From: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org (navy-soup-digest) To: navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Subject: navy-soup-digest V3 #88 Reply-To: navy-soup@smoe.org Sender: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk navy-soup-digest Tuesday, May 23 2000 Volume 03 : Number 088 In This Digest: ----------------- Re: Live footage, religion, etc. ["Moon Child" ] Re: navy-soup-digest V3 #81 [What? Management ] Re: Live footage, religion, etc. [What? Management ] Re: navy-soup-digest V3 #81 [Paul Schreiber ] Re: navy-soup-digest V3 #81 [What? Management ] Re: Live footage, religion, etc. [What? Management ] Re: Live footage, religion, etc. ["James McGarry" ] Re: Live footage, religion, etc. [elizabeth weber ] Re: Live footage, religion, etc. [What? Management ] Re: Live footage, religion, etc. [elizabeth weber ] talking about recordings [rturingan@dico.com] Re: Live footage, religion, etc. ["James McGarry" ] Re: Music interpretations ["Christine Evans" ] Dawson's Creek in Canada [What? Management ] Re: Music interpretations ["Sophie" ] Re: navy-soup-digest V3 #87 ["taitts" ] Re: Dawson's Creek in Canada [Trav Leippi ] Re: religion (sigh) ["Sophie" ] SEB SPEAKS (re: live footage..) [JewelEDA21@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 01:04:44 EDT From: "Moon Child" Subject: Re: Live footage, religion, etc. Rob said: >Leonard Cohen's song was featured in the Christian Slater movie "Pump Up >the >Volume" a couple years ago; the movie was about a rogue teenager who >started >a pirate radio station as an outlet for his angst (what an amazing idea... >better than going and shooting up a bunch of people, don't ya think???) -- >anyways, if you haven't seen this movie, rent it. i think its brilliant in >its own demented way, and it has an amazing soundtrack. Concrete Blonde >covers Cohen's song on that soundtrack CD. amazing song, amazing version. It was also in the Canadian movie by Atom Egoyan "Exotica" and is featured on one of his CDs... can't remember which one and am too lazy to find it in my room. ~Kim ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 11:24:01 -0400 From: What? Management Subject: Re: navy-soup-digest V3 #81 > > Also, is the new album going to be released through Atlantic Records? > > Warner/Universal if I guess right. If not I'm sure Heather will correct me > ;-) Atlantic/Warner, but who can tell these days?! :) Best, Heather. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 11:24:03 -0400 From: What? Management Subject: Re: Live footage, religion, etc. >I can't help but think it'd be a crime to >distribute a flubby copy of such crystal-quality music as LYW. Ahhhh... Music to my ears. That's exactly the reason that we're a bit tight-assed (please excuse the expression) about what's made available. It's funny to me that no one has touched on the fact that bootlegging is *illegal*! Hmmm... Bunch of rebels...! Joy, Heather. >I've almost _got_ everything Sarah M has ever produced. I just don't hear >the similarity I guess. Aside from an ability to hit really high notes. >Sarah M. sounds more like Joni M. to me. Maybe I'm just really really fussy. > >As far as religion goes, it's been a touchy subject for me... In our >government right now everyones talking prayer in school and the hanging the >ten commandments. I just get sad, because no one sees the danger. And when I >try to explain my position they think I'm nuts. It doesn't help that I live >in one of the most conservative cities in America. I have to admit I'm a bit >relieved that S.S. isn't a fundamentalist or anything. :) > >Has everyone heard the song Leonard Cohen - Everybody Knows? It's great! I >just downloaded it because I liked Famous Blue Raincoat. Another excellent >download is Tara Maclean - Child. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Ian Mullins >To: >Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2000 5:35 AM >Subject: Live footage, religion, etc. > > >> > Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 13:55:27 -0400 >> > From: "Sophie" >> > Subject: Re: When's her new album? :) and issues of live footage -- and >> discussion on Sarah's music! >> > >> > S.S is really great live, yes. But she also has an extremely high >standard >> > for her music, and wouldn't want people listening to a poor quality dub >of >> > any live shows. Anyone who collects rare mp3s knows that for a >non-studio >> > recording of an artist to even approach the quality of the show is >pretty >> > much a fluke. Although most of us are anxious for the unreleased stuff, >I >> > think we'd also rather wait for the Slean seal of approval, which means >we >> > know we'll be getting quality. >> >> Well I agree, but I disagree. A lot of rare mp3s are plain crappy... >yes... >> but there's also quite a lot that are amazing. Either because the recorder >> had awesome microphones, or because the recorder knew the person at the >> soundboard, and thus was able to obtain a perfectly clear copy of the >show! >> :) >> >> Besides all that, it's sort of maddening for me because I practically >NEVER >> listen to studio material. I usually find it to be too manufactured - too >> sterile. Live performances are the only true show of talent when it comes >to >> vocal and playing ability, IMHO. Now, the sterile issue isn't so bad with >> Sarah as it is with other artists, but it's still there. >> >> >> But anyway... >> >> > I'd have to disagree about Universe being her best work to date. I think >> > Blue Parade and Universe are both stunning, but I really enjoy the >lyrical >> > content of Blue Parade. I don't like the idea of applying "direction" to >> her >> >> I agree with that comment, although melodies are slightly more important >to >> me... and I enjoy the melodies more on Universe than I do on Blue Parade. >> Plus as I already mentioned, there's a little too much stuff going on >> besides the piano on Blue Parade. But nothing's ever perfect -- is it? ;) >> (besides Last Year's War :) ..) >> >> > I wish I knew why people are always comparing Sarah to someone else. She >> is >> > perhaps the most incomparable artist that I've heard. Sometimes I do >> compare >> > artists, Jennifer Kimball is a bit like Sarah Harmer is a bit like Dar >> > Williams (but each brilliant in their own way)...but I've never heard >> music >> > like S.S's. Her voice is just strikingly dissimilar, imho. >> >> Well it's not so much about comparing as it is about influences, I >think... >> The word 'comparing' has too much of a stigma on it to begin with though. >> She has admitted she enjoys Tori's music, and I do hear melodic >> similarities. Lyrically Sarah's a little more straight forward though. ;) >> And Sarah's voice IS similar to Sarah Mclachlan's. >> >> But similar is only similar. Of course Ms. Slean has her own style all her >> own. :) And that's why we all listen to her music as well, and not just >> _____'s .. >> >> > I'd really appreciate it if we didn't introduce religion here. I really >> > would. Please? :). I know you're just curious Ian, but it's kindof a can >> of >> > worms.. once opened, you just can't get that smell out of the air. >> >> Oh .. well I didn't really want to discuss details (at this point anyway!) >> .. I just wished to know Sarah's standpoint.. and as I replied in a >previous >> e-mail, I found out she is not Christian at all. :) >> >> - Ian >> Web author of "Tori's Beauty ..and a Gun" >> Covers, Live MP3s, Photos, Lyrics and more! >> http://home.ican.net/~crashy >> Get an email everytime the page has something new: >> Send mail to me with "subscribe" in the subject line! >> >> ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 10:22:33 -0700 From: Paul Schreiber Subject: Re: navy-soup-digest V3 #81 What? Management wrote: >Atlantic/Warner, but who can tell these days?! :) Don't you mean AOL-Time Warner-Atlantic-Elektra? Maybe AOL can include Blue Parade with every 5.0 CD. :-) Paul shad 96c / 3B CS / mac activist / eda / fumbler fan of / jewel / sophie b. / sarah slean / steve poltz / emm gryner / / x-files / buffy / dawson's creek / habs / bills / 49ers / t h i n k d i f f e r e n t. "the best man ... if I'm the best man, why is she marrying *him*?" -- Jerry Seinfeld ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 10:22:33 -0700 From: Paul Schreiber Subject: Re: Live footage, religion, etc. What? Management wrote: >It's funny to me that no one has touched on the fact that bootlegging is >*illegal*! This is an interesting topic. I'm kinda curious, even though this isn't Sarah-specific. What aspects of bootlegging are illegal? I understand that -selling- a copy of Sarah's recordings would be illegal. (Her songs are copyrighted works, and one doesn't have the right to reproduce those works without the rightholder's permission (Sarah, SOCAN, et cetera). But where does the act of recording itself fall, legally? Taking a picture of an artist -- or their work -- isn't illegal; that's a visual snapshot. What about having a recording for personal, noncommercial use? How does that fit in with the fair use ("fair dealing" in Canadian law) provision of copyright law, i.e. for the purposes of critical review or study? Has anyone ever been convicted of anything for noncommercial recording? Paul imprint university of waterloo student newspaper imprint.uwaterloo.ca p 519-888-4048 / f 519-884-7800 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 13:32:36 -0400 From: Adam Lynch Subject: Re: navy-soup-digest V3 #81 And thus spoke Paul Schreiber: > > Maybe AOL can include Blue Parade with every 5.0 CD. :-) > Didn't Sarah McLachlan's "Surfacing" come with AOL on the same CD, in a CD-XA partition? Thats kind of interesting, historically. Sarah M. is with Arista records, which, if memory serves, is a BMG company. Which is a direct Warner Music competitor. Okay, I'm strange. I admit it. - -- - --- AdamL. alynch@sprawl.net http://sprawl.net Any view of the universe that is not strange is false. -Neil Gaiman Perfection is what we achieve when we lower our standards. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 13:45:26 -0400 From: What? Management Subject: Re: navy-soup-digest V3 #81 >Maybe AOL can include Blue Parade with every 5.0 CD. :-) Ohhh.... The old brainwheels are spinning... :) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 14:16:22 -0400 From: What? Management Subject: Re: Live footage, religion, etc. Man, that's alot of questions, Paul! I'm hoping someone else can jump all over this too, because you've got me stumped. >I understand that -selling- a >copy of Sarah's recordings would be illegal. (Her songs are copyrighted >works, and one doesn't have the right to reproduce those works without >the rightholder's permission (Sarah, SOCAN, et cetera). I believe that the moment that you decide you want to secure material onto a permanent form you're required by law to apply for a "mechanical license" and to pay a "mechanical" royalty to the writer. Without the writer's permission you can't get the license, and I guess that would make the process illegal. I'm not sure of that, but it could certainly be argued. You can't legally photocopy a book or manuscript or a magazine or articles in a newspaper without the permission of the copyright holder. The same holds true for music. Even the club owners/venue owners/concert promoters have to pay a % of their advertising budget (and there's some other stuff thrown in there too, I think) for the right to have musicians perform their own material. They have paid to make that process legal. Bootleggers have not paid anything or cleared anything as far as rights go. >What about having a recording for personal, >noncommercial use? ...that may or may not stop you from purchasing the actual album by that artist because you are now in possession of their songs anyway. Whatever the legalities are, that's the crux of the problem for so many artists who have trouble just making ends meet (which is 98% of artists that I know). I agree that it's wonderful that an artist's work is shared for the purposes of creating interest and spreading the good word. However, for many people, they'll be happy with getting MP3s from Napster (or wherever) and never spending a cent that will go to the artist at all. >How does that fit in with the fair use ("fair dealing" in Canadian law) >provision of copyright law, i.e. for the purposes of critical review or >study? Damn good question. I have no idea. All copies of recordings that are sent out for review can be recalled by the record company at any time. (I don't recall this ever happening, but many promo copies that are sent to press have some type of "property of suchandsuch records", etc., stamped right on the artwork). I suppose promo copies are considered "lent", not "given". >Has anyone ever been convicted of anything for noncommercial recording? I can't answer that one, but I'd be interested to know. (There would be little point in charging Joe Shmoe who has a collection of Tori Amos live bootlegs that he uses only for personal enjoyment... The court costs and the tying up of the courts would be ridiculous.) I'm sure that people have had their recording devices confiscated at concerts, etc., though. Most artists at a certain level who can afford to take their own sound systems and soundmen/monitortechies with them (and can then be certain that the sound will be wonderful every night) probably wouldn't worry about it as much as we have to (50%+ chance of pretty bad sound, a soundman that has no idea what to do with a cello, the recording being done on crappy equipment with a crappy mic with people talking and moving, etc.). (You may also notice that the artists who are most vocal about allowing live tapings and the distribution of those bootlegs are all artists with alot of money... Always easy to be cool when you've got the bills covered!) Cheers, H. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 14:44:15 -0400 From: "James McGarry" Subject: Re: Live footage, religion, etc. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Schreiber" Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 1:22 PM > What aspects of bootlegging are illegal? I understand that -selling- a > copy of Sarah's recordings would be illegal. (Her songs are copyrighted > works, and one doesn't have the right to reproduce those works without > the rightholder's permission (Sarah, SOCAN, et cetera). You don't have the right to reproduce in any form, even if not for profit. If I take a picture of Sarah, that's a creative work on my part (I hope anyway ;-) but a recording of her work would be just stealing those songs. After all if I'm paying at the door, its not for the right to reproduce, but simply the right to be present. If you were a legitimate scholar or reviewer, i.e. employed or known as such, conceivably you would, if it were a public place, have a right to record a Fair Use portion under those guidelines. Still you'd have trouble 'enforcing' that right since you would likely have no way of knowing how long the song would be and such, when to stop taping :-) And it isn't 'reasonable' for an artist to allow taping with the expectation that someone would stop at Fair Use guidelines. And Fair Use guidelines don't include unpublished works. And that could also exclude live works... > But where does the act of recording itself fall, legally? > > Taking a picture of an artist -- or their work -- isn't illegal; that's a > visual snapshot. What about having a recording for personal, > noncommercial use? Ah! Actually there are laws that govern that to in some places, I couldn't say take a picture of an artist and sell it as a poster in California at least nor put that picture on products, etc. as anyone should have control of their own image. It's pretty fuzzy in places, since if it was newsworthy, it would fall within the public interest or public eye. I've gone over this with lawyers and copyright experts from time to time, but I'm not one myself ... but a recording for personal, noncommercial use, is still prohibited, except by 'fair use'. > How does that fit in with the fair use ("fair dealing" in Canadian law) > provision of copyright law, i.e. for the purposes of critical review or > study? Fair use suggests (at least the copyright guideline here at the U) (1) an entire single short story, play, poem, essay or article from a book or periodical issue containing other works, (2) an entire newspaper article or page, (3) a single item of print music from a book or periodical issue containing other kinds of works, (4) an entire entry from an encyclopedia, dictionary, or similar reference work, (5) a reproduction of an artistic work (drawing, painting, print, etc.) from a book or periodical issue containing other works, (6) an entire chapter which is 20% or less of a book. Now, since live music is in a form of 'peculiar value' (Veda Hille fans chuckle at this point), it could be easily argued that such work qualifies as 'unpublished' and is therefore excluded, which would limit fair use, based on the above to a single song off a published recording that contains other songs, where that song does comprises less than 20% of the total work. And you still have to show that you are using this for legitimate study or review :-) Besides, if you are doing legitimate review or scholarly work, most labels, artists will give you a whole copy anyway, so the point is moot. :-) James. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 14:55:49 -0400 From: elizabeth weber Subject: Re: Live footage, religion, etc. What? Management writes: > >I can't help but think it'd be a crime to > >distribute a flubby copy of such crystal-quality music as LYW. > Ahhhh... > Music to my ears. > That's exactly the reason that we're a bit tight-assed (please > excuse the > expression) about what's made available. > > It's funny to me that no one has touched on the fact that > bootlegging is > *illegal*! > I think Ian's original question was if Sarah allowed taping. Which she doesn't (thus, it is illegal). But if taping *was* allowed (which it isn't for Sarah, but many artists do allow taping), bad quality copies of shows wouldn't be prevalent. Instead, the recordings would be soundboard to DAT, or people could have nice mics out resulting in virtually soundboard quality. I respect the decision not to allow recording, but I personally don't understand it (this isn't Sarah specific, I'll get Sarah specific below, but to artists in general...). I don't believe it cuts into the commercial success of an artist (most fans who look for live recordings already have *everything* by that artist). No one is making a profit (when taping is illegal, commercial bootleggers charge outrageous amounts for a poor quality recording) since the music is traded amongst the fans (selling would still be illegal). I guess some artists are perfectionists and wouldn't want a less than perfect performance floating about legally, although I don't think that matters much to the fans. Just my thoughts. Okay, and now I will get Sarah specific on the live recording issue (since I just read Heather's eloquent responses to Paul's questions... glad I checked my mail before I sent this out...). I agree that as of now, taping probably shouldn't be allowed. You don't know how the soundguy will be. You want control over distribution. So I *do* understand the decision in this case. I'm just hoping (please, please, please!) that when Sarah has a fabulously talented soundperson, and she has a comfortable amount of $$, taping will be allowed. :-) elizabeth ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:08:34 -0400 From: What? Management Subject: Re: Live footage, religion, etc. >I'm just hoping (please, please, >please!) that when Sarah has a fabulously talented soundperson, and she >has a comfortable amount of $$, taping will be allowed. Hell, anything to piss off the record company...! :) (Right, Stevie J?) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:10:06 -0400 From: elizabeth weber Subject: Re: Live footage, religion, etc. Paul Schreiber writes: > But where does the act of recording itself fall, legally? > > Taking a picture of an artist -- or their work -- isn't illegal; > that's a > visual snapshot. Many artists don't allow concert pictures. So those *would* be illegal. You usually see "no cameras or recording devices" signs posted all over the venue. >What about having a recording for personal, > noncommercial use? Still illegal, but difficult to prosecute. > Has anyone ever been convicted of anything for noncommercial > recording? I don't believe so. As Heather said, the costs and the tying up of the courts would be ridiculous. If someone gets caught recording at a show, the equipment could be confiscated by venue (or artist) security or the person could be asked to leave without refund. But I don't think anyone has ever been arrested. elizabeth ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:19:25 -0400 From: rturingan@dico.com Subject: talking about recordings I have a quick question? I was at the Cute Mute show.. and it was wonderful. I know there are currently three mp3's available from the show at the moment. Heather, do you know if and when you will be releasing any of the other tracks? I have recently gotten into Jay Englishman (he is superb) and I would love to here his version of Me and Jerome. Anyways.. that is all for now... Oh ya BTW? do you guys want some Cheesecake for the Video shoot? when is that taking place anyways... or has it happend already Okay I lied that is more than one question... Cheers Rannie ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 15:35:39 -0400 From: "James McGarry" Subject: Re: Live footage, religion, etc. - ----- Original Message ----- From: "elizabeth weber" Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 3:10 PM > Paul Schreiber writes: > > But where does the act of recording itself fall, legally? > > > > Taking a picture of an artist -- or their work -- isn't illegal; > > that's a > > visual snapshot. > > Many artists don't allow concert pictures. So those *would* be illegal. > You usually see "no cameras or recording devices" signs posted all over > the venue. It's not illegal as in criminal, it instead would be a breach of the contract you entered into in buying the ticket. It's the venue that's not allowing the pictures most of the time, those venues usually have those so sorts of rules as not to water down the work of professionals and to control the quality of the output and to a degree to disclaim responsibity for damage or theft. (e.g. my $5000 camera was broken at the concer and I'm suing... etc.) At a public venue, e.g. say something like Streetfest it falls into the realm of public appearance, and it would be perfectly legal to take the picture. After that it's what you do with the image that makes a difference. If you sell it to a news outlet you are ok, since it falls into 'public interest', if you sell the image of the artist or use it to sell a product, then that falls under a person's right to control their own image, though some places will allow the sale of celebrity photos (and some under certain conditions). And if you use it in a book or other media, you might need signed photo releases for people who are not 'in the public eye' who might otherwise reasonably expect a level of privacy. (e.g. if you happen to snap a shot of a cute baby at said Streetfest.) If you take a photo at a concert and keep it at home and show it to friends you are perfectly ok there. James. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 15:03:55 -0400 From: "Christine Evans" Subject: Re: Music interpretations >----- Original Message ----- >From: Ian Mullins >To: >Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2000 6:44 AM >Subject: Music interpretations >> 2. In Last Year's War, when Sarah sings: >> >> Hey you with your stars out >> and >> I'm here with my stars out >> >> --to what is the word 'stars' referring? >> >> My guess is that she means hands... Since stars (generally) have five >> points, and so does a hand.. >> >> What do you think? :) > >The Sleanster has stated on several occasions that 'the stars' she is >talking about are the good stuff inside. the wonderful, magical parts that >we show to someone special. The ultimate in exposing one's vulnerability. Yes. I recall the first time I heard this song (at the Blue Parade CD release party at Ted's last August), Sarah explained it the following way (excuse my rough paraphrasing): "I see all people as having stars inside them. And when normal people meet others, they tend to just let one or two out... just allowing the other a little peep into themselves. Not me. I go FWOOOOSH! and let them all out at once." (I remember the "FWOOOSH!" part, as well as the actions that went with it, very exactly. :-) ) I think that *many* of us are prone to do the same thing... too, too often. :-) Although the relation of stars/hands is equally evocative of sadness/desperation/lonliness and so on, Ian. Love you all, - - Christine Evans :-) evans_ent@msn.com http://nevermind.thesociety.net ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:54:22 -0400 From: What? Management Subject: Dawson's Creek in Canada Hello good people - I have it on good authority that the episode with Sarah's "My Invitation" is on tomorrow night (Wednesday) on Global. Best, Heather. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 18:30:44 -0400 From: "Sophie" Subject: Re: Music interpretations That's interesting... the 'Seymour, an Introduction' similarity must have been by coincidence. I simply assumed it was purposeful because I knew Sarah liked Salinger a lot. This is the part in the book that I'm talking about: Seymour in a letter to Buddy: " ..Give me a story that makes me unreasonably vigilant. Keep me up 'till five only because all your stars are out, and for no other reason. Excuse the underlining, but that's the first thing I've said about one of your stories that makes my head go up and down. Please don't let me say anything else. I think tonight that anything you say to a writer after you beg him to let his stars out is just literary advice..." and then, a little furthur: " ...I'm sure you'll only get two questions. Were most of your stars out? Were you busy writing your heart out?" Anyway, it's an interesting parallel. :) Soph - ----- Original Message ----- From: Christine Evans To: Navy Soup Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 3:03 PM Subject: Re: Music interpretations > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: Ian Mullins > >To: > >Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2000 6:44 AM > >Subject: Music interpretations > >> 2. In Last Year's War, when Sarah sings: > >> > >> Hey you with your stars out > >> and > >> I'm here with my stars out > >> > >> --to what is the word 'stars' referring? > >> > >> My guess is that she means hands... Since stars (generally) have five > >> points, and so does a hand.. > >> > >> What do you think? :) > > > >The Sleanster has stated on several occasions that 'the stars' she is > >talking about are the good stuff inside. the wonderful, magical parts that > >we show to someone special. The ultimate in exposing one's vulnerability. > > > Yes. I recall the first time I heard this song (at the Blue Parade CD > release party at Ted's last August), Sarah explained it the following way > (excuse my rough paraphrasing): > "I see all people as having stars inside them. And when normal people > meet others, they tend to just let one or two out... just allowing the other > a little peep into themselves. Not me. I go FWOOOOSH! and let them all out > at once." > (I remember the "FWOOOSH!" part, as well as the actions that went with > it, very exactly. :-) ) > I think that *many* of us are prone to do the same thing... too, too > often. :-) > > Although the relation of stars/hands is equally evocative of > sadness/desperation/lonliness and so on, Ian. > > Love you all, > - Christine Evans :-) > evans_ent@msn.com > http://nevermind.thesociety.net > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 18:41:44 -0400 From: "taitts" Subject: Re: navy-soup-digest V3 #87 - -----Original Message----- From: navy-soup-digest To: navy-soup-digest@smoe.org Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 12:32 AM Subject: navy-soup-digest V3 #87 > >navy-soup-digest Tuesday, May 23 2000 Volume 03 : Number 087 > > In This Digest: > ----------------- > Re: navy-soup-digest V3 #81 [Paul Schreiber Re: navy-soup-digest ["Sophie" ] > Re: Live footage, religion, etc. [Piggio@aol.com] > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 07:19:49 -0400 >From: "Sophie" >Subject: Re: navy-soup-digest > >I tend to think of religion as a personal, rather than public, aspect of a >person. Agreed. But so is sexuality and Lord knows that people don't seem to have any problems discussing that. >*I'd* prefer we didn't bring it up, because I'm very sensitive to it. To put >it flatly--I've been involved in too many religious discussions which have >just ended in hurt and resentment. I also