From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V7 #38 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, February 14 2007 Volume 07 : Number 038 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? [Roger Winston ] Re: Fw: [loud-fans] Good news?? [2fs ] Re: Fw: [loud-fans] Good news?? [JRT456@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? [Bill Silvers ] Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? [Aaron Mandel ] Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? [Bill Silvers ] Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? [Aaron Mandel ] [loud-fans] As a reminder, or "Down To The Wire" [zoom@muppetlabs.com] Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? [CertronC90@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? [CertronC90@aol.com] [loud-fans] It's new! It's cool! And it's bursting with Mitch flavor! [] Re: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop [glenn mcdonald ] Re: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop [glenn mcdonald ] Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? [2fs ] Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? [Bill Silvers ] Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? [zoom@muppetlabs.com] Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? [2fs ] Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? [CertronC90@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:40:11 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? At Monday 2/12/2007 11:52 PM, CertronC90@aol.com wrote: >If you're 39, 80% gay, fat, live with your mom >and deliver pizza, there aren't that many people, be they male or female, >jumping through hoops of fire to send you a valentine. Mark, have you thought about taking whatever 3-week course it was that turned Ted Haggard from a homosexual into a heterosexual? If you're already 20% there, it might be even easier for you than it was for Ted. Latre. --Rog - -- FlasshePoint, yet another blog among millions: http://www.flasshe.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:20:27 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: Fw: [loud-fans] Good news?? On 2/13/07, Jenny Grover wrote: > > Mike Curley wrote: > > I just think I always had the impression that the day was > > manufactured as a way to sell greeting cards and jewelry. You're thinking of "Sweetest Day" - which does not exist. Still, one need not buy into commercialism to > celebrate love, or anything else. True...but then, one need not celebrate it by spending money on shit. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:32:21 EST From: JRT456@aol.com Subject: Re: Fw: [loud-fans] Good news?? In a message dated 2/13/07 11:27:46 AM, jeffreyw2fs.j@gmail.com writes: > True...but then, one need not celebrate it by spending money on shit. > Your wife can't eat chocolate, but she can eat shit? Tell us the name of that disease, and we'll start researching the cure right now. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 10:45:23 -0600 (GMT-06:00) From: Bill Silvers Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? It's nice to read a Valentine's appreciation, since I actually enjoyed the ritual in grade school and have continued to give valentines to friends and co-workers just because it feels good and engenders bonhomie, by and large. I sympathise with and kinda understand the haters on the thing, since I spent my share of Valentine's solo, but it's seemed to me that the haters are mostly who I hear from around Valentine's anymore. A friend on another list shared the following rant a couple of weeks ago, which I got a big kick out of. YMMV and all that. -b.s. This is from the 'I Anonymous' column from last week's The Stranger: KISS MY ASS, VALENTINE'S HATERS I want to wish a great big FUCK YOU to the singles out there who whine about Valentine's Day. FUCK YOU! In the past when I was single on Valentine's Day, I didn't expect the world to stop the holiday on my behalf. You know what I did instead? I gave cards and candy to my FAMILY, my FRIENDS, my CO-WORKERS; one year I even took flowers to a stranger in a nursing home across town. A fucking STRANGER, and it made me feel great. I still give cards to the people I love platonically. What the fuck is wrong with you if you can only show love to someone who FUCKS YOU? Why don't you get off your ass and show love first-instead of thinking the day is a plot against you? Why the belief that a holiday has to stop just because YOU don't celebrate it? What, are you going to tell the world that celebrating Chinese New Year is all about making YOU feel bad because you're not Chinese? Maybe you're fucking single because you're a whiny loser who thinks the WORLD REVOLVES AROUND YOU. - -----Original Message----- >From: bradley skaught >Sent: Feb 13, 2007 1:12 AM >To: 2fs , the sort of thing most people > never give a second thought >Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? > >I'll fess up, I love Valentine's Day--really love it. We get dressed up, go >out to a nice Italian restaraunt, drink wine. I like picking out a card, >trying to think