From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V6 #293 Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org Sender: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk shindell-list-digest Wednesday, December 1 2004 Volume 06 : Number 293 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [RS] Jolie... ["TRICIA MULLANE" ] [RS] State IQ et al ["Dave McKay" ] [RS] Eye Q [B Gallagher ] [RS] Am I the only one here who is not totally against Bush, and what is a good song for a Christmas performance? [] [RS] Am I the only one here who is not totally against Bush? [B Gallagher] [RS] Re: Am I the only one here who is not totally against bush? ["Pam Pi] Re: [RS] time to switch [Rongrittz@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 18:05:12 +0000 From: "TRICIA MULLANE" Subject: [RS] Jolie... Thank you for your post. Well-said, dear. But, in future, perhaps "...I'm ready to bitch-slap the next right-wing nutjob who faces me with some shallow argument about W's divinity..." we could leave out the animal cruelty references, alright? - ---Tricia PS for those of you with your hair on fire who are, even now, ready to compose a flaming reply, the "thank you" part was real, the "animal cruelty" part was a joke. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 18:43:22 -0000 From: "Dave McKay" Subject: [RS] State IQ et al > >I would point out that the 11 September attacks happened on Dubya's watch in > >the first place. When was the last attack on the US prior to that? The US > >isn't safer since 11/09; just less complacent. > > If you remember that had been being planned out for years and would > have happened whoever was president due to Clinton's compacency. My statement above in no way exonerated the previous administration. However, I do remember Dubya's administration sitting on intelligence about al-Qaeda and not giving it the attention it deserved. > There have been attacks against Americans abroad over Clintons watch and > not a damn thing was done about it. Even when he had the chance he > didn't take it. Remember the USS Cole? Are you suggesting Clinton should have invaded an unconnected country under false pretences based on the attack? Two men were sentenced to death in Yemen for their role in the USS Cole bombing, and four others were convicted of lesser offences. Hardly "a damn thing". > Do some research before post crap like this. > http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp > > ... (ad nauseum) Do some editing before you quote an entire digest. Dave. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:10:53 -0500 From: B Gallagher Subject: [RS] Eye Q >Hoax though it may be, doesn't the IQ chart seem scarily accurate? > > I do feel a modicum of sympathy for Jason though...his viewpoint is clearly > in the minority here. But then again, opposing viewpoints make for, ahem, > lively debate. > > So keep posting Jason...if you love Richard's music you can't be all that > bad. :-) > > RockinRonD - ----------------- Yes, the chart looks extremely accurate, except for Jersey. I would think that eastern north shore of Long Island skewed the NY State results towards the top of the chart. If you took another survey today, Vermont would jump up a state or two; attributed no doubt to recently expatriated Long Islanders. - --- I do feel a modicum of sympathy for Jason though...his viewpoint is clearly in the minority here. But then again, opposing viewpoints make for, ahem, lively debate. Yes keep on posting Jason, all kidding aside, as I said before a lot of smart people voted for Bush. I know a bunch of them. - --- Is there a moderator on this list? Moderator? We don't need no stinkin' Moderator. Bart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 13:29:33 -0600 From: Jason Stanley Subject: [RS] Am I the only one here who is not totally against Bush, and what is a good song for a Christmas performance? How is that for a range of discussion? First off all politics aside, has Richard ever sang a Christmas song that anyone has heard? I have to sing at the work Christmas party and would like to sing a Shindell song but all of them are kind of depressing for Christmas. Any other folk singers is fine if he hasn't. I like John Gorka also if that helps. Most of my playing is alternate bass type stuff rather than strumming but any help would be greatly appreciated. >Please don't quote entire Digests when you reply to messages on the list. >It explodes list volume unnecessarily and makes discussions harder to read. > > > > Yes, thanks. Someone already informed me off line. >From: RockinRonD@aol.com >Subject: [RS] Get this wool out of my eyes... > >"Hoax though it may be, doesn't the IQ chart seem scarily accurate?" > > It would be scary if states actually had average IQ's in the 80's. Isn't that borderline retarded? > >Maybe it's just me and my left-wing, liberal, East Coast, Bush-bashing >sensibility. > >I do feel a modicum of sympathy for Jason though...his viewpoint is clearly >in the minority here. But then again, opposing viewpoints make for, ahem, >lively debate. > >So keep posting Jason...if you love Richard's music you can't be all that >bad. :-) > >RockinRonD > > > Fair enough. Same to ya. RFoxwell wrote: >Yeah, sure, they might have moved them. "Might haves" do not >prove anything. "Might haves" are NOT a basis for war. > > > Those same might haves are what we are all arguing about. Based on the Intelligence, or lack thereof, (Time will tell) Iraq had the means and capability to attack or at least get someone else to attack the U.S. You are doing the