happen to know that some really >sweet people believe the weirdest things imaginable (like my mom), and you >can't really question them about it (trust me!). :) I can understand being sensitive to something, but I also think that if one is uncomfortable with a certain topic of conversation, then that person should simply refrain from participating in it rather than trying to keep everyone else from discussing it. This attempted "censorship" (for lack of a better word) of people's expression is exactly what so many religions are guilty of. >One thing that metaphysical beliefs have in common is this; we all believe >we know the truth, or at least the approximate truth. So if it were made >public that Sarah was, say, a seventh-day adventist, or a moonie, some >people might go "Hmm. That poor girl doesn't know that the *true* religion >is Islam/Buddism/Judaism etc.." Yes, some people would do that. But I sincerely doubt that the type of people to do that would be fans of Sarah Slean, and those that aren't her fans won't care enough to formulate an opinion about her religious beliefs anyway. And this thought has a brother "I'm an US, >she's a THEM." and the second thought tends to lead to all kinds of >problems. Historically, tolerance has been a huge issue. (Pat Robertson >thinks that I'm the epitome of evil, since I'm atheist, and I promise you >I've never even met the man.) I knew that you were an atheist the minute I read your initial post, and I'm not saying that with any negativity at all; it was just an observation that I immediately made when I read your words. I find that generally, atheists get very highstrung and defensive when the topic of religion comes up. Why? It's certainly kool to believe or not believe what you want, but if someone is comfortable in their decision not to believe, why does the prospect of discussing religious views make them so uncomfortable? Soph, I'm totally respect your feelings and I definitely know that religion can lead to a lot of confusion and pain. But I still think it's a wonderful topic for discussion because it really provides a window into understanding people's beliefs, actions and motivations. I have a deep faith in God, but I also have very dear atheist friends with whom I've had some of the most beautiful, challenging and engaging talks of my life about the subject of religion. None of us has banished it from the list of potential topics of conversation simply because we see things differently. peace&love... t.t. ps - Pat Robertson is an idiot. Please don't use that freak as your yardstick. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 17:01:25 -0600 From: Trav Leippi Subject: Re: Dawson's Creek in Canada At 05:54 PM 05/23/2000 -0400, you wrote: >Hello good people - > >I have it on good authority that the episode with Sarah's "My Invitation" >is on tomorrow night (Wednesday) on Global. > >Best, >Heather. Just letting you know that it is for sure. With the wonderful stuff of satellite tv, I watched the episode on Monday night. - --Trav ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 20:04:01 -0400 From: "Sophie" Subject: Re: religion (sigh) taitts, Ouch. First you agreed with me that religion is a personal aspect, and then you condemned me for requesting that we not discuss it. I don't understand. If something comes up and a person involved thinks it would be tacky to talk about it, talking about someone's love life while they aren't present, for example, shouldn't they be allowed to voice that opinion? I thought that's what I was doing. If that makes me high-strung or defensive in your opinion, so be it. I certainly hope no one feels *censored*. If anyone feels a really pressing need to talk about it, they obviously don't need my permission. I don't know if the "sexuality" cut was for meredith, but I hope not. She was simply responding (in an amusing way, I might add) to a quote from that moron Robertson. Dostoyevesky said that 'Sarcasm is the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded.' How else could she respond to the rediculous notion that homosexuals oppress Christians? If her fans don't care enough to formulate an opinion than we shouldn't even have this discussion. :) It humors me that I said "I'm an US, she's a THEM" and right away you said "I knew you were an atheist from the first post...". Like I said in the post I sent you (directly, I might add, not through the mailing list) I know lots of Christians that I like, my little sister for example. In fact, I was a Christian until I was 16. I have no problem or discomfort with Christianity, but it does bother me when people decide to talk about someone's religious stance when the person is not around. And, in case you missed it the first time, I said this: > I'm sorry if it seemed like I was stereotyping all Christians to Pat >Robertson. I love some