may 98


------- start of digest (287 messages) (RFC 934 encapsulation) -------
Resent-Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 21:22:53 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"H94c4B.A.ZfF.il8T1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Ian"
To: "Infected"
Subject: Re: videos wanted - or clues about it
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 1997 22:27:37 -0400
Message-ID: <001101bc52b2$92c56e80$57183018@test.dad.adelphia.net>

Hello,


I'm not the expert you speak of, but Dusk till Dawn was available
Laserdisc/NTSC via Japan...once upon a time. I personally purchased the
PAL/VHS version and had it converted to NTSC (shabby conversion no less).



Bye,

Ian

- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Bird
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu

Date: Tuesday, May 05, 1998 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: videos wanted - or clues about it


>- Dusk till dawn (yeah, obviously not the Clooney movie)
>
>Well, Patrick, I don't have an answer for you but I was going to ask if
>the expert who answers this question could also inform me if the DtilD
>laser disk is available in NTSC format.
>
>mothy
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 10:40:58 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"jl8XJ.A.b7G.2zeS1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Anilam LA
To: "'MR AARON W STILLEY'" ,
"infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: RE: Thethe - what else?
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 08:35:29 -0700
Message-ID: <01BD74DC.1B562720.anilamla@worldnet.att.net>

i agree with Aaron on the idea of Electronica being just as well done as
"guitar" based music. My better half is in an electronic band and he is a
great writer and musician. He still needs to have the knowledge of how to
write a song . A synth doesn't do the work for you. not to mention that
these shows of these electronic bands are some of the best live shows i
have ever been to due to the audiences reactions and obvious fun being had
by all. I went to the first Organic festival in 1996 featuring bands like
Meatbeat Manifesto, The Orb, Orbital, Chemical Brothers, Underworld and
others. Definitely one of the best shows i have ever seen.Though my roots
are in the genre of alternative 80's music, i gladly accepted,and rather
love, the "new wave" of music in the electronica 90's.

I suggest buying and trying out the band "Lamb" for a good taste of the
this cool music. I doubt you will be disappointed.

- - Stacey(so glad it is friday!) :)

- -----Original Message-----
From: MR AARON W STILLEY [SMTP:KFXD62D@prodigy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 5:00 PM
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: Thethe - what else?

the smiths/morrissey, the cure, radiohead, portishead, aphex twin,
the future sound of london, skinny puppy, tricky, stereolab, pj
harvey, dj shadow, the cramps, orb, orbital, morphine (seeing them
wednesday!), depeche mode, coldcut...

i was interested to see someone else post that they liked some
electronic-based bands...what do you guys think of the wide world of
techno? for me, electronics can create just as beautiful music as
traditional instruments, and wordless songs (which i tend to prefer
in electronic music) hold just as much meaning for me (when done
well), and are more versatile...by which i mean they can be played
during a variety of settings, moods, etc...words almost limit a song
in a way. not too many bands write words that mean very much to me.
the the, morrissey, and the cure are the only lyrical bands that
really, really speak to me. for anyone interested in checking out
some electronic music, i recommend the future sound of london--really
distinct, dense, textural, intelligent, electronic listening.
lifeforms and isdn are my two personal favorite fsol albums.

aaron
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 11:18:02 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"dvubmC.A.P-G.kWfS1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Steve Hill
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: Thethe - what else?
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 11:15:12 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199805011615.LAA21407@info1.harper.cc.il.us>

Last night I saw one of the best performances I've ever seen -

Kristin Hersh solo, promoting her new album Strange Angels.

It was a totally intense and moving experience for me. So, in the spirit
of spreading the word and continuing this thread, I thought I'd mention
it. (That and the fact that I can't stop talking about it.)

Select other favorites: Cure, Shriekback, Bolshoi, Legendary Pink Dots,
Jazz Butcher, That Petrol Emotion, Skinny Puppy, Ian McCulloch. Many more,
but I won't bore. :)
- -shill

- --
[][] [][] Steve Hill, Data Communications Technician, 847-925-6273
[] [] [] Harper College, 1200 W Algonquin Rd, Palatine IL 60067-7398
http://shill.simplenet.com Harper College:
[] [] [] shill@harper.cc.il.us www.harper.cc.il.us
[][] [][] info on doctor who parody "THE REIGN OF TURNER" at website
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 12:26:32 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"P-ubiD.A.eD.zWgS1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Steve Hill , infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: Thethe - what else?
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 10:13:03 -0700
Message-Id: <19980501101236.24094293.in@mail.neversoft.com>


ahhh, but it's not boring you see, that's the whole point, it's decidedly
interesting - especially given that probably 80 per cent of the bands I see
mentioned on pople's lists appeared at least ten years ago, and longer
(Legendary Pink DOts??? young upstarts! The Cure??? Trendsetting
whippersnappers!)

cheers

Mark S


At 11:15 AM 5/1/98 -0500, Steve Hill wrote:
>Last night I saw one of the best performances I've ever seen -
>
>Kristin Hersh solo, promoting her new album Strange Angels.
>
>It was a totally intense and moving experience for me. So, in the spirit
>of spreading the word and continuing this thread, I thought I'd mention
>it. (That and the fact that I can't stop talking about it.)
>
>Select other favorites: Cure, Shriekback, Bolshoi, Legendary Pink Dots,
>Jazz Butcher, That Petrol Emotion, Skinny Puppy, Ian McCulloch. Many more,
>but I won't bore. :)
>-shill

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 12:40:05 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"X3eFyC.A.bG.gjgS1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Ken Maclean"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Motorhead meets nana ouskouri........in a reggae style
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 11:39:10 MDT
Message-ID: <19980501173910.9043.qmail@hotmail.com>

I like this thing with people suggesting different groups/artists to
listen to that has started to appear recently.
This is just a suggestion , but i was thinking (always dangerous) it
might be nice if people could include say a favourite extract of lyrics
and a brief description of the style of music from the people they are
suggesting as i don't get to listen to the radio much at the mo.

Maybe when this thread is exhausted we could start with each list member
confessing to the most embarrassing cd/record that they own. Go on
confess. You know you want to!

Ken

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 13:08:06 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"1GSbyB.A.Jm.t9gS1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: ywong@enme.ucalgary.ca (Yan Wong)
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: Thethe - what else?
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 12:13:52 -0600
Message-Id: <199805011813.MAA00688@enme-l.enme>

> Last night I saw one of the best performances I've ever seen -
>
> Kristin Hersh solo, promoting her new album Strange Angels.
>
> It was a totally intense and moving experience for me. So, in the spirit
> of spreading the word and continuing this thread, I thought I'd mention
> it. (That and the fact that I can't stop talking about it.)

I agree wholeheartedly!... I'm still bummed that the Throwing Muses have
broken up but luckily for us Muses fans, Hersh is continuing to make fine
music... "Strange Angels", and her first solo album, "Hips and Makers", will
be loved by those who are bored with formulaic pop tunes... her melodies may
seem at first a little abstract but when given a chance, the listener will see
the beauty of these songs...

I won't indulge myself with a long list of my favorite artists but bands that
I've found out about *recently* that has turned my crank are:

* Spoon (for all you Pixies fans)
* Number One Cup (for all you Pavement fans)
* Silkworm (mature, folky-guitar pop)
* Heatmiser (academy award nominee Elliott Smith's (for his work on the Good
Will Hunting soundtrack) 'loud' band)

and lastly, my favorite '98 albums thus far:

* Sue Garner - To Run More Smoothly (sparse, low-key and beautiful songs that
are perfect during moments of introspection)
* Kristin Hersh - Strange Angels (see above)
* The Inbreds - Winning Hearts (a surprisingly full-sounding bass and drums
duo that make infectious pop tunes)
* Neutral Milk Hotel - In the Aeroplane Over the Sea (part of the Elephant Six
collective; an aural attack of all sorts of sounds and instrumentation but the
songs remain very catchy)
* Tortoise - TNT (in the electronica genre but I find this particular album
has a strong R&B influence; actually, it reminds me alot of Isaac Hayes' work)

Yan
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 13:52:01 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"HJLYQ.A.6z.9mhS1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: "Ken Maclean" ,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Motorhead meets nana ouskouri........in a reggae style
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 11:54:48 -0700
Message-Id: <19980501115426.246681ee.in@mail.neversoft.com>


I bought "I'm so straight I'm a Weirdo" by Rick Wakeman. However, I was
about 12 or 13 at the time...And I gave it away.

MLS

(At 11:39 AM 5/1/98 -0600, Ken Maclean wrote:
most embarrassing cd/record that they own. Go on
>confess. You know you want to!)


------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 14:18:54 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"yGc2wD.A.93.JAiS1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: ywong@enme.ucalgary.ca, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: Thethe - what else?
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 12:17:44 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E17A3@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>

Interesting what you said about _Hips And Makers_
I get a lot out of the album. I like the feel of the album as a whole but the melodies never stay in my head for long; I forget them pretty much instantly.

Very different from an Album like _The Real Ramona_. Very singalongable and I can still listen to it despite millions of plays. One of a handful of bands whose concert was NOT a disappointment, I actually went twice in the same week, they were so good.