same thing by saying "No they didn't have them, etc" >Um...don't nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles capable of reaching the >western coast of the United States count as WMDs???? > > > Yes they do, but there is a whole different philosophy between militant Muslim terrorists and N. Korea's wanting the world to pay attention to them and give them money. The terrorists are willing to die at the drop of a hat if it kills us in the process. N. Koreans may have one war head, but they know they would be turned to a smoldering pile if they did anything with it and they actually would rather live like Russia, China, etc. >Facts on North Korea > Agreed. Vanessa wrote, "You probably really do think that everything I write to the list is fluff. I think I'm quite glad of that; I'd have to worry if you actually saw sense in anything I wrote." I have no idea what you have written in the past. I was referring to what you wrote in that message. >"side" of being ignorant">> >The word is spelled "write," not "right."" > > So you never mistyped something? Excuuuuuuuuuse me! By the way, I will read what you write, and I do have an open mind if you make a good point about something other than my mispellings.. >"But at >this point I'm ready to bitch-slap the next right-wing nutjob who faces >me with some shallow argument about W's divinity. So much for my proud >tolerance. Anyway, thanks for indulging me." > I hope you didn't take anything I have said to mean I think GWB has some unassailable divinity. That is the farthest from the truth. There are many points I think he is hard headed on but will leave that to when some brings them up. "Bitch slap"? That's a funny saying isn't it. I let you know when I come to NY so you can see if you want to try and "Bitch slap" me. Make sure you leave your Birkenstocks at home for the showdown. :) Chris wrote: That is a completely bogus and unassailable argument, because it cannot be disproven. There is no logic in that claim. Your conclusion does not follow the premise, and it is an assertion rather than an argument. You could make that claim forever, smug and self-assured, even after years of fruitless searching, and nobody could gainsay you. Basically, it's a very convenient and cheap defense, devious in appearing to make a point while doing nothing of the sort. The same arguments you make against why I am wrong can be said against your accusations about why we went to war and whether there were actually WMD's. John Kerry even said the same thing when he read the intelligence reports but changed his tune many times as we all saw to try and get the support of the Democratic base. Fortunately enough of the country cared. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 14:59:49 -0500 From: B Gallagher Subject: [RS] Am I the only one here who is not totally against Bush? Am I the only one here who is not totally against Bush? Yes. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 12:34:10 -0800 From: "Pam Pickering" Subject: [RS] Re: Am I the only one here who is not totally against bush? Yes. Pam from the very blue state of California ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 15:43:21 -0500 From: Rongrittz@aol.com Subject: Re: [RS] time to switch >> Is there a moderator on this list??? << Well, I guess I'm the closest thing to a "moderator," although it's really just an administrative role (handling bounced emails, reminding people not to quote entire digests when posting, general housekeeping stuff). Anyway, lest (as Sharon half-jokingly said) this turn into the Dar-list, perhaps we should take a breath, regroup, and carefully consider whether it's better for us to use this list for discussing things that are important but technically (despite what Richard says) off-topic, or to at least TRY to keep it more strictly Richard-focused. Personally, I was ok with first (post-election) wave of political discussion, as a natural outpouring of emotion among people who know each other and, for the most part, share respect and affection for one another. But with the second wave, started off by Bill's post, it no longer feels like something that's an expression of community, but rather something that threatens to be in the end not very constructive at all. Ain't no one here likely to change anyone else's mind. Also, the first wave took place at a time when list traffic was relatively light. This time, we had posts about Richard's shows and we had a great "Mavis" song discussion going on. So instead of creating list traffic and helping bring lurkers out of the shadows, this time, the discussion is pushing aside more Richard-related talk. (At this point, Tom Neff invariably sez: "If people want to talk about Richard, all they need to do is, y'know, TALK ABOUT RICHARD and we'll see which topic pushes aside which topic." Well, yeah, he's usually right about that.) So, do what you want -- after all, it's your list, and there really are no rules ("Rules? In a knife fight? No rules!") -- but I would like to gently encourage people to take this off-list, if they wish to continue the discussions. To be honest, the conversation had seemed to have run its course already, and that resurrecting it at this time is distracting too much from the sorts of conversations that really make this the Shindell-list that we all know and love. With that having been said . . . does ANYONE know what the guys on the dock at the beginning of "Che Guevara T-Shirt" are saying? RG ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V6 #293 ***********************************