Christians (my little sister is one). I thought I was >clearly just exemplifying prejudice and intolerance as it sometimes relates to >religious conviction. My point with Pat Robertson was NOT that he is a good example of a Christian. It was that he was a good example of bigotry and just plain ol' nastiness. He takes the US vs. THEM thing to a whole new level. Phew. Time to watch my movie. :) Sophie - ----- Original Message ----- From: taitts To: Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 6:41 PM Subject: Re: navy-soup-digest V3 #87 > > -----Original Message----- > From: navy-soup-digest > To: navy-soup-digest@smoe.org > Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 12:32 AM > Subject: navy-soup-digest V3 #87 > > > > > >navy-soup-digest Tuesday, May 23 2000 Volume 03 : Number > 087 > > > > In This Digest: > > ----------------- > > Re: navy-soup-digest V3 #81 [Paul Schreiber > > Re: navy-soup-digest ["Sophie" > ] > > Re: Live footage, religion, etc. > [Piggio@aol.com] > > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 07:19:49 -0400 > >From: "Sophie" > >Subject: Re: navy-soup-digest > > > >I tend to think of religion as a personal, rather than public, aspect of a > >person. > > Agreed. But so is sexuality and Lord knows that people don't seem to > have any problems discussing that. > > >*I'd* prefer we didn't bring it up, because I'm very sensitive to it. To > put > >it flatly--I've been involved in too many religious discussions which have > >just ended in hurt and resentment. I also happen to know that some really > >sweet people believe the weirdest things imaginable (like my mom), and you > >can't really question them about it (trust me!). :) > > > I can understand being sensitive to something, but I also think that if one > is > uncomfortable with a certain topic of conversation, then that person should > simply refrain from participating in it rather than trying to keep everyone > else > from discussing it. This attempted "censorship" (for lack of a better word) > of > people's expression is exactly what so many religions are guilty of. > > >One thing that metaphysical beliefs have in common is this; we all believe > >we know the truth, or at least the approximate truth. So if it were made > >public that Sarah was, say, a seventh-day adventist, or a moonie, some > >people might go "Hmm. That poor girl doesn't know that the *true* religion > >is Islam/Buddism/Judaism etc.." > > Yes, some people would do that. But I sincerely doubt that the type of > people > to do that would be fans of Sarah Slean, and those that aren't her fans > won't > care enough to formulate an opinion about her religious beliefs anyway. > > And this thought has a brother "I'm an US, > >she's a THEM." and the second thought tends to lead to all kinds of > >problems. Historically, tolerance has been a huge issue. (Pat Robertson > >thinks that I'm the epitome of evil, since I'm atheist, and I promise you > >I've never even met the man.) > > > I knew that you were an atheist the minute I read your initial post, and I'm > not saying that with any negativity at all; it was just an observation that > I > immediately made when I read your words. I find that generally, atheists > get very highstrung and defensive when the topic of religion comes up. > Why? It's certainly kool to believe or not believe what you want, but if > someone is comfortable in their decision not to believe, why does the > prospect of discussing religious views make them so uncomfortable? > > Soph, I'm totally respect your feelings and I definitely know that religion > can lead to a lot of confusion and pain. But I still think it's a wonderful > topic for discussion because it really provides a window into understanding > people's beliefs, actions and motivations. I have a deep faith in God, > but I also have very dear atheist friends with whom I've had some of the > most beautiful, challenging and engaging talks of my life about the subject > of religion. None of us has banished it from the list of potential topics > of conversation simply because we see things differently. > > peace&love... t.t. > > ps - Pat Robertson is an idiot. Please don't use that freak as your > yardstick. > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 May 2000 20:00:35 EDT From: JewelEDA21@aol.com Subject: SEB SPEAKS (re: live footage..) In a message dated 5/23/00 3:13:46 PM, inzilbeth@juno.com writes: << If someone gets caught recording at a show, the equipment could be confiscated by venue (or artist) security or the person could be asked to leave without refund. >> Never.in 6 years of live recording, I've never seen anyone get kicked out.. Sure, the tapes are confiscated, but any good taper knows to have backups in the shoes :) heh lates Seb :) ------------------------------ End of navy-soup-digest V3 #88 ******************************