Any Bob Mould fans out there. I saw him 'as' Sugar. Fun, but so loud my ears couldn't resolve the tunes. Not such a problem when you know all the songs but completely unnecessary... I suppose I'm an old fart but even in my younger days I can remember being pissed off by over the top volume. I went to a concert at the PowerHouse (or is that haus) in London and spent a good deal of time sitting on the bog where my ears could stop bleeding.

Other favs that I would welcome comment on that I've not noticed mentioned...

Green on Red..... American... Albums easily available in UK..... Very hard to find in America.
Jane Siberry
The Blue Nile


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yan Wong [SMTP:ywong@enme.ucalgary.ca]
> Sent: Friday, May 01, 1998 11:14 AM
> To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> Subject: RE: Thethe - what else?
>
> > Last night I saw one of the best performances I've ever seen -
> >
> > Kristin Hersh solo, promoting her new album Strange Angels.
> >
> > It was a totally intense and moving experience for me. So, in the spirit
> > of spreading the word and continuing this thread, I thought I'd mention
> > it. (That and the fact that I can't stop talking about it.)
>
> I agree wholeheartedly!... I'm still bummed that the Throwing Muses have
> broken up but luckily for us Muses fans, Hersh is continuing to make fine
> music... "Strange Angels", and her first solo album, "Hips and Makers", will
> be loved by those who are bored with formulaic pop tunes... her melodies may
> seem at first a little abstract but when given a chance, the listener will see
> the beauty of these songs...
>
> I won't indulge myself with a long list of my favorite artists but bands that
> I've found out about *recently* that has turned my crank are:
>
> * Spoon (for all you Pixies fans)
> * Number One Cup (for all you Pavement fans)
> * Silkworm (mature, folky-guitar pop)
> * Heatmiser (academy award nominee Elliott Smith's (for his work on the Good
> Will Hunting soundtrack) 'loud' band)
>
> and lastly, my favorite '98 albums thus far:
>
> * Sue Garner - To Run More Smoothly (sparse, low-key and beautiful songs that
> are perfect during moments of introspection)
> * Kristin Hersh - Strange Angels (see above)
> * The Inbreds - Winning Hearts (a surprisingly full-sounding bass and drums
> duo that make infectious pop tunes)
> * Neutral Milk Hotel - In the Aeroplane Over the Sea (part of the Elephant Six
> collective; an aural attack of all sorts of sounds and instrumentation but the
> songs remain very catchy)
> * Tortoise - TNT (in the electronica genre but I find this particular album
> has a strong R&B influence; actually, it reminds me alot of Isaac Hayes' work)
>
> Yan
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 14:20:54 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"hP1IdD.A.o6.-BiS1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: ziggy nix
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Thethe - what else?
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 15:38:43 -0400
Message-ID: <354A24C3.172B50DB@wilmington.net>

okay here's my faves of the past year

best "indie" groups of the past year:

sidedoor johnnies-fineline (new york based)
mil mulliganos-caught in their teeth (chicago based)
Suran Song in Stag-shiny objects (New Brunswick, NJ based)
and who knows how many others...

best "labeled"albums of the past year:

radiohead-OK Computer
DJ Shadow-Entroducing
Dead Man soundtrack- Neil Young
Material-Seven Souls (it's a WS Burroughs tribute)
Bill Laswell- City of Light (Indian influenced)
Harumoi Hosono-NDE (another Indian influenced album)
Swingers soundtrack-great for driving on down the road...

enjoy,
ziggy nix

PS: i think i've got Bobby Brown's Greatest around here somewhere
or maybe C+C factory hahahahahahahahahahaha ;P
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 15:04:52 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"SbfCeB.A.t_.QriS1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM, ywong@enme.ucalgary.ca,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: Thethe - what else?
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 13:07:12 -0700
Message-Id: <19980501130651.24a8ce89.in@mail.neversoft.com>


Too loud???

That's quite a confession.

No I am Spartacus!!

I too used to hate it when bands were too loud. In my teen years I saw
Gillan (I liked a lot of that heavy rock stuff then, still have a yen for
AC/DC and Whitesnake before the airbrush/pose/Euro Thatch style wimpiness
took hold)at Leeds university, and I have to say that the volume actually
pinned me to the spot.

It affected my central nervous system to the point that if I tried to move,
each beat would lock me up solid. I have never experienced anything like
it. It was actually the bass rather than the high notes that were the
problem. I suspect that if the mix had been anything other than a muddy
mush of middle and bass noise that serious damage could have been done to
my ears by high peaks. Of course there are nutters who love that kind of
volume, too many of them, and I'm sure they're enjoying deafness in their
twilight years.

Other similar experiences were Rose Tattoo at Leeds Fforde Grene pub round
about the same time, just way too loud for the space.

The best quality sound I have ever heard was It Bites at a club in Leeds,
which is fortunate as it's the best quality music I have ever heard, in
terms of content and performance, and volume was perfect, just like
listening to the most excellent hifi.

The best sound I've heard at a huge rock venue : Rush at the Birmingham
NEC, guess it must have been the Signals tour; Floyd at Manchester Maine
Road comes a close second (yes it is the same gig that was used for the
live album, that's me you can hear shouting "bring back Roger Waters" if
you listen closely). Of course, I was under the influence at the time.

Worst quality sound at a huge rock venue : Rush at Birmingham NEC on the
Hold Your Fire tour, but by then I was losing patience with their newfound
lack of tunes. Just an awful blur of sound. Sure the Steinberger looked
cool, but the Rickenbacker sounded better, Geddy...

Last night I saw Ray Davies (of the Kinks) at the Wadsworth in Los Angeles.
Just perfect, great sound, not too loud, not too quiet. It was only spoiled
by one of those American nose guys behind me. You know, the ones who don't
know how to blow it so continue to ingest for the rest of their
lives...oops, don't go there...

And finally Esther...I keep seeing the name "The Blue Nile" on people's
fave rave lists, can anyone tell me what they're about?

Cheers

Mark S

At 12:17 PM 5/1/98 -0700, astubbs@BayNetworks.COM wrote:
> I went to a concert at the PowerHouse (or is that haus) in London and
spent a good deal of time sitting on the bog where my ears could stop
bleeding.

>The Blue Nile

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 15:10:30 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Gwq6nC.A.2BB.jwiS1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Erin Osborne"
To: "the the"
Subject: cranes fans!
Date: Fri, 1 May 1998 16:09:50 -0400
Message-ID: <19980501200931.AAA19947@default>

All you Cranes fans out there should go rent An Eye For an Eye with Sally
Fields and Kiefer Sutherland. Yeah, I usually refuse to watch anything with
Gidgit, but there's a hidden surprise about an hour through. I'll say no
more!
- -erin
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 14:58:51 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"QLipaD.A.kND.m3hT1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Patrick A. Stewart"
To: kelly514@juno.com
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Getting the facts straight.....with Civility
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 14:58:02 -0500
Message-Id: <354E1DCA.4AA9@corn.cso.niu.edu>

Please stop bickering. It is starting to become annoying, especially as
you haven't even a common starting point.

Thankyou

Patrick
kelly514@juno.com wrote:
>
> Lea,
>
> Do you always misquote, attack, manipulate truth and other's opinions to
> make yourself
> look better?You have me as a right wing Christian fundamentalist I'm
> guessing and you are wrong on
> all accounts but I guess the only truth that's important to you in the
> truth that resides only in your mind.
> That is really sad because artists like Matt attempt to open minds but
> apparently he has failed miserably
> with you. As a therapist I will give you one great example as to give
> them all would require a book.
>
> >> I was basing my comments on the majority of scholars of the
> >particular
> >> religions
> >> I mentioned. There are Muslims and Christians who believe
> >homosexuality
> >> is
> >> healthy and/or abortion is a choice but both contradict the
> >scriptures
> >> that both groups
> >> believe and the views of the majority of people who claim to be from
> >> these religions.
>
> Lea writes:
> > I knew we were going to get into homnosexuality and
> >abortion...somehow..I knew it was coming. How about communists and
> >welfare mothers? Seems like you left that out. You really Do sound
> >like you have read all scholars of Buddhism, Taoism, etc, and their
> >takes on abortion. Right, Brian.... Im sure we all believe that.
>
> It is funny how you bring up Buddhism and Taoism when neither were
> mentioned
> in my point. You again avoid the truth of my statement to try to make an
> unrelated point.
> Again in your need to be narrow minded you attempt to pigeon hole me into
> a belief system
> that I don't share. I never used the word "all" scholars. I am talking
> about the majority mind
> set of those scholars who are highly respected among the majority of
> their followers regardless
> of my own opinions or whether or not I agree. If you recall, I am against
> organized religion for
> myself but show no hostility towards others who wish to find happiness in
> them.
> I know you hate Christianity for some reason or another and maybe have
> some hatred
> towards Mother Teresa. That's your own issues that I'd rather not deal
> with as I have very little
> patience with people who are in the business of spewing their issues
> instead of dealing with them
> in a constructive manner.
>
> I'll be nice enough to educate you briefly. Jehovah Witnesses are cultic
> in many ways one
> of which is their twisting OT scripture to follow a practice of never
> taking blood in any form that is
> outside of their body. To put their lives in danger because their
> follower didn't understand
> Hebrew is dangerous.
>
> Again people like you attack as you do out of ignorance and a desire to
> censor. It really makes
> for poor debating tactics so maybe it is best to stick with what you know
> (that is also based on
> truth outside of your mind) when debating. It will demand maturity on
> your part
>
> ENOUGH SAID ON THIS TOPIC
>
> lets now get back to Matt.
>
> Brian
>
> P.S. Thanks for all those who were so patient with the discussion and
> putting Matt in the back burner.
> Maybe now we can put him at the center of attention where he belongs.
>
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> 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
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 15:09:12 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"ishkaD.A.3PD.VBiT1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: kelly514@Juno.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: Getting the facts straight.....with Civility
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 13:08:06 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E17A6@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>

I'm certainly not going to try an add anything constructive to a religious debate but I can't help saying something about keyy514/Brians latest ....er.....e-mail.