up something meaningful and romantic to say. It always makes >me really stop and think about where we're at--what goals we're working >towards, what we've been through (good and bad) recently. It's nice to put >everything else on hold and just focus on hanging out. We do hat on our own >sometimes, but the fact that it's a holiday gives something extra--some kind >of sense of community maybe? ritual? I don't know, but I really like it... > >B ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:13:14 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Bill Silvers quoted: > What the fuck is wrong with you if you can only > show love to someone who FUCKS YOU? Oh come ON. To the extent that there's an 'objective' truth of the matter about these things, modern Valentine's Day is about romantic and sexual love. I will eat my hat if the number of people who are disappointed in what their romantic partner did for them on Valentine's Day is within a factor of 100 of the number of people disappointed in what their children or parents did for them. [Taking the tack here that many holidays are used as springboards for all sorts of friendly or kind things-- so I smile when my mom sends me Valentine's chocolates, but this doesn't say as much about the core of the holiday as the fact that I mope if my partner doesn't send me anything.] You can choose your own actions, and to some extent you can define those actions, but you can't redefine other people's actions; those couples mooning at each other over tables in restaurants tomorrow aren't celebrating how great it is to give strangers flowers, no matter what I think or do. Whether it is in fact great to give strangers flowers, and whether doing so might cheer me up on Valentine's Day, on Christmas, on my own birthday, on the day of my dog's funeral, or on Tisha B'Av... is kind of off the point. a ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:27:26 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Silvers Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? - -----Original Message----- >From: Aaron Mandel >Sent: Feb 13, 2007 12:13 PM >To: Bill Silvers >Cc: loud-fans@smoe.org >Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? > >On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Bill Silvers quoted: > >> What the fuck is wrong with you if you can only >> show love to someone who FUCKS YOU? > >Oh come ON. To the extent that there's an 'objective' truth of the matter >about these things, modern Valentine's Day is about romantic and sexual >love. An opinion which is not particularly objective, nor recognizant of the sorts of reasons that the ranter (who certainly did overstate the case, but arguably no more so than the typical "hater.") or I gave for giving cards to co-workers , friends, etc. Romance and sexual love gots nothing to do with the fun little cards I and others give to folks other than my wife. If that sort of action is an an exception, it needn't be. b.s. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:46:51 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Bill Silvers wrote: >> Oh come ON. To the extent that there's an 'objective' truth of the >> matter about these things, modern Valentine's Day is about romantic and >> sexual love. > > An opinion which is not particularly objective, nor recognizant of the > sorts of reasons that the ranter (who certainly did overstate the case, > but arguably no more so than the typical "hater.") or I gave for giving > cards to co-workers , friends, etc. Right, the two sentences you quoted did not go out of their way to include people giving cards to co-workers; the rest of my post did. I also said why I considered my statement a guess about a semi-objective matter rather than an opinion: people's observances and expectations about Valentine's Day do skew heavily in one particular direction, and I'm not sure what you can say the holiday is made of if it's not people's accumulated practice. Otherwise, what grounds do we have for saying that Valentine's Day is about giving cards to co-workers instead of setting off fireworks? (You might say "If you want it to be about setting off fireworks, it is. Go have fun." But are you going to then rag on 'haters' for overlooking how great Valentine's fireworks are, even if they've never heard of anyone doing such a thing?) > Romance and sexual love gots nothing to do with the fun little cards I > and others give to folks other than my wife. If that sort of action is > an an exception, it needn't be. Sure, it needn't be. But I do think it is. Probably it's a healthier way to handle Valentine's Day than just getting upset over it would be... which doesn't invalidate the criticism of someone who'd rather raze the institution than reform it. a ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:48:13 -0800 (PST) From: zoom@muppetlabs.com Subject: [loud-fans] As a reminder, or "Down To The Wire" Tomorrow's the deadline for 33 1/3 pitches. I'm re-enclosing the stipulations as a .sig. Wasn't there something about whipping infertile women... Andy Time of the Season! We're now