From: owner-mad-mission-digest@smoe.org (mad-mission-digest) To: mad-mission-digest@smoe.org Subject: mad-mission-digest V2 #317 Reply-To: mad-mission@smoe.org Sender: owner-mad-mission-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-mad-mission-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk * If you ever wish to unsubscribe, send an email to * mad-mission-digest-request@smoe.org * with ONLY the word unsubscribe in the body of the email * . * For the latest information on Patty's tour dates, go to: * http://www.spectra.net/~ducksoup/pattyg/patttyg.htm * OR * go to http://www.amrecords.com * then click "tour" and fill in the blanks :) * . * PLEASE :) when you reply to this digest to send a post TO the list, * change the subject to reflect what your post is about. A subject * of Re: mad-mission-digest V2 #xxx or the like gives readers no clue * as to what your message is about. mad-mission-digest Friday, October 23 1998 Volume 02 : Number 317 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: MM: Non-Patty Posts [csoudah@calstatela.edu] MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts ["Antall. Scott" ] Re: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts [David Doody ] RE: MM: RE: Sexually repressed (non patty post) [Mark Cicero ] MM: : JUST A QUESTION.... [diamondmask@juno.com] MM: RE: JUST A QUESTION.... ["Paquin, John" ] Re: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts [cdaignea@bakerbotts.com] MM: FREAKS [Elaine Bean ] RE: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts ["Antall. Scott" ] [none] [csoudah@calstatela.edu] MM: t-shirt [HAW3065@ACS.TAMU.EDU] Re: MM: FREAKS ["Michael C. Gay" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 12:48:43 -0800 From: csoudah@calstatela.edu Subject: Re: MM: Non-Patty Posts Regarding: > How can these freaks discuss sexually repressed priests and > molestation in the same sentence as t-shirt sales???? I haven't been silent for awhile, but certainly paying attention to the discussion. Is it unreasonable to have more than conversation on the list? Someone brought up the meaning of the song, another thought it would be cool to have T-Shirts. What's the big deal? I for one am not interested in a t-shirt despite the excitement, and as much of a devoted fan as I think I am. I'm not one to wear music/artist t-shirts although i have quite a few piling up in my closet. But if the majority wants it and a few can make it happen, enjoy. That's great. Oh, and more than one topic going on at once is fine with me. carol ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:51:43 -0400 From: "Antall. Scott" Subject: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts To explain my previous post, I think it's ironic that a group of "liberal open-minded people" would classify one group of people (priests) in one swoop as sexually repressed. Can you imagine how you would react if someone classified all gay people or all *anybody* as something how the people on this list would flame out? For some reason, it is ok to talk about Christians like that though. > -----Original Message----- > From: Antall. Scott > Sent: Friday, October 23, 1998 2:54 PM > To: mad-mission-digest@smoe.org > Subject: Non-Patty Posts > > I do not consider myself very uptight about non-Patty posts. Usually > they don't bother me too much, but this comment that a friend sent me > sums up my feelings exactly: > > > How can these freaks discuss sexually repressed priests > and molestation in the same sentence as t-shirt sales???? > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:08:55 -0700 (PDT) From: David Doody Subject: Re: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts But aren't priests, by their very job duties, sexually repressed? Can they act on any sexual feelings they may have? Can't have sex outside marriage, can't marry, can't masturbate. And since sexual feelings are quite natural, and surely *everyone* has them, right? Then wouldn't that make priests sexually repressed? Dave, bummed to hear that the band is still too loud. :( On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Antall. Scott wrote: > To explain my previous post, I think it's ironic that a group of > "liberal open-minded people" would classify one group of people > (priests) in one swoop as sexually repressed. Can you imagine how you > would react if someone classified all gay people or all *anybody* as > something how the people on this list would flame out? > > For some reason, it is ok to talk about Christians like that though. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Antall. Scott > > Sent: Friday, October 23, 1998 2:54 PM > > To: mad-mission-digest@smoe.org > > Subject: Non-Patty Posts > > > > I do not consider myself very uptight about non-Patty posts. Usually > > they don't bother me too much, but this comment that a friend sent me > > sums up my feelings exactly: > > > > > > How can these freaks discuss sexually repressed priests > > and molestation in the same sentence as t-shirt sales???? > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:20:41 -0500 From: Mark Cicero Subject: RE: MM: RE: Sexually repressed (non patty post) I tried to stay out of this one but can't resist. I agree with the person that posted about how quick we are to accept generalizations abouts Priests but had anyone on this list made a gross generalization about "women" or about "gays" then I feel certain that they would have been summarily tourched. Who sez that priest can't have sex or must repress their sexual urges. I would suspect that many priests struggle with this and untimately take matters into their own hands (re: wiggley fingers). After all we're all human and imperfect and if you're Catholic there is always confession on saturday afternoon. Best Regards and an enjoyable weekend to all. Mark Nashville,TN - -----Original Message----- From: "doody@ jetcity.com" @SMTP (David Doody ) Sent: Friday, October 23, 1998 3:08 PM To: mad-mission@ smoe.org@SMTP Subject: Re: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts *** TFS Evaluation Copy of module : Novell GroupWise *** But aren't priests, by their very job duties, sexually repressed? Can they act on any sexual feelings they may have? Can't have sex outside marriage, can't marry, can't masturbate. And since sexual feelings are quite natural, and surely *everyone* has them, right? Then wouldn't that make priests sexually repressed? Dave, bummed to hear that the band is still too loud. :( On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Antall. Scott wrote: > To explain my previous post, I think it's ironic that a group of > "liberal open-minded people" would classify one group of people > (priests) in one swoop as sexually repressed. Can you imagine how you > would react if someone classified all gay people or all *anybody* as > something how the people on this list would flame out? > > For some reason, it is ok to talk about Christians like that though. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Antall. Scott > > Sent: Friday, October 23, 1998 2:54 PM > > To: mad-mission-digest@smoe.org > > Subject: Non-Patty Posts > > > > I do not consider myself very uptight about non-Patty posts. Usually > > they don't bother me too much, but this comment that a friend sent me > > sums up my feelings exactly: > > > > > > How can these freaks discuss sexually repressed priests > > and molestation in the same sentence as t-shirt sales???? > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 98 16:03:25 -0600 From: cdaignea@bakerbotts.com Subject: Re[2]: MM: Non-Patty Posts Hmmm....I wonder if sexually-repressed priests wear t-shirts? :> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: MM: Non-Patty Posts Author: at internet Date: 10/23/98 12:48 PM Regarding: > How can these freaks discuss sexually repressed priests and > molestation in the same sentence as t-shirt sales???? I haven't been silent for awhile, but certainly paying attention to the discussion. Is it unreasonable to have more than conversation on the list? Someone brought up the meaning of the song, another thought it would be cool to have T-Shirts. What's the big deal? I for one am not interested in a t-shirt despite the excitement, and as much of a devoted fan as I think I am. I'm not one to wear music/artist t-shirts although i have quite a few piling up in my closet. But if the majority wants it and a few can make it happen, enjoy. That's great. Oh, and more than one topic going on at once is fine with me. carol ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:22:00 -0400 From: "Gould, Rachel L." Subject: RE: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts okay, normally i wouldn't even bother involving myself in a 'discussion' such as this. but scott, please keep in mind before you scorn those of the innocent you need to go directly to the source, bnot the discussion of the source. lamia simply mentioned that she read something or heard something about wiggly fingers being about 'sexually repressed priests'. if you read her comment to this she stated that she did not think that the song was about this. as for david, he by no means said that he thinks ALL priests are sexually repressed. on the contrary he simply made stated an opinion about what comes to mind when someone says 'sexually repressed priests', not that he thinks all priests are sexually repressed themselves. i hope this is maing sense because there is so much going through my mind and it is hard to express feelings and tone over e-mail. by the way this e-mail should be read in a very sincere and friendly tone. at any rate, i, so far, have felt as though this board is completely 'open-minded' and would be greatly disturbed if someone where to make a generalization about one 'group' of individuals or another, whether it be about the gay community, straight, priest, whatever... but you see this has not happened here. no generalization has been made about priests on a whole. do you see what i am trying to say? i hope so. aside from the fact that this was not lamia's comment, she was just telling the list about someone else's thoughts on the song. then she clearly stated she did not agree with it and was wondering what other people thought. listening to other people opinions and not judging... now that is being open-minded my friend. hope this post does not stir unwanted emotions in everyone. thanks for reading it though. :) ---------- From: Antall. Scott To: 'mad-mission-digest@smoe.org' Subject: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts Date: Friday, October 23, 1998 3:51PM To explain my previous post, I think it's ironic that a group of "liberal open-minded people" would classify one group of people (priests) in one swoop as sexually repressed. Can you imagine how you would react if someone classified all gay people or all *anybody* as something how the people on this list would flame out? For some reason, it is ok to talk about Christians like that though. > -----Original Message----- > From: Antall. Scott > Sent: Friday, October 23, 1998 2:54 PM > To: mad-mission-digest@smoe.org > Subject: Non-Patty Posts > > I do not consider myself very uptight about non-Patty posts. Usually > they don't bother me too much, but this comment that a friend sent me > sums up my feelings exactly: > > > How can these freaks discuss sexually repressed priests > and molestation in the same sentence as t-shirt sales???? > > ********************************************************************** This email message and any files transmitted with it are subject to attorney-client privilege and contains confidential information intended only for the person(s) to whom this email message is addressed. If you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or email and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault, LLP tel:617-248-7000 ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 04:06:51 -0700 From: diamondmask@juno.com Subject: MM: : JUST A