Brian Says about Lea:

>Do you always misquote, attack, manipulate truth and other's opinions to
>make yourself
>look better?You have me as a right wing Christian fundamentalist I'm
>guessing and you are wrong on
>all accounts but I guess the only truth that's important to you in the
>truth that resides only in your mind.


The he says :

>I know you hate Christianity for some reason or another and maybe have
>some hatred
>towards Mother Teresa


I know i've just lifted two quotes and you can't see what Lea said previously but...
Have you ever heard the expression 'Pot calling the kettle Black' . Lea has said nothing that indicates to me that she hates all Christianity. And yet you accuse her of manipulating the truth and other's opinions. You are going beyond that. Just calm down and read what people say and don't let your vivid imagination get in the way.

And try not to be so patronising.

Are you the same guy who was saying that Princess Diana was a terrible Mother, that I debated with previously ? (I don't want to start that debate again BTW, just wondering)
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 15:12:26 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"g0AvCD.A.KSD.XEiT1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: kelly514@Juno.com
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Getting the facts straight.....with Civility
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 13:13:54 -0700
Message-ID: <354E2182.5CC661A4@sirius.com>

>I know you hate Christianity for some reason or another and maybe have
> some hatred
> towards Mother Teresa.

Right,... sure, and flame on. I hate neither.

That's your own issues that I'd rather not deal
> with as I have very little
> patience with people who are in the business of spewing their issues
> instead of dealing with them
> in a constructive manner.
>
As if you haven't been spewing since the minute you came ON this list.

You have repeatedly knocked other religions here, In both your
interpretation of them and your comparisons of them to Farrikhan, etc.
And I believe you MEANT to do it. I don't know what you are, maybe
just a flame artist, but I recognize bigoted statements when I read
them, and your posts were FULL of them.

I responded to you the way I did because I think you are a BIGOT, and I
still think that. Psychoanalyze it anyway you WANT buddy.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 15:47:52 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"1mftCB.A.0WD.mliT1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: JWH
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Glass houses...
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 13:46:58 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID:

you know...
~jwh
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 14:04:53 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"TmButD.A.sKD.AFhT1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: kelly514@juno.com
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Getting the facts straight.....with Civility
Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 14:08:09 -0700
Message-ID: <19980504.140811.4006.0.kelly514@juno.com>

Lea,

Do you always misquote, attack, manipulate truth and other's opinions to
make yourself
look better?You have me as a right wing Christian fundamentalist I'm
guessing and you are wrong on
all accounts but I guess the only truth that's important to you in the
truth that resides only in your mind.
That is really sad because artists like Matt attempt to open minds but
apparently he has failed miserably
with you. As a therapist I will give you one great example as to give
them all would require a book.

>> I was basing my comments on the majority of scholars of the
>particular
>> religions
>> I mentioned. There are Muslims and Christians who believe
>homosexuality
>> is
>> healthy and/or abortion is a choice but both contradict the
>scriptures
>> that both groups
>> believe and the views of the majority of people who claim to be from
>> these religions.

Lea writes:
> I knew we were going to get into homnosexuality and
>abortion...somehow..I knew it was coming. How about communists and
>welfare mothers? Seems like you left that out. You really Do sound
>like you have read all scholars of Buddhism, Taoism, etc, and their
>takes on abortion. Right, Brian.... Im sure we all believe that.

It is funny how you bring up Buddhism and Taoism when neither were
mentioned
in my point. You again avoid the truth of my statement to try to make an
unrelated point.
Again in your need to be narrow minded you attempt to pigeon hole me into
a belief system
that I don't share. I never used the word "all" scholars. I am talking
about the majority mind
set of those scholars who are highly respected among the majority of
their followers regardless
of my own opinions or whether or not I agree. If you recall, I am against
organized religion for
myself but show no hostility towards others who wish to find happiness in
them.
I know you hate Christianity for some reason or another and maybe have
some hatred
towards Mother Teresa. That's your own issues that I'd rather not deal
with as I have very little
patience with people who are in the business of spewing their issues
instead of dealing with them
in a constructive manner.

I'll be nice enough to educate you briefly. Jehovah Witnesses are cultic
in many ways one
of which is their twisting OT scripture to follow a practice of never
taking blood in any form that is
outside of their body. To put their lives in danger because their
follower didn't understand
Hebrew is dangerous.

Again people like you attack as you do out of ignorance and a desire to
censor. It really makes
for poor debating tactics so maybe it is best to stick with what you know
(that is also based on
truth outside of your mind) when debating. It will demand maturity on
your part

ENOUGH SAID ON THIS TOPIC

lets now get back to Matt.

Brian

P.S. Thanks for all those who were so patient with the discussion and
putting Matt in the back burner.
Maybe now we can put him at the center of attention where he belongs.


_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 21:47:31 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"JtH1vD.A.rQD.uInU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM, kelly514@Juno.com,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: Getting the facts straight.....with Civility
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 14:40:26 -0700
Message-Id: <19980504144049.34728843.in@mail.neversoft.com>


I always thought it was Fergie that was the terrible mother...and terrible
everything else from what I can gather...

Cheers

MLS

>Are you the same guy who was saying that Princess Diana was a terrible
Mother, that I debated with previously ? (I don't want to start that debate
again BTW, just wondering)
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 11:10:45 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"irTuD.A.NAF.ynzT1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Michael Bird"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Unidentified subject!
Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 09:09:52 PDT
Message-ID: <19980505160952.6721.qmail@hotmail.com>

There has been, for several years, a secret passed from Nine Inch Nails
fan to the next. It is a phenomenon relating to the layers of a
recording involving sound processors and sound phasing. With a very
simple little step, it can reveal unheard things in the music and
completely change the way you hear it. With NIN records from The
Downward Spiral era on, it completely remixes the music to the point
that vocals drop out and buried sounds surface to the top and take
domminance.

DUSK is a record that also reveals many hidden sounds, and these hidden
remixes. Below is a document I lifted from a NIN site that explains how
to do this. It is best done with a discman as the phasing interference
is most easily accesible this way with the 1/8" to RCA cable adapters.

WARNING: When I did this with my discman, it forever made the AUX jack
process sound this way. I don't mind as I also have a normal CD player
hooked into my stereo but it could result in trouble for those with a
low-quality discman.

- ------------------ the how-to: ---------------------

scenario a: pull out the headphone plug (the 1/8") you're using as a
feed out of it's socket half way, so you still hear stuff on both
speakers (or ears)

scenario b: split your feed into 2 mono plugs, and hook the tips of each
of the plugs together into one speaker.

