From: owner-support-system-digest@smoe.org (support-system-digest) To: support-system-digest@smoe.org Subject: support-system-digest V4 #177 Reply-To: support-system@smoe.org Sender: owner-support-system-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-support-system-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk support-system-digest Tuesday, July 10 2001 Volume 04 : Number 177 Today's Subjects: ----------------- "nowhere near complete" [Dan MacDonald ] the edge of nowhere ["Nathan C." ] Re: support-system-digest V4 #176 [Vasant Ramamurthy ] Re: album ["j feldmann" ] Re: support-system-digest V4 #176 ["Andrea Steiner" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 02:21:42 -0400 From: Dan MacDonald Subject: "nowhere near complete" I'm kinda relieved - at least we know not to expect the album in a few months. Sucks though...it'll be 2002. It's funny - I remember when WCSE first came out - someone on here made a crack right away - saying how great the album was, and how we better all get used to it - because the follow up to it won't be until 2002...and at the time I was like "Hahahah! Ya right..as if THAT would ever happen..heheh" - and now - it's happening!! ehhehe kinda funny..ah well, at least the new Julie Johnson songs will almost be like a ...well... a 1/2 EP. ehhe an EEP. "Eep!" At any rate, Dan. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 01:32:29 -0700 From: "Nathan C." Subject: the edge of nowhere Let's just hope that most of these 40 songs don't get shelved and we will get a double album (however unlikely that may be). 4 songs may be fuel for 8 months... I don't know. We've waited this long. love, nathan - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 09:18:45 -0500 (CDT) From: Vasant Ramamurthy Subject: Re: support-system-digest V4 #176 actually, i think what overpavement@hotmail.com is saying is right on. it seems like a lot people around here are a little confused/worried/whatever over liz's alleged relationship problems, and are using "down" as an excuse to play "amateur psychiatrist" for liz and her problems. it's just a song, she's just a regular person--give it up already. - -vasant > From: LilRussianGirl@aol.com > > In a message dated 7/8/01 1:49:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > overpavement@hotmail.com writes: > > >>unless someone knows something specific (and if you > >>do you should keep it to yourself), > > Thanks for the lecture, Dr. Laura. It's called speculation. And I think > that most of the *speculation* that has been discussed on this list is based > on the facts that we do know that have been publicly reported, by somewhat > reputable news sources. > > > this is, > > after all, the woman who wrote 'divorce song' before she'd ever even been > > married. > > > > Gee, do you have to have been *legally* married to have experienced a level > of commitment to your partner that is equal to one of what a legal marriage > ideally should be? I know couples who are legally married who are NOT > faithful to each other, and couples who cannot or have not been able to > legally marry who are very committed and take the relationship more seriously > than most "married" couples. Have you ever been engaged or seriously > involved with a "shack up honey" (as Dr. Laura would call it)? Do you > honestly think that those relationships aren't or can't be just as involved > as a good marriage might be? > > Do you have to have been legally married to think such things as are said in > divorce song? I KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE that you don't. And again, although > it's only speculation, (because no one really knows except Liz), we do know > from interviews and reports that Liz went out to California because she was > seriously involved, and that these experiences somehow (however literally or > loosely) played into some of the material she wrote for GirlySound. > > Get off your high horse. What you imply with that statement is insulting. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 11:21:15 -0400 From: "j feldmann" Subject: Re: album >Phair's new album, which the spokesperson says is >"nowhere near being complete," ohhh nooooooo!! _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 22:24:20 -0400 From: "Andrea Steiner" Subject: Re: support-system-digest V4 #176 I think the Little Russian Girl should get off her extremely high horse. Over Pavement was just diplomatically suggesting that Liz Phair is capable of imagining and singing about many situations in life whether or not she has actually literally experienced them. She has always said in interviews that she tends to embellish to get her point across, or that she wrote a song imagining the way it would feel to have done certain things or been like certain people, whether or not she actually ever did those things or behaved like those people in order to reach out to her audience so they can feel what she wants them to feel and relate to and appreciate her lyrics more. The fact is, we really don't know or have any concrete facts about what happened behind closed doors in Liz's marriage. It's none of our business. We don't know if her husband really cheated on her, or if he betrayed her in some other way and Liz felt that the best way she could make her audience relate to her feelings of betrayal were to use the example of infidelity. I do not want to get into a flame war here, but I was upset by LilRussianGirl's post. It sounds like she might have some unresolved issues of her own to deal with and was projecting them onto Liz's life and taking out her frustration on Over Pavement.Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ End of support-system-digest V4 #177 ************************************