accepting proposals for future 33 1/3 books, to be published in 2008 and 2009. Here are some rules, guidelines and ramblings: * Proposals on artists already covered in the series (or under contract to be covered) will not be accepted. In other words, these people: The Smiths The Kinks Neutral Milk Hotel Pink Floyd Joy Division Velvet Underground Rolling Stones The Beatles Radiohead Love Neil Young Beach Boys Dusty Springfield DJ Shadow Jimi Hendrix Led Zeppelin The Replacements David Bowie The Band Beastie Boys Jeff Buckley Prince Pixies The Ramones R.E.M. Bruce Springsteen Bob Dylan Elvis Costello James Brown Abba Jethro Tull Nirvana Sly and the Family Stone The Who The MC5 The Stone Roses Guided By Voices Magnetic Fields Joni Mitchell Guns N Roses My Bloody Valentine The Byrds Stevie Wonder A Tribe Called Quest Sonic Youth Captain Beefheart Steely Dan The Clash The Minutemen PJ Harvey Celine Dion Nine Inch Nails Richard and Linda Thompson Tom Waits Belle & Sebastian Throbbing Gristle Nick Drake U2 Brian Eno Lucinda Williams Patti Smith Kate Bush Television * The deadline for submission of proposals is Wednesday February 14th - - how very romantic. * Only one proposal per person. Seriously! * If you've submitted before, you're perfectly welcome to do so again. * All proposals must be submitted via email - the address is pitches33@yahoo.com Please don't send any proposals to my regular work email. I'm trying to concentrate on Biblical Studies for the next few weeks. * Choice of album is important - we're here to sell some books, after all. We're more likely to accept a proposal on Odessey & Oracle than on Angels With Dirty Faces, as much as I love them both. * Your proposal should take the form of a Word document attachment. Do not include your proposal in the body of your email. * Your proposal needs to include these simple things: your name; a brief outline (up to 1000 words) of how you would approach your album of choice; a brief bio of yourself (up to 500 words), outlining why you're awesome, and why you're the best person to write about that album; a couple of sentences on which 33 1/3 book you've enjoyed the most so far, and why; that's pretty much it. *** Last time around (towards the end of 2005), we received about 170 proposals, and ended up offering contracts to 21 of them. I've no idea how many we'll get this time, or how many we'll end up signing, but we do promise to read them all and to give them all equal consideration. Once we've narrowed it down to a shortlist (by the middle of March), we'll contact those authors to finalise manuscript deadlines, etc. I hope this covers everything! If you have any questions, leave them in the comments section to this post, and I'll do my best to answer them. (posted by David Barker, editor, 33 1/3 series @ Continuum) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:17:47 EST From: CertronC90@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? In a message dated 2/13/2007 8:55:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, rwinston@tde.com writes: Mark, have you thought about taking whatever 3-week course it was that turned Ted Haggard from a homosexual into a heterosexual? If you're already 20% there, it might be even easier for you than it was for Ted. I said this because it wouldn't be true to say I'm completely homosexual (not turned on by either or all: Belinda Carlisle, Winona Ryder or Scarlett Johansson???--then you must be a 9 or 10, or off the meter of the sexual orientation scale--explanation to come). What inspired me was Dave Eggers in A HEARTBREAKING WORK OF STAGGERING GENIUS, where at the beginning of the book on the copyright page he places himself as a 3 on the sexual orientation scale, with one being perfectly straight and 10 perfectly gay. I would be 8. I used to think I had to somehow change myself (hence the psychologically damaging "Exodus" support group I once attended--I always brought the iced oatmeal cookies--now how gay is that???) when in fact, I'm a pretty good bloke just the way I am, and still love God, even if some people who also love God think I'm a "sodomite" one heartbeat away from burning eternally in the fires of Hell, next to Randy Rhoades and Paul Lynne. - --Mark ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:21:48 EST From: CertronC90@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? In a message dated 2/13/2007 3:17:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, CertronC90 writes: Paul Lynne I mean Pau Lynde. M ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:37:23 EST From: CertronC90@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] It's new! It's cool! And it's bursting with Mitch flavor! I'm listening to it now! It's very comforting to hear Mitch sing, and to hear that trademark Tarheel guitar style. Same with seeing The Police the other night. It's like I'm expecting to go outside and find my old VW Rabbit convertible on the carport and hear my dog Terry (the Terrier--died in '89) scratching at my door to come in. - --Mark ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:01:57 -0500 