my setup is:
___ ________ left
CDPlayer | <==----------<________ right
~~~
jack-^ ^-plug ^-wire ^-to receiver

Where the plug is halfway out, you may have to shift the plug in and out
to find the sweet spot, but persistance pays).

This is in effect taking only the sounds played in sync in phase on both
speakers at the same time, and playing it. It adds a very cool effects,
almost in effect remixes everything...

Enjoy,
mothy

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 11:50:18 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"6nZ9ED.A.ZDF.5M0T1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Michael Bird"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: videos wanted - or clues about it
Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 09:49:28 PDT
Message-ID: <19980505164928.6602.qmail@hotmail.com>

- - Dusk till dawn (yeah, obviously not the Clooney movie)

Well, Patrick, I don't have an answer for you but I was going to ask if
the expert who answers this question could also inform me if the DtilD
laser disk is available in NTSC format.

mothy

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 11:05:28 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"sRz5MC.A.d9E.zizT1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Patrick Mura
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: videos wanted - or clues about it
Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 18:03:17 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980505180317.007b2100@mailer2.sm.uni-bocconi.it>

Hello everybody,
sorry to interrupt any thread (or flame war ?) for a very unoriginal and, I
realize, very uninteresting announcement.

I have just concluded a very UNfruitful search for Matt's videos here in
Milan (and Italy too), everything went out of catalogs....

I know I already have posted a previous message like this, but has anybody
got at least the following videos of the The (or clues to where to find
them) ?

- - Infected
- - Dusk till dawn (yeah, obviously not the Clooney movie)
- - the The versus the world

even copied or used. Of course I'm ready and willing to repay for your
efforts and help.

Thanks for caring enough to read the message anyway.
Back to the deep waters, lower periscope, rig for silent running......

Patrick.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 06:20:28 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"kEwjUB.A.ZvG.mdEU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Patrick Mura
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: re: videos and clues...
Date: Wed, 06 May 1998 13:15:19 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980506131519.007a9720@mailer2.sm.uni-bocconi.it>

Geeee....
thanks a lot boys and girls, I didn't expect such a barrage of offers !
I answered to the first one I received, thanks to all the others, I'm
really really moved.

Now let's YOU start talking and me start skulking....

Thanx everybody.
Patrick.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 03:58:38 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"yDlgn.A.dGB.reXU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Johann C Chacko
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 01:58:13 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID:


To whomsoever May be Interested,

Even though I joined this list about five minutes ago, my extrovert
personality demands that I open my mouth and be counted, to mix
metaphors.I have examined only the last month and half's threads of
discussion in the archive(that took most of the evening and left me
with a ringing headache), so please,do tell me if I'm being a crashing bore
by raising issues that may have long been dead and buried.

* My first question is something that has been on my mind ever since the
announcement of the new album - crudely speaking, what's it going to be
about? M. Johnson may not want to be told about Love, sex, Death, War or
God, but he's certainly written and sung about all of the above,
sometimes using entire albums to explore them. If as he admits, he
belongs to the confessional genre of songwriting that involve the things
that weigh on one's mind(bomb), and he continues to staunchly refuse the
temptation to repeat himself, what the hell is left to sing about?
The warm happiness and security of contentment and family? aging and
perspective? Furthermore do you think that this paucity of untouched themes
lead him to do the the does Hank Williams and those other planned tribute
albums?

*As someone of complex nationalality and allegiances, I've wondered
how M. Johnson sees himself, and how that affects his music? After all
Infected seems to have been filled with the melancholy of watching
England gradually metamorphsise into an ersatz version of the US.Yet
his last message on Epic spends a good bit on some book on the
american media. For a chap with a supposedly broad view of things,and a
globally scattered fan base, doesn't that seem terribly UScentric? It's
something that really rather bothers me. Is he still British? or an
Englishman in New York, or American, or does any of this really matter?

Appreciatively Yours,
Johann Chacko.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 08:23:52 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"wjR4CC.A.eLB.WXbU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Mark_Gaertner@wbsaunders.com (Mark Gaertner)
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu,
Johann C Chacko
Subject: Re: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 09:18:11 -0400
Message-ID: <001A86F3.@wbsaunders.com>

- --IMA.Boundary.490745498
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part

As a recent re-subscribee who has been silent most of the time, I will
be happy to express my humble opinons about the issues you raised. If
they've been talked about in the past, sorry to the others.

Concerning subject matter, I don't think Matt will ever stop writing
about religion, war, God, love, sex, and death. True, each CD covers
a different aspect of these topics, but for the most part, I think
there's a lot of ground to cover before these topics are thoroughly
explored, let alone exhauseded. In a way he addressed aging and
perspective with "Jealous of Youth" and his restless, desire-plauged
nature won't allow contentment. It is a mistake,though, to think that
Matt turned to Hank Williams out of a lack of inspiration. I think he
just wanted to expand and explore a different genre and put his own
spin on songs that affected him profoundly originally. A few months
ago I was visiting my parents and we went to Lone Star Steakhouse. I
say this only to explain how I would be listening to country music.
Anyway, while there, another cover of "Honkey Tonkin'" came on the
radio. Definitely *very* different from Matt's version. Matt's is
so... raunchy. This version was almost comical in comparison. I
think Matt managed to do what he set out to do, and is not worried at
all about lack of inspiration. I think anyone who is worried about
what he will do next would be loathe to scrap an entire album that was
almost completed.

And as for Matt's songs being UScentric, I think he's simply
acknowledging that the US is a superpower with far-reaching political
and social influence, and he's worried about the wasteland that the
world will become. Although I am American, much of what America is to
me is overly big, overly loud, and pushed way too far to the extreme.
This is both the draw of America and what makes it so repellant.
Western culture has become synonymous with American culture, and in
order to address any kind of political or societal issues, America and
American culture, media, and politics has to be addressed. I'd say
he's an Englishman in a world that's quickly becoming America.

As a side note to this, I find it so odd that a band like, say, the
Beautiful South, who are so distinctively English, still use
Americanisms (in "Prettiest Eyes" they sing "fifty-nine Fourth of
July's" for example). In the context, they're not singing about
American culture or politics, so it just seems kinda odd. Okay, so
it's not profound, but... let a guy babble a little. So, bye.

--A shoplifter in the global marketplace (unite and take over...)
Mark Gaertner


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Profound(?) Questions
Author: Johann C Chacko at ~internet
Date: 5/7/98 1:58 AM



To whomsoever May be Interested,

Even though I joined this list about five minutes ago, my extrovert
personality demands that I open my mouth and be counted, to mix
metaphors.I have examined only the last month and half's threads of
discussion in the archive(that took most of the evening and left me
with a ringing headache), so please,do tell me if I'm being a crashing bore
by raising issues that may have long been dead and buried.

* My first question is something that has been on my mind ever since the
announcement of the new album - crudely speaking, what's it going to be
about? M. Johnson may not want to be told about Love, sex, Death, War or
God, but he's certainly written and sung about all of the above,
sometimes using entire albums to explore them. If as he admits, he
belongs to the confessional genre of songwriting that involve the things
that weigh on one's mind(bomb), and he continues to staunchly refuse the
temptation to repeat himself, what the hell is left to sing about?
The warm happiness and security of contentment and family? aging and
perspective? Furthermore do you think that this paucity of untouched themes
lead him to do the the does Hank Williams and those other planned tribute
albums?

*As someone of complex nationalality and allegiances, I've wondered
how M. Johnson sees himself, and how that affects his music? After all
Infected seems to have been filled with the melancholy of watching
England gradually metamorphsise into an ersatz version of the US.Yet
his last message on Epic spends a good bit on some book on the
american media. For a chap with a supposedly broad view of things,and a
globally scattered fan base, doesn't that seem terribly UScentric? It's
something that really rather bothers me. Is he still British? or an
Englishman in New York, or American, or does any of this really matter?

Appreciatively Yours,
Johann Chacko.

- --IMA.Boundary.490745498
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="RFC822 message headers"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="RFC822 message headers"

Received: from purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu (128.135.24.50) by
smtpgate.harcourtbrace.com with SMTP
(IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 Enterprise) id 001A8185; Thu, 7 May 98 05:10:41
- -0400
Received: (from list@localhost) by purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu (8.8.5/8.8.3) id
DAA04536; Thu, 7 May 1998 03:58:26 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 03:58:26 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 01:58:13 -0700 (MST)
From: Johann C Chacko
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Profound(?) Questions
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"yDlgn.A.dGB.reXU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/582
X-Loop: infected@lists.uchicago.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: infected-request@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu

- --IMA.Boundary.490745498--
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 11:19:41 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"uDHVv.A.5WB.J8dU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Johann C Chacko
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 09:21:54 -0700
Message-ID: <3551DFA2.9047D8D6@sirius.com>

Johann C Chacko wrote:

> * My first question is something that has been on my mind ever since the
> announcement of the new album - crudely speaking, what's it going to be
> about? M. Johnson may not want to be told about Love, sex, Death, War or
> God, but he's certainly written and sung about all of the above,
> sometimes using entire albums to explore them. If as he admits, he
> belongs to the confessional genre of songwriting that involve the things
> that weigh on one's mind(bomb), and he continues to staunchly refuse the
> temptation to repeat himself, what the hell is left to sing about?
> The warm happiness and security of contentment and family? aging and
> perspective? Furthermore do you think that this paucity of untouched themes
> lead him to do the the does Hank Williams and those other planned tribute
> albums?

Do you mean, "Is he out of material?"

MAYBE. I dont think he is a production artist and he probably doesnt
do well at cranking out verse that doesnt interest him, so could be.
Good point about Hankey Pankey.
>
> *As someone of complex nationalality and allegiances, I've wondered
> how M. Johnson sees himself, and how that affects his music? After all
> Infected seems to have been filled with the melancholy of watching
> England gradually metamorphsise into an ersatz version of the US.Yet
> his last message on Epic spends a good bit on some book on the
> american media. For a chap with a supposedly broad view of things,and a
> globally scattered fan base, doesn't that seem terribly UScentric?

No, because the economy is globalizing. I may be wrong about the
book, because I havent found it yet, but from his description, it
sounded like it might well pertain to most of the Western world. Just a
guess though. I do believe he lives in New York, so it seems reasonable
that he would have both local and world interests.


It's
> something that really rather bothers me. Is he still British? or an
> Englishman in New York, or American, or does any of this really matter?

They are all connected. For better or worse, the ocean isnt quite as
wide as it was when you were born, Cousin. (see how fast you got my
message?) Where do we live, REALLY? Instead of the pornography of
despair, Maybe he should be writing the Geography of Despair!



Lea
San Francisco
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 19:23:34 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"6NZ8mB.A.gsC.xBlU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: ANGHARAD LOUISE WILLIAMS ,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: A Royale with cheese or le big mac. Decisions ! Decisions
!
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 17:26:29 +0100
Message-Id: <19980507172733.447ee151.in@mail.neversoft.com>


Funny I never felt the remotest tweak of nationalism at all until I moved
over to the USA where of course everyone's at it. Seems the only people to
call themselves "Americans" are the WASPs. Everyone else is an "Asian -
American" or "African - American" or "Hispano - Cymru - Fish - Apple - Hat
- - American". (I notice there are no "English - Americans", just
Brits...)This seems to be because there is no deep rooted cultural sense of
being an American, so you have to hang onto what your family brought with
you. So one's identity is labelled by one's roots first, one's location
second. That exists for some sections of the community in Britain too, but
not to the degree exhibited in the US.

Yes there IS culture in South East London just as there is in darkest
Newcastle or Brum or Leeds or Brizzle, similar but different, ancient and
very real, ways of thinking, ways of believing, traditions, ideals.

Yes you're really correct, Thatcher and her hordes really did a number on
Britain throughout the eighties, damage that can never be reversed. I was
talking to an eighteen year old nephew of mine online the other day and he
has no idea what the world was like before the day he was born, which was
minutes after Thatcher got in the first time.

Had they been allowed to continue then there surely would be no NHS and
undoubtedly we would see people taking shotguns to themselves on the
motorway on primetime television because their HMO won't pay up. Appaling.

Not only did I get my university education free and gratis I was given a
feeble amount of money to feed myself. In seven years time I will be even
more in debt putting my son through college, and he will be in debt for
several years repaying his college loan. My younger brother is still
repaying his.

You're absolutely right about my selection of music. Most of it is British
and I had never even considered it. I don't think Dave Matthews is a Brit,
I know very little about him, just like the music! Had I had any of my
Talking Heads. Prince,Pearl Jam,Nirvana or various other US acts' CDs at
work when I posted my list, undoubtedly they would have received honorary
mentions. At present they have time off for good behaviour.

Cheers

Mark S

At 12:37 AM 5/8/98 +0100, ANGHARAD LOUISE WILLIAMS wrote:
>
>Here, Here.
>
>
>At 17:26 07/05/98 MDT, you wrote:
>>Brace yourself Euthelene this may take a while, still that is what the
>>delete button is for.
>>
>>Somewhere in the middle of Mark's waving of the Union Jack (culcha in
>>sarf east London ? When i call someone a Kant i aint talkin
>>philosophy!)and Lea's corporate nightmare is where i feel the truth
>>lies.
>>Its not true to say its only the old gits who are worried about the
>>influence of the U.S. on Britain. Nearly everybody could see Thatchers
>>health care "reforms" were leading to a two tier system based on the

>>ability to pay as you have here.I'm pretty certain you got your higher
>>education completely gratis as i did , but you would'nt now and if you
>>have kids in the future, start saving for their college now because
>>never mind the grant not being there, you or they will be paying their
>>tuition.The gap between rich and poor was getting wider and wider just
>>like America and there is no denying the effect that large corporations
>>have had on the average British high street but its not just American
>>corporations. For some reason MJ doesn't want to take on Nestle. "i cant
>>see for the gruyere gas and the cowbells in my eyes." Burger KIng was
>>mentioned previously but it is in fact part of Grand Met which is
>>British. These monstrosities have transcended the nation state and are
>>not tolerant of competition so they do actively act to eliminate
>>diversity.Mint tea in a Swiss McDonald's (It was pissing down with rain
>>and i had a cold give me a break)or people using a knife and fork in an
>>english pizza hut are differences but not much and if that was all there
>>was that is different you would be right to save your airfare and spend
>>it on an extra 40 channels of unwatchable shit.
>>
>>The other side of this is the rather myopic world view that a lot of
>>Americans seem to have about the effect of that which goes on in the
>>U.S., has on the rest of the world.
>>This may come as a shock to you but the vast ,and i do mean vast,
>>majority of the world doesn't give a shit about baseball (world series ?
>>but no invite for cuba or japan.) and the NBA .
>>When 95% of the world talks about football they are talking Ronaldo not
>>Elway.Most of Africa, Asia the middle East and Europe wouldn't know Jay
>>Leno if he bled to death on their lawn.
>>Its true that you can see MaccyD's the world over but really they don't
>>change the architecture , the weather and most importantly the character
>>of the people in these places. The average Dubliner or Glaswegian is
>>still his same old friendly garrulous self, regardless of whether or not
>>he has just had a quarter pounder and fries , He's just more likely to
>>be sick over you. The reasons for traveling, and they must be more than
>>shopping surely, are as compelling as ever. Mark is right in that
>>countries that have developed strong cultures absorb what is useful from
>>America and laughs at the rest.I don't remember seeing too much American
>>music in your list Mark despite the fact that you grew up listening to

>>it.
>>
>>I always thought MJs music could be divided into the personal and the
>>political with the political reaching its peak between infected and
>>mind bomb. However i think he may have got a bit carried away when he
>>started calling press conferences to discuss political matters and i
>>know he was very uncomfortable when being interviewed by a French
>>journalist who was asking him lots of very involved questions about the
>>nature of Islam. I personally felt that one of the themes in dusk was
>>"i'll stick to the personal because who knows what to do with the world"
>>I will be really interested to see if he goes back to the political in
>>the next album.
>>
>>Writing this has made me realize i left David Byrne/talking heads off my
>>unqualified list which was a mistake because If ever there's a person to
>>set the consumerist oddities of the U.S. to music its him.As for the
>>beautiful South using Americanisms,if it fits the line and gets the
>>message across why not ?
>>they still have lines like
>>The world wont end in darkness
>>it'll end in family fun
>>with coca-cola clouds
>>behind a big mac sun.
>>Yours hoping that Brian will not be psychoanalysing Lea's spelling of
>>the capital of Thailand.
>>Ken
>>
>>
>>______________________________________________________
>>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 12:05:47 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"LEX98D.A.AaB.VneU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Michael Bird"
To: lea@sirius.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 10:04:51 PDT
Message-ID: <19980507170451.540.qmail@hotmail.com>

They are all connected. For better or worse, the ocean isnt quite as
wide as it was when you were born, Cousin. (see how fast you got my
message?) Where do we live, REALLY? Instead of the pornography of
despair, Maybe he should be writing the Geography of Despair!

It's funny you should mention this. It's something I've been thinking
about lately. I'm probably about as eligible as one bachelor gets. I
should have a full dance card, but haven't had a date in over eight
months. This technology has brought us all much closer together and we
can communicate faster than ever (www.anacam.com to prove my point). We
can share our entire lives online, in real time. Yet, I feel like a
complete social retard and cannot approach a woman in real life and to
know me is to know that I'm not particularly shy. I just don't know how
to approach people any more. It (the greater problem) makes me sick and
disgusted with myself.

mothy
Spokane, Washington

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 13:52:06 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"CiVIrD.A.wuB.-KgU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Michael Bird
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 11:54:16 -0700
Message-ID: <35520358.D08B4308@sirius.com>

Michael Bird wrote:

> can share our entire lives online, in real time. Yet, I feel like a
> complete social retard and cannot approach a woman in real life and to
> know me is to know that I'm not particularly shy. I just don't know how
> to approach people any more. It (the greater problem) makes me sick and
> disgusted with myself.
>
> mothy
> Spokane, Washington


let me add to the whole creepiness of this idea, (since I have no
solution): With the mega corporations plastering chain stores
everywhere from here to Bankcock, and mega businesses driving
independants OUT of business, places are all starting to LOOK the same.
A friend recently went to Denmark and he was driving on a freeway and
saw a Toys R US sign,along with a McDonalds, whatever, etc etc, and it
looked so much like his freeway exit for work that he forgot where he
was and got OFF the freeway!

If everyplace looks the same, and is the same as everyplace ELSE, why
GO anywhere?

And if you work for a big corporation and buy stuff from the same
corporation, under an other guize, isnt it like the whole world is
becoming just one company store?

The Soviets, we were told, wouldnt let people move around by the use
of passports, border guards, etc. But when we homogonize everything,
isnt it the same effect? far more effective actually.

The New Order is a corporate one, and I think distinctions like USA and
Britain, will soon be only formalities. Welcome to the Brave new World.

Lea

PS I just saw that a company is putting Iris readers into ATMS , soon
to be in the marketplace here AND in Western Europe. (this year). I
first heard about this over 10 years ago when Coherent was developing
it, and it creeped me out THEN, and it does NOW. This ATM identifies you
by taking an image of your iris and comparing it to an image on record.
Its more EXACTING than DNA testing, let alone fingerprints. Not even
your own two iris' are alike. Why is this a problem? How would you
feel if you were fingerprinted everytime you bought anything? And this
technology can be extended to all sorts of things, credit cards,
security entrances, even a lock on your car door. You can give someone
else your ATM number, or card to use,or key, but not your eyeball. You
can change your name and even get a fake social security number. But
not your eyes. This technology , widely dispresed, can give the term
"dragnet" an entirely new, and electronic meaning.

If your life is an open book and the law is friendly, it doesnt matter
a bit. But in such a world, if you HAPPENED to be on the "run".....

Same technology can let a cop ID you from across the street. So be
good, doobees. SHUDDER.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 14:15:39 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"kd36tC.A.0zB.HhgU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: lea@sirius.com, mrmoth@hotmail.com
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 12:14:23 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E17BA@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>


let me add to the whole creepiness of this idea, (since I have no
solution): With the mega corporations plastering chain stores
everywhere from here to Bankcock, and mega businesses driving
independants OUT of business, places are all starting to LOOK the same.
A friend recently went to Denmark and he was driving on a freeway and
saw a Toys R US sign,along with a McDonalds, whatever, etc etc, and it
looked so much like his freeway exit for work that he forgot where he
was and got OFF the freeway!

If everyplace looks the same, and is the same as everyplace ELSE, why
GO anywhere?

Because, NOT everyplace looks the same. No-one travels to admire free-way exists and McDonalds. Freeway design has been similar for years but it hasn't stopped me traveling. Sometimes when I travel the freeways here and try to slow from 65 to 20 to take a 100 yard exit ramp doubling as a on-ramp where the cars are trying to accelerate from 20 to 65 mph , I wish 101 freeways were more similar to good-old consistent British motorway exits. i.e. not f#$king dangerous.

Sorry, bit of a moment on the way to work with a brown-hatter in an El Dorado.

Later

- -Adrian
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 15:11:39 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"ibnVy.A.p3B.qVhU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
CC: mrmoth@hotmail.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 13:12:43 -0700
Message-ID: <355215BB.CAF73835@sirius.com>

> Because, NOT everyplace looks the same. No-one travels to admire free-way exists
> and McDonalds. Freeway design has been similar for years but it hasn't stopped me
> traveling.


Thankfully TRUE. But I think the world is changing at a very
accelerating rate. Im not quite as eager to go to Europe as I used to
be, simply because its a lot of money to see different archetecture.
And unless you get well out of the cities.... what is so different?
In alternative travel, What was quaint and third world yesterday is
too often just run down and depressed today. Ive seen such incredible
change in Mexico, for instance. In so many places, its gone from
looking like Mexico, to looking like a run down section of Milwaukee, or
soemthing. People who used to do handwork and cottage industry are now
working at the electronics plant, and something is very lost in all
that.

It isnt ALL grim. I have to remind myself. But charm seems to be ever
so short on supply, lately. I get a sense, from INFECTED, that its
about alienation and globalization.

By The Way, heard a great quote from Norman Mailer on TV yesterday.
he was talking about modern architecture and what a disaster great
modern buildings are. He said that the older big buildings in cities
had a charm, that poor people could look at them and think "must be
pretty
smart people, work there", but now the big monochrome buildings just say
"keep out".

Thats how "infected" hits me with its "cities of great solitude".

Lea

who will try to be more cheerful, today!
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 15:26:27 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"PAWrFC.A.-8B.gjhU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Mark_Gaertner@wbsaunders.com (Mark Gaertner),
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu,
Johann C Chacko
Subject: Re: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 13:29:25 -0700
Message-Id: <19980507133021.43a5adde.in@mail.neversoft.com>

To: Mark_Gaertner@wbsaunders.com (Mark Gaertner),
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu, Johann C Chacko

Subject: Re: Profound(?) Questions

At 09:18 AM 5/7/98 -0400, Mark Gaertner wrote:
while there, another cover of "Honkey Tonkin'" came on the
> radio. Definitely *very* different from Matt's version. Matt's is
> so... raunchy. This version was almost comical in comparison. I
> think Matt managed to do what he set out to do, and is not worried at
> all about lack of inspiration.
Despite being an album of Hank WIlliams cover versions, Hanky Panky sounded
like nothing else other than a the The album.
> I'd say he's an Englishman in a world that's quickly becoming America.

Back home in Britain old gits are constantly bemoaning the way Britain is
becoming Americanised.

In fact nothing could be further from the truth.

One only has to stay here (I am in Los Angeles at present, and lived near
San Francisco for two years) for a little while and return home to realise
how little Britain is affected by the influences of other countries.

What actually happens is that Britain absorbs other cultures - especially
small ones such as the US (big country, small culture) - with ease. The
reason for this is simple - we already have abundant indigenous culture,
and anything that is sent our way is examined, stripped to its bare bones
and recycled. If I went down to the ocean and dripped red dye from an eye
dropper into the sea, you would see a similar effect.

Now all this is not to say there is no influence from America,and nor am I
saying Britain is better than the USA, far from it. However, I can assure
you that the whole world has not turned into the US empire as yet.

In Britain I grew up on a diet of American TV and pop music, and there are
McDonalds and BKs and Pizza Huts in every town centre. The thing is, should
one choose to visit any of these places there's one quite amusing common
link between them all. They're all so British. That's because the people
who run them and the people who work in them are ordinary British people,
little oiks and herberts from Manchester and Leeds and Southampton and
Bristol and Glasgow, and their attitudes are a million light years from
your typical California kid. "Have a nice day" does not it well with a
fifth former from Meanwood in Leeds or a council estate dweller from
Brislington in Bristol.

Of course with rock/pop music we took it and made it our own - The Beatles,
Pink Floyd, the The...

Yes there are Toys 'R' Us and MacDonalds etc all over the world, but
they're not on every street, they're only in the places where you might
expect them to be - off the motorway exits, the freeway off ramps (Adrian
you should try coming off the older freeways in LA where you have to slow
down to five MPH in about twenty yards - imagine that back home coming down
from 90! And yes you're right, motorway exits are 95% consistent in the UK,
with those nice diagrams that tell you which direction to take to go where,
none of those guessing games you get to play here...)

One only has to travel a little around the small towns and villages in
Britain, the Dales, or Cotswolds for instance to realise that it's going to
be a very long time before the rest of the world is homogenised in the same
way as the US. Despite the fact that most new towns in Britain look roughly
the same, and all council estates there are interchangeable from Land's End
to John O'Groats, the majority of towns and cities have their own character
and uniqueness. I recommend Bill Bryson's "Notes From a Small Island" and
Paul Theroux's "Kingdom By The Sea" for their takes on this subject.

Cheers

Mark Scott



> As a side note to this, I find it so odd that a band like, say, the
> Beautiful South, who are so distinctively English, still use
> Americanisms (in "Prettiest Eyes" they sing "fifty-nine Fourth of
> July's" for example).

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 18:16:45 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"0CZfE.A.xWC.JDkU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Johann C Chacko
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
cc: Michael Bird , infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 16:16:19 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID:



On Thu, 7 May 1998, Lea Curry wrote:

>
> PS I just saw that a company is putting Iris readers into ATMS , soon
> to be in the marketplace here AND in Western Europe. (this year). I
> first heard about this over 10 years ago when Coherent was developing
> it, and it creeped me out THEN, and it does NOW. This ATM identifies you
> by taking an image of your iris and comparing it to an image on record.
> Its more EXACTING than DNA testing, let alone fingerprints. Not even
> your own two iris' are alike. Why is this a problem? How would you
> feel if you were fingerprinted everytime you bought anything? And this
> technology can be extended to all sorts of things, credit cards,
> security entrances, even a lock on your car door. You can give someone
> else your ATM number, or card to use,or key, but not your eyeball. You
> can change your name and even get a fake social security number. But
> not your eyes. This technology , widely dispresed, can give the term
> "dragnet" an entirely new, and electronic meaning.
>
> If your life is an open book and the law is friendly, it doesnt matter
> a bit. But in such a world, if you HAPPENED to be on the "run".....
>
> Same technology can let a cop ID you from across the street. So be
> good, doobees. SHUDDER.
>
>
Dear Lea,
I don't beleive you entirely appreciate the freedoms that you REALLY
have. If you have the freedom of speech,freedom of movement, freedom to
assemble, freedom to hold, preach and propogate any belief(so long as it
doesn't harm others),
you are well and truly free. Anything beyond that is really just a state
of mind, i.e. you are going to feel that you are opressed only if you let
yourself feel that way. I personally won't feel any less free if everyone
knows what I buy, when I buy it and where I buy it. Furthermore whether
people know it or not, this country does have a fairly representative
system of government, compared to a lot of 'democratic' governments.The
only limiting factor is the apathy of its own citizens. In a country as
sensitive as this about perceived threat to freedom I'm sure enough
people will get organised to ensure individuals and govt. prevent abuse.
I think these technologies help reduce uncertainty (and hence chaos). The
problem is not the technology itself(which should be welcomed) but its
abuse by unrepresentative systems individuals and organisations
Pensively Yours,
Johann.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 18:27:11 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"MpTPvD.A.DZC.6MkU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Ken Maclean"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: A Royale with cheese or le big mac. Decisions ! Decisions !
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 17:26:15 MDT
Message-ID: <19980507232616.15873.qmail@hotmail.com>

Brace yourself Euthelene this may take a while, still that is what the
delete button is for.

Somewhere in the middle of Mark's waving of the Union Jack (culcha in
sarf east London ? When i call someone a Kant i aint talkin
philosophy!)and Lea's corporate nightmare is where i feel the truth
lies.
Its not true to say its only the old gits who are worried about the
influence of the U.S. on Britain. Nearly everybody could see Thatchers
health care "reforms" were leading to a two tier system based on the
ability to pay as you have here.I'm pretty certain you got your higher
education completely gratis as i did , but you would'nt now and if you
have kids in the future, start saving for their college now because
never mind the grant not being there, you or they will be paying their
tuition.The gap between rich and poor was getting wider and wider just
like America and there is no denying the effect that large corporations
have had on the average British high street but its not just American
corporations. For some reason MJ doesn't want to take on Nestle. "i cant
see for the gruyere gas and the cowbells in my eyes." Burger KIng was
mentioned previously but it is in fact part of Grand Met which is
British. These monstrosities have transcended the nation state and are
not tolerant of competition so they do actively act to eliminate
diversity.Mint tea in a Swiss McDonald's (It was pissing down with rain
and i had a cold give me a break)or people using a knife and fork in an
english pizza hut are differences but not much and if that was all there
was that is different you would be right to save your airfare and spend
it on an extra 40 channels of unwatchable shit.

The other side of this is the rather myopic world view that a lot of
Americans seem to have about the effect of that which goes on in the
U.S., has on the rest of the world.
This may come as a shock to you but the vast ,and i do mean vast,
majority of the world doesn't give a shit about baseball (world series ?
but no invite for cuba or japan.) and the NBA .
When 95% of the world talks about football they are talking Ronaldo not
Elway.Most of Africa, Asia the middle East and Europe wouldn't know Jay
Leno if he bled to death on their lawn.
Its true that you can see MaccyD's the world over but really they don't
change the architecture , the weather and most importantly the character
of the people in these places. The average Dubliner or Glaswegian is
still his same old friendly garrulous self, regardless of whether or not
he has just had a quarter pounder and fries , He's just more likely to
be sick over you. The reasons for traveling, and they must be more than
shopping surely, are as compelling as ever. Mark is right in that
countries that have developed strong cultures absorb what is useful from
America and laughs at the rest.I don't remember seeing too much American
music in your list Mark despite the fact that you grew up listening to
it.

I always thought MJs music could be divided into the personal and the
political with the political reaching its peak between infected and
mind bomb. However i think he may have got a bit carried away when he
started calling press conferences to discuss political matters and i
know he was very uncomfortable when being interviewed by a French
journalist who was asking him lots of very involved questions about the
nature of Islam. I personally felt that one of the themes in dusk was
"i'll stick to the personal because who knows what to do with the world"
I will be really interested to see if he goes back to the political in
the next album.

Writing this has made me realize i left David Byrne/talking heads off my
unqualified list which was a mistake because If ever there's a person to
set the consumerist oddities of the U.S. to music its him.As for the
beautiful South using Americanisms,if it fits the line and gets the
message across why not ?
they still have lines like
The world wont end in darkness
it'll end in family fun
with coca-cola clouds
behind a big mac sun.
Yours hoping that Brian will not be psychoanalysing Lea's spelling of
the capital of Thailand.
Ken


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 18:28:59 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"-VicsB.A.FbC.lOkU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 19:30:06 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD79EE.8AA21FA0.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

>> The problem is not the technology itself(which should be welcomed) but its
>> abuse by unrepresentative systems individuals and organizations.

An excellent adjudication.



Ne Obliviscaris,

Vonn "Devo" Campbell ---> mailto:NatLight@worldnet.att.net

"What we've got here is... failure to communicate." ... the Captain


- -----Original Message-----
From: Johann C Chacko [SMTP:johann@CS.Arizona.EDU]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 7:16 PM
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Cc: Michael Bird; infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Profound(?) Questions



On Thu, 7 May 1998, Lea Curry wrote:

>
> PS I just saw that a company is putting Iris readers into ATMS , soon
> to be in the marketplace here AND in Western Europe. (this year). I
> first heard about this over 10 years ago when Coherent was developing
> it, and it creeped me out THEN, and it does NOW. This ATM identifies you
> by taking an image of your iris and comparing it to an image on record.
> Its more EXACTING than DNA testing, let alone fingerprints. Not even
> your own two iris' are alike. Why is this a problem? How would you
> feel if you were fingerprinted everytime you bought anything? And this
> technology can be extended to all sorts of things, credit cards,
> security entrances, even a lock on your car door. You can give someone
> else your ATM number, or card to use,or key, but not your eyeball. You
> can change your name and even get a fake social security number. But
> not your eyes. This technology , widely dispresed, can give the term
> "dragnet" an entirely new, and electronic meaning.
>
> If your life is an open book and the law is friendly, it doesnt matter
> a bit. But in such a world, if you HAPPENED to be on the "run".....
>
> Same technology can let a cop ID you from across the street. So be
> good, doobees. SHUDDER.
>
>
Dear Lea,
I don't beleive you entirely appreciate the freedoms that you REALLY
have. If you have the freedom of speech,freedom of movement, freedom to
assemble, freedom to hold, preach and propogate any belief(so long as it
doesn't harm others),
you are well and truly free. Anything beyond that is really just a state
of mind, i.e. you are going to feel that you are opressed only if you let
yourself feel that way. I personally won't feel any less free if everyone
knows what I buy, when I buy it and where I buy it. Furthermore whether
people know it or not, this country does have a fairly representative
system of government, compared to a lot of 'democratic' governments.The
only limiting factor is the apathy of its own citizens. In a country as
sensitive as this about perceived threat to freedom I'm sure enough
people will get organised to ensure individuals and govt. prevent abuse.
I think these technologies help reduce uncertainty (and hence chaos). The
problem is not the technology itself(which should be welcomed) but its
abuse by unrepresentative systems individuals and organisations
Pensively Yours,
Johann.

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 18:37:33 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"QrGOXB.A.beC.nWkU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: ANGHARAD LOUISE WILLIAMS
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: A Royale with cheese or le big mac. Decisions ! Decisions
!
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 00:37:16 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19980508003716.00907100@pophost.aber.ac.uk>


Here, Here.


At 17:26 07/05/98 MDT, you wrote:
>Brace yourself Euthelene this may take a while, still that is what the
>delete button is for.
>
>Somewhere in the middle of Mark's waving of the Union Jack (culcha in
>sarf east London ? When i call someone a Kant i aint talkin
>philosophy!)and Lea's corporate nightmare is where i feel the truth
>lies.
>Its not true to say its only the old gits who are worried about the
>influence of the U.S. on Britain. Nearly everybody could see Thatchers
>health care "reforms" were leading to a two tier system based on the
>ability to pay as you have here.I'm pretty certain you got your higher
>education completely gratis as i did , but you would'nt now and if you
>have kids in the future, start saving for their college now because
>never mind the grant not being there, you or they will be paying their
>tuition.The gap between rich and poor was getting wider and wider just
>like America and there is no denying the effect that large corporations
>have had on the average British high street but its not just American
>corporations. For some reason MJ doesn't want to take on Nestle. "i cant
>see for the gruyere gas and the cowbells in my eyes." Burger KIng was
>mentioned previously but it is in fact part of Grand Met which is
>British. These monstrosities have transcended the nation state and are
>not tolerant of competition so they do actively act to eliminate
>diversity.Mint tea in a Swiss McDonald's (It was pissing down with rain
>and i had a cold give me a break)or people using a knife and fork in an
>english pizza hut are differences but not much and if that was all there
>was that is different you would be right to save your airfare and spend
>it on an extra 40 channels of unwatchable shit.
>
>The other side of this is the rather myopic world view that a lot of
>Americans seem to have about the effect of that which goes on in the
>U.S., has on the rest of the world.
>This may come as a shock to you but the vast ,and i do mean vast,
>majority of the world doesn't give a shit about baseball (world series ?
>but no invite for cuba or japan.) and the NBA .
>When 95% of the world talks about football they are talking Ronaldo not
>Elway.Most of Africa, Asia the middle East and Europe wouldn't know Jay
>Leno if he bled to death on their lawn.
>Its true that you can see MaccyD's the world over but really they don't
>change the architecture , the weather and most importantly the character
>of the people in these places. The average Dubliner or Glaswegian is
>still his same old friendly garrulous self, regardless of whether or not
>he has just had a quarter pounder and fries , He's just more likely to
>be sick over you. The reasons for traveling, and they must be more than
>shopping surely, are as compelling as ever. Mark is right in that
>countries that have developed strong cultures absorb what is useful from
>America and laughs at the rest.I don't remember seeing too much American
>music in your list Mark despite the fact that you grew up listening to
>it.
>
>I always thought MJs music could be divided into the personal and the
>political with the political reaching its peak between infected and
>mind bomb. However i think he may have got a bit carried away when he
>started calling press conferences to discuss political matters and i
>know he was very uncomfortable when being interviewed by a French
>journalist who was asking him lots of very involved questions about the
>nature of Islam. I personally felt that one of the themes in dusk was
>"i'll stick to the personal because who knows what to do with the world"
>I will be really interested to see if he goes back to the political in
>the next album.
>
