From: owner-mad-mission-digest@smoe.org (mad-mission-digest) To: mad-mission-digest@smoe.org Subject: mad-mission-digest V2 #318 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 318 Today's Subjects: ----------------- MM: Help Needed for concert ["Eric Southward" ] RE: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts ["Gould, Rachel L." ] Re: MM: RE: Tee-Shirts ["Larry S. Greenfield" ] RE: MM: FREAKS ["Paquin, John" ] Re: MM: Bowery last night - Raw Patty [VWoolf2@aol.com] Re: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts [WWM27@aol.com] Re[2]: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts [cdaignea@bakerbotts.com] Re[2]: MM: FREAKS [cdaignea@bakerbotts.com] MM: T-shirt quoting ["Allan M. Ayres" ] MM: From the list owner - all please read :-) [Mike Connell ] MM: T-Shirts [diamondmask@juno.com] MM: Priests, wriggly fingers, and loud music. [diamondmask@juno.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 15:42:00 -0500 From: "Eric Southward" Subject: MM: Help Needed for concert Patty is playing in Indianapolis on Nov. 3rd (thanks to Kevin for the info) and I want to her to get a HUGE plug in the local entertainment rag. The local college radio station has been playing her BIG time for a few months now. In fact they put "Change" on a freebie CD, so her stuff is out there - but no one knows she's coming. If anyone feels like testing the power of the Internet medium, I ask that you e-mail Steve Hammer the local music editor at the Nuvo: shammer@nuvo.net Promote her concert 11/3 at The Patio because she is great and people will dig her and review her Flaming Red CD because it's great. Thanks in advance for any help!! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:41:00 -0400 From: "Gould, Rachel L." Subject: RE: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts okay, fair enough but again i think these two posts were taken outside the realm and scope of what the authors meant. i already stated what i thought about davids post and that he was not inferring that all priests are sexually repressed and that all preiests have homosexual tendencies and what-not. as for the second one, i think that the person who posted that did not have a malicious intent. i think they were just saying that it is redundant because priests, in accordance with their religion, faith and belief, are not permitted by the laws that govern their religion which in turn govern their life, to engage in sexual relations of any sort, and since all beings have a natural instinct for sexual desires... priests are bound by their laws to 'repress' these feelings and desires, therefore leading into the contoversial statement of 'sexually repressed priests". i truly don't think any harm was meant. but again, when it comes to communicating elecronically, words can be misconstrued and taken out of context. over a screen a sentence could read one way to me and another way to you. it's dangerous. again, hope this makes sense. - ---------- From: Antall. Scott To: 'Gould, Rachel L.'; 'mad-mission-digest@smoe.org' Subject: RE: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts Date: Friday, October 23, 1998 4:27PM 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! ********************************************************************** 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 13:53:12 -0700 From: "Larry S. Greenfield" Subject: Re: MM: RE: Tee-Shirts My vote is for "flaming red." Or, if it's gray, then at least flamng red letters? White is just too, um, pedestrian? Just my opinion. "Got my red shoes and I got my red dress...." - -=-Larry-=- Gould, Rachel L. wrote: > > how about plain old white? maybe even grey or something. i think we should > go with a simple color, nothing to 'showy'. just a thought. > ---------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:25:39 -0400 From: Andrew Lee Subject: MM: Patty photos and Tshirts Happy Friday! There are some nice pictures of Patty at Sedona in the attached URL... Look in the "Other Artists at Sedona" section, and scroll down... I especially like the first one, and I think this is when she was singing Tony... Don't stop with the two single photos of her, because there are a couple more down towards the bottom... http://website.lineone.net/~fred.taylor/jbphoto.htm Re: the T-shirts... I usually like neutral colors, but would have to go with the vote for Flaming Red, and probably add yellow letters... My reason for this is that although I get the OVERWHELMING impression that most list members really prefer the LWG CD, and I believe this list is about showing ongoing support for Patty's work. I have read several remarks about the loudness of recent shows, and would have to agree with the need for moderation on the sound, but I have also noticed a distinct lack of thrills over the FR CD... I respectfully submit that Patty intentionally went out on the limb with that record, and I think she did a great job of including something for everyone... It includes everything from punk, to rock to country... My 65-year-old-MOM even liked it... It is much more polished than LWG, but we all need to keep in mind that LWG was a demo. Patty NEVER even intended for it to be released to the public. She probably envisioned recording Every Little Bit with the same kind of backup that is playing on Wiggley Fingers, and Let Him Fly with a background similar to Christina. HER "style" has ALWAYS included full band back-up, but the release of LWG in it's "un-finished" form took that back-up away from her.... Sooooo my point would be, I think we should show Patty our support by adopting at least the colors from Flaming Red, but agree completely with the choice of lyrics from Mad Mission.. That IS the name of the list, and also happens to be what was on the shirt that I gave her in Sedona... This was all MHO, so please don't be upset with me.... Peace, Y'all, Lee in Atlanta ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 16:27:55 -0500 From: "Paquin, John" Subject: RE: MM: FREAKS Will Patty be playing at the upcoming "Freak Priests Molested by T-Shirt Wearing Red Flamers" benefit show and weenie roast this weekend in Syracuse? Just wondering. - -john ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:31:11 EDT From: VWoolf2@aol.com Subject: Re: MM: Bowery last night - Raw Patty I also caught the Bowery Ballroom show. I have seen her twice doing her solo acoustic magic but this was the first time I saw her with her band. She is absolutely amazing to me in either forum. The band brings out a different side of her - she seems a lot more comfortable on stage and more comfortable with her sexuality than when I have seen her before. Her rendition of "Daddy" last night made the song seem even creepier to me. Did anyone else see it and feel that way? She had this weird smile on her face during the first part of it and then at the end she seeemed so pained. It gave me chills. I don't think I like it. The highlights for me were Moses, Wiggly Fingers, Blue Sky and the blues cover she did. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 20:08:18 EDT From: WWM27@aol.com Subject: Re: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts B R A V O ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 98 16:50:36 -0600 From: cdaignea@bakerbotts.com Subject: Re[2]: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts Scott....my apologies for offending you, however, the word "repressed" has never and WILL never be a dirty word in my vocabulary. Priests knowingly take vows of celibacy, *voluntarily* repressing their own sexuality. Hence, my comment regarding "sexually-repressed" and "priests" being redundant. It was not meant as an inflamatory remark, although you took it that way. It was not meant mean-spirited, although you chose to see it that way. It was also certainly not meant as a defamatory remark toward Catholics or any other Christian religion. Perhaps when reading the posts on this board in the future, you will take them a little more lightly. Peace. ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: RE: MM: RE: Non-Patty Posts Author: "Antall. Scott" at internet Date: 10/23/98 4:27 PM 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 98 17:10:59 -0600 From: cdaignea@bakerbotts.com Subject: Re[2]: MM: FREAKS Garment rights. :::dying:: or should I say :::dyeing::: ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: Re: MM: FREAKS Author: "Michael C. Gay" at internet Date: 10/23/98 5:02 PM 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 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 17:47:48 -0700 From: "Allan M. Ayres" Subject: MM: T-shirt quoting Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. However, it seems to me that simply quoting a fragment of a lyric of one of Patty's songs on a T-shirt would fall under the Fair Use Doctrine of copyright law, and so wouldn't need any particular copyright release from Patty or the management or whoever. I have a link on my web page to a nice lawyer-written discussion of the Fair Use Doctrine, if you want to check it out. Basically the idea is that you're allowed to quote small portions of copyrighted works under certain circumstances: if the quoted portion is a small part of the overall work, for example, and if the act of quotation doesn't damage the market for the original work. Printing a snippet of a lyric on a T-shirt seems like it would meet these conditions, even if the T-shirt is sold for a profit. On the other hand, printing one of the CD pictures on a T-shirt probably would *not* be fair use, and *would* need copyright release from the owner, just because it's pretty hard to 'quote' a picture without printing the whole thing or at least a substantial portion of it. Just my interpretation. Standard disclaimers apply. - --Allan ~~~~~~~~ Allan M. Ayres emdash@creative.net http://www.stanford.edu/~ayres ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 20:57:12 -0400 From: Mike Connell Subject: MM: From the list owner - all please read :-) Hi folks :-) I just want to request something of many of you. Way too many posts are coming in that are quoting an entire post. This is really not necessary, and it's also wasting a lot of disk space. Each post to this list is permanently archived twice, once individually, and once again in the digest. As you can imagine, this all adds up fast. Unnecessary quoting uses up disk space even faster. Not to mention the fact that quoting an entire post is poor netiquette, and that it makes it harder for readers to get the most out of a post. It's really best to only quote what is necessary to support your point, and then delete the rest of the post you are replying to. It makes your post more effective :-) Mike :-) - - * The Patty Griffin/Mad-Mission@smoe List Homepage is at: * http://www.spectra.net/~ducksoup/pattyg/pattyg.htm * * Rachel Martin's Patty Griffin Lyrics Archive is at * http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/3079/patty.html * * Jerry Zigmont's Flaming Red - A Patty Griffin Website is at * http://w3.nai.net/~zigmont * * Katie Peterson's Patty Griffin Guitar Tabs Archive is at * http://members.tripod.com/~Lifey/patty.html * * DuckOfPrey or WhyADuck55 on AOL or AOL Instant Messenger ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 20:59:10 -0500 From: Jeff Dunnam Subject: MM: Re: mad-mission-digest V2 #317 Hey Michael, Loved your post and welcome. Thanks for reminding me of that great Crosby song. Jeff ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:15:43 -0700 From: diamondmask@juno.com Subject: MM: T-Shirts I see black T's with a picture of patti's wild head of red hair over the left breast with the words Mad Mission in bright red under her picture, and on the back, also in bright red, an agreed upon lyric. john in sumner wa ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998 19:04:46 -0700 From: diamondmask@juno.com Subject: MM: Priests, wriggly fingers, and loud music. I'm on a couple of lists, and if you want massive posts, you can't lose if you mention religion or sex. And, you won't change anyone's mind. I saw that someone said that there is always confession. I'm hoping they were kidding..... Because, to me, that's the biggest loophole in religion there is. But anyway, if Patti is talking about masturbating priests, fine. More power to her and the priests.. Ok, I like some music loud. Real loud. Some music is MEANT to be ear splitting and almost painful. Patti's music? No. Maybe it's a phase. I hope so. Because someone needs to tell Patti, that as good as Flaming Red is, it just doesn't meet the power of Living With Ghosts. No, she won't meet the big audience going solo acoustic, but at the same time, if her core fans are more acoustic based, maybe she'll have more staying power. I love Flaming Red. But, at the same time, I really want to hear each song in an acoustic setting. While they are slick on the CD, I would be willing to bet that they are more real in a more personal setting. I'm on the David Wilcox list, and his "produced" album while good, had many complaints about the backing. I think Patti had better quality musicans on FL, but I heard her do Wriggly Fingers and One Big Love on a local radio station. The album versions don't hold a candle. Sorry Patti, to me, you're at your best, and most honest when you have just that 4 inches of soundbox between your stomach and us. john in sumner wa ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ End of mad-mission-digest V2 #318 *********************************