QUESTION.... >Hey, ya'll....I was just wondering...since we participate on this >posting fans of Patty thingy here...does it make us > Mad Missioners? > or > Mad Missionaries? > Cause, Missioners isn't even a word...I don't think. Missionites? And who cares they aren't "real" words? Very few car names are real........ john in sumner wa ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You can make the world your apple, Take a bite before it sours. You can make the world your charm or your chain. ~Jonatha Brooke~ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 09:21:07 -0500 From: "Paquin, John" Subject: MM: RE: JUST A QUESTION.... Mad Missionaries! That's perfect because I recently led an expedition to convert the musical tastes of an isolated group of 70's AOR rock aborigines. They had strange, vulgar habits such as pumping their fists up and down violently, or shouting out ritual incantations like "FUCKING AEROSMITH, MAN!!" or "VAN HALEN ROCKS!!!" I tried to teach them our gentler ways. We sat together, reading Patty lyrics, strumming chords on the acoustic guitar. Our words must have seemed strange to them, because they laughed every time I said words like "virginal" and "cocksure." ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 98 16:08:07 -0600 From: cdaignea@bakerbotts.com Subject: Re: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts No offense and certainly don't want to turn this into a flame war, but priests are SUPPOSED to be sexually repressed according to the Pope. Repressed as defined by Websters: 1. To hold back 2. To put down by force 3. to exclude from the conscious mind. 'nough said. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts Author: "Antall. Scott" at internet Date: 10/23/98 3:51 PM To explain my previous post, I think it's ironic that a group of "liberal open-minded people" would classify one group of people (priests) in one swoop as sexually repressed. Can you imagine how you would react if someone classified all gay people or all *anybody* as something how the people on this list would flame out? For some reason, it is ok to talk about Christians like that though. > -----Original Message----- > From: Antall. Scott > Sent: Friday, October 23, 1998 2:54 PM > To: mad-mission-digest@smoe.org > Subject: Non-Patty Posts > > I do not consider myself very uptight about non-Patty posts. Usually > they don't bother me too much, but this comment that a friend sent me > sums up my feelings exactly: > > > How can these freaks discuss sexually repressed priests > and molestation in the same sentence as t-shirt sales???? > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:34:22 -0700 From: Elaine Bean Subject: MM: FREAKS Antall. Scott wrote: > > > > How can these freaks discuss sexually repressed priests > > and molestation in the same sentence as t-shirt sales???? > > > FREAKS!!??? Whenever *I* discuss t-shirts, sexual repression and molestation are the first things to come to my mind. Doesn't everyone think this way? Elaine ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:27:11 -0400 From: "Antall. Scott" Subject: RE: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts I agree with you for the most part, I should have criticized the following two people, not the whole list. Below you will find the two messages that I took most offense to: 1: Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 07:28:38 -0300 From: David Lewis Subject: Re: MM: Re: sexually repressed priests??? >yeah well it threw me simply because the first thing that pops into my >mind when seeing a priest, sexually repressed or not, isn't usually >him talking about kissing a boy or meeting a man...*L* > >Lamia Actually... a priest kissing a boy is *exactly* what comes first to my mind when I think of a sexually repressed priest. There have been soooo many cases in the past decade of catholic priests molesting young boys. Sad but true. I think it's time the catholic religion move out of the dark ages and allow priests to marry and women to preach, etc... but it'll never happen. The idea that sex is evil is too deeply rooted... heck, Mary was a virgin mother?! Ugh :/ 2: Date: Fri, 23 Oct 98 09:32:02 -0600 From: cdaignea@bakerbotts.com Subject: Re[2]: MM: Re: sexually repressed priests??? Isn't using the word *priest* and the words *sexually repressed* in the same sentence redundant? My, my, my....the thoughts on the minds of the Mad-Missioners today! LOL Looks like a good weekend will be had by all! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 13:39:28 -0800 From: csoudah@calstatela.edu Subject: [none] Okay, so.....how bout them Yankees? (hint: attempt, however poor, at subject change) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:47:09 -0500 From: HAW3065@ACS.TAMU.EDU Subject: MM: t-shirt I definitely vote for a neutral color shirt, like white, grey or natural. Maybe we can save the "flaming red" for the text. Also, I have some photos of Patty asRuby Maroon at the Austin show if the idea of a SMALL pic ever gets voted for. Perhaps, more is less, and a picture might be a bit much. Oh well, just some thoughts!! ~:o Heather ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:02:36 -0400 From: "Michael C. Gay" Subject: Re: MM: FREAKS I must admit that the molestation of t-shirts is matter which can no longer be ingnored, even by those as sexually repressed as myself. I consider Flaming Red to be a thinly-disguised manefesto of garment rights. If you just really listen... (what a strange introductory post) letting my Freak-flag fly, ~ mike Elaine Bean wrote: > Antall. Scott wrote: > > > > > > How can these freaks discuss sexually repressed priests > > > and molestation in the same sentence as t-shirt sales???? > > > > > > FREAKS!!??? Whenever *I* discuss t-shirts, sexual repression and > molestation are the first things to come to my mind. Doesn't everyone > think this way? > > Elaine ------------------------------ End of mad-mission-digest V2 #317 *********************************