>Writing this has made me realize i left David Byrne/talking heads off my
>unqualified list which was a mistake because If ever there's a person to
>set the consumerist oddities of the U.S. to music its him.As for the
>beautiful South using Americanisms,if it fits the line and gets the
>message across why not ?
>they still have lines like
>The world wont end in darkness
>it'll end in family fun
>with coca-cola clouds
>behind a big mac sun.
>Yours hoping that Brian will not be psychoanalysing Lea's spelling of
>the capital of Thailand.
>Ken
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
>



------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 18:48:18 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"UdTqKC.A.6hC.tgkU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Johann C Chacko ,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Cc: Michael Bird , infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 16:50:51 -0700
Message-Id: <19980507165158.445e4c8d.in@mail.neversoft.com>


Hello

Personally I didn't feel free until I came to live in the USA. Knowing that
there are all those individuals with guns ready to protect us against the
government when the balloon goes up brings a tear to my eye.

Many Americans have told me "you people aren't free" since I've come over
here, because, apparently, having the right to blow someone away with the
firepower of your choice is synonymous with freedom.

And you know, I've come to believe they are right. Why should we be
unprotected when the government tries to take over the country? I realise
that I can only enjoy the full sensation of having the right to do whatever
I want without the possibility of repercussion and without experiencing the
burden of responsibility if I have a complete arsenal of high calibre
weaponry at my disposal. God bless America!

When the government starts making us do things we don't want to do, like
drive at a certain speed and pay taxes and...

Even more seriously though, we have had surveillance cameras the length and
breadth of Britain for years now - basically because of the Tories and
their (somewhat justified) paranoia. Those little black windows at floor
level in police vans weren't for the dogs to look out of, they were for
cameras.

As for the right to assemble, well the Criminal Justice Bill was introduced
by the Tories late in their term, and it essentially stomps all over human
rights. Of course these people always argue that "if you're a law abiding
citizen then you have no cause to worry". Then they go and change the law
so that you're no longer abiding by it. A source of constant amusement to
me is that Americans think they are so free. That's a good one, I have
never seen so many cops in my life!

Cheers

Mark Scott

>If you have the freedom of speech,freedom of movement, freedom to
>assemble, freedom to hold, preach and propogate any belief(so long as it
>doesn't harm others),
>you are well and truly free. Anything beyond that is really just a state
>of mind, i.e. you are going to feel that you are opressed only if you let
>yourself feel that way.
> Pensively Yours,
> Johann.
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 19:20:15 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"G_hZ7D.A.4oC.n-kU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Johann C Chacko
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu, Michael Bird
Subject: Re: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 17:22:23 -0700
Message-ID: <3552503F.DB18C4C2@sirius.com>

Johann C Chacko wrote:

> Dear Lea,
> I don't beleive you entirely appreciate the freedoms that you REALLY
> have. If you have the freedom of speech,freedom of movement, freedom to
> assemble, freedom to hold, preach and propogate any belief(so long as it
> doesn't harm others),
> you are well and truly free.

I agree with you and I think I might appreciate this more than you
assume. Im not terribly scholarly, but if there is any area I have read
a bit about, it is our particular government and its founders. We are
not doing too badly at all. At the present. But some very serious
erosions are occuring. Its kind of counterbalanced by what is happening
economically and globally. Terrorism aside, from which we have been
gracefully spared , I personally have more worries in the economic area
than in the areas of free speech, religion, etc.

Freedom isnt just a static state. It has to be maintained and fed,
watched over and fretted about! And most of all argued about. Thats
part of the process! And part of that "freedom" we cherish is the
freedom to PERSUE happiness. Freedom FROM want, etc. I dont lay awake at
night over it, waiting for a knock on the door, as much as I worry that
my landlords will go for that new BMW and evict me to codo- ize the
place.

>Anything beyond that is really just a state
> of mind, i.e. you are going to feel that you are opressed only if you let
> yourself feel that way.

I dont feel oppressed, particularly, but oppression does and can
happen regardless of how you feel. I became disabled a few years ago
and faced being homeless, and still face it. It really doesnt MATTER a
whole lot how I feel about it. Similarly, if Social Security is done
away with, or gambeled into the stock market, or tightened to the poijnt
that i am found ineligible, I loose. And I loose very big. Its a unique
perspective and I hope you dont ever share it!

There is a strong movement afoot that would already severely impact my
life. I but up against it all the time. I depend on the US government
for my rent and food and I do not have a choice in the matter. There are
many moves afoot to change and curtail entitelments. Its as close to me
as my table. The roof over my head. And many have less.

I personally won't feel any less free if everyone
> knows what I buy, when I buy it and where I buy it. Furthermore whether
> people know it or not, this country does have a fairly representative
> system of government, compared to a lot of 'democratic' governments.

Things are Jake, now. And I suspect any change will be slow and
slipping, not dramatic. Privacy is an issue that impacts you in the
future, do you follow? You never know if it was important or not, until
it has been violated or until you give it away. How much money you
spend on, say...pharmeceuticals, (and which ones), may just tip off your
future insurance company to a pre-exsisting condition, for future
coverage. Important? Not until you are sick. There are lots of
things like that. Havent you ever been sorry that you disclosed
something?

There are lots of things that one might pay for and prefer to keep
private,(how booze you buy or how much rent you pay, or which
psychiatrist you see), and as long as you can take your greenbacks out
of the bank and fork them over, I suspect its fine. But to be utterly
complacent and give up your RIGHT to privacy based on how things are at
the moment isnt a very smart gamble, period. I was born only 10 years
after people were being gassed by the tens of thousands, in a country
that everyone would have sworn was totally civilized, so while I dont
lie awake, NOTHING would suprise me. NOTHING. If we learned nothing
from those times, it should be that governments can change and human
nature is NOT to be trusted. Particularly Institutional human nature.
Should you live in constant worry? NO. But dont just had over rights and
freedoms ,in return for the latest silly gizmo, either. How easilly do
we have to be bought? Do we need this thing? nope.
The
> only limiting factor is the apathy of its own citizens.

Or their GREED. Kind of depends what side of the fence you are on. I
prefer the sunny side, but it isnt always a matter of choice.


In a country as
> sensitive as this about perceived threat to freedom I'm sure enough
> people will get organised to ensure individuals and govt. prevent abuse.

Im not. I think anyone attempting that will be assured that everything
is calm, free and fat, and that the present order is just at a
particular level of maintenance. Just like you assure me here!

And Im not sure that most citizens WILL feel abused one way or the
other, because I dont think it is exactly the government we have to
worry about, but maybe the lack of it! Do you think you have benefitted
by privitization? Lets take a look at the medical system. Its great in
your 20s and 30s. Few people need it then. But I can tell you how it is
when you are chronically ILL and need to use it, and its not getting
better at all. I was insured in the early 80s by a big corporation and
private insurance, and Ive seen several HMOs since, and its been
whitteled down to nothing for working people. The change in 10 years is
appalling. In fact it is internationally embarassing.


> I think these technologies help reduce uncertainty (and hence chaos).


Thats interesting. A very technocratical point of view. I dont think
I want that sort of certainty and Im quite sure I dont need it at
present. But somebody will convince somebody that we do, if there is a
buck to be made! Im sure I will be told its for my security. Just like
I was told that the ATM would reduce my banking cost and that computers
would make life easier. For whom? Whose security? (I happen to like
computers by the way). But most of us havent exactly realized a profit
or shortened their work day via them. In fact most people work longer
hours for less money and are far nmore stressed out than ever before.
What a WIN! SOME people HAVE benefitted enourmously and they took the
profits and ran. They are called RICH people! Im so happy for them.

:>)


The
> problem is not the technology itself(which should be welcomed) but its
> abuse by unrepresentative systems individuals and organisations

I agree there, and Ive never fretted over an ATM card or a bank number
or even a social security number. None of those things have ever worried
me. But I certainly object to being fingerprinted to buy groceries.
Its not GOOD to have your identity so linked to your physical traits.
It reduces your freedom to select an agent to act on your behalf. And I
think that can be a very important freedom, never missed until needed.
It absolutely is unecessary, and I hope thinking people say "No thank
you". But I doubt that will happen.

Wishing for sun, and summer,

Lea


"Hold me mom, in your long arms, in your electronic arms, your
automatic arms, your petrochemical arms.......in your arms....."
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 19:57:45 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"1JWZ3D.A.y9C.2hlU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Euthelene's Madness"
To: Ken Maclean
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: A Royale with cheese or le big mac. Decisions ! Decisions !
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 19:55:58 -0500
Message-ID: <3552581E.4EC68D89@ix.netcom.com>

deleting as you write

Ken Maclean wrote:

> Brace yourself Euthelene this may take a while, still that is what the
> delete button is for.
>
> Somewhere in the middle of Mark's waving of the Union Jack (culcha in
> sarf east London ? When i call someone a Kant i aint talkin
> philosophy!)and Lea's corporate nightmare is where i feel the truth
> lies.
> Its not true to say its only the old gits who are worried about the
> influence of the U.S. on Britain. Nearly everybody could see Thatchers
> health care "reforms" were leading to a two tier system based on the
> ability to pay as you have here.I'm pretty certain you got your higher
> education completely gratis as i did , but you would'nt now and if you
> have kids in the future, start saving for their college now because
> never mind the grant not being there, you or they will be paying their
> tuition.The gap between rich and poor was getting wider and wider just
> like America and there is no denying the effect that large corporations
> have had on the average British high street but its not just American
> corporations. For some reason MJ doesn't want