From: glenn mcdonald Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop Although if you do the Spearman calculation using only the non- overlapping voters, it goes down to about .45, so that difference alone tells you there's some interesting variation between the two... Begin forwarded message: > From: "Michael Mitton" > > Well, in fear of taking the geekiness further than necessary, I took > the vote compilation done by glenn and calculated the Spearman Rank > Correlation Coefficient. > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearman%27s_rho) > > The correlation is 71% ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:34:19 -0500 From: glenn mcdonald Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop PS, now that I've implemented Spearman calculations in my data- modeler and can kick them out for anything, here's what you get for various slices of these two polls: top 10 albums, including shared voters: 0.709 top 10 albums, only unique voters: 0.352 top 140 albums, including shared voters: 0.716 top 140 albums, only unique voters: 0.447 all albums, including shared voters: 0.417 all albums, only unique voters: 0.208 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:59:03 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? On 2/13/07, CertronC90@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 2/13/2007 3:17:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > CertronC90 > writes: > > Paul Lynne > > > I mean Pau Lynde. I thought you meant Jeff Lynne. Not really. - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:20:25 -0600 From: Bill Silvers Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? Aaron Mandel wrote: > On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Bill Silvers wrote: > >>> Oh come ON. To the extent that there's an 'objective' truth of the >>> matter about these things, modern Valentine's Day is about romantic >>> and sexual love. >> >> An opinion which is not particularly objective, nor recognizant of >> the sorts of reasons that the ranter (who certainly did overstate the >> case, but arguably no more so than the typical "hater.") or I gave >> for giving cards to co-workers , friends, etc. > > Right, the two sentences you quoted did not go out of their way to > include people giving cards to co-workers; the rest of my post did. > Actually I didn't think that it was going to be particularly worthwhile to belabor the essential difference in our respective POV on this, and I'm OK after all with leaving yours as the "objective truth" on the matter, regardless. b.s. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:57:08 -0800 (PST) From: zoom@muppetlabs.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? > This list has the highest percentage of weirdos of any list I'm on. Period. It also has the highest percentage of males. Coincidence? Okay Jen, I'll bite. What other lists know your prose, and how do they stay weirdo-free? (Can you buy it in a spray-bottle...) Andy "Just to fuck every night with no meaning, with a blank face, gets hollow quickly, and I find I want to do some fucking with meaning." - --Jim Brown ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:07:41 -0600 From: 2fs Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? On 2/13/07, Aaron Mandel wrote: Otherwise, what grounds do we have for saying that Valentine's Day is > about giving cards to co-workers instead of setting off fireworks? > > (You might say "If you want it to be about setting off fireworks, it is. > Go have fun." But are you going to then rag on 'haters' for overlooking > how great Valentine's fireworks are, even if they've never heard of anyone > doing such a thing?) You've never had Valentine's fireworks? My sympathies... - -- ...Jeff Norman The Architectural Dance Society http://spanghew.blogspot.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:57:02 EST From: CertronC90@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Good news?? In a message dated 2/13/2007 2:01:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, CertronC90@aol.com writes: Well, what can I say, Jen? If you're 39, 80% gay, fat, live with your mom and deliver pizza, there aren't that many people, be they male or female, jumping through hoops of fire to send you a valentine. Just for the record, Jenny, I'm coming to terms with my first steps into middle age, am completely comfortable now with my sexual orientation, actually like my physique, though would like to lose a little weight, but not a whole bunch, and am fine with my living arrangement (if I don't take care of mom, who will?--she's done plenty for me in her lifetime) and like my delivery job, but just want to do it as icing on the cake, not the cake itself. I'm speaking not in a Hi-I'm-Charlie-Brown-and-I-need-a-Prozac-and-a-hug way, but in an observation of the way the world is. The right person can see past all these things the world looks with disdain, or down upon, and see one for who they really are. Let the right one slip in, - --Mark ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V7 #38 ******************************