nearly every local paper these days and used to write for a couple of nationally distributed music magazines; Josh Modell writes for _Magnet_ and _The Onion_.) You asked; I answered. Oops - forgot to mention the Reagan administration. Here come the lefty secret police to revoke my membership. - -- ++Jeff++ The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 02:06:16 EDT From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] non-musical post (just PLEASE vote) In a message dated 10/17/04 1:32:58 AM, jeffreyw2fs@gmail.com writes: > It would be idiotic and incoherent for a gay man to be part of an > anti-gay movement. That's not a question of my imposing my > preconceptions of what "all gay men are supposed to think" - I should > think it's blatantly obvious. > To state the obvious, you're speaking of an "anti-gay" movement that's only anti-gay by your own definition ...as proven by your own fun gmail search. At least I now join John Schlafly in benefiting from your special gift of being able to tell people about their own goals and what they should be thinking. Seems like you're eager to define Christianity, too. More obvious: There's no shame in being a secretary, or living by your own goals. There is, however, inherent humor in how a guy who can't even break full-time into academia is so compulsive about always letting us know that he's off to teach a class. Try impressing us with how you're off to do some filing. ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V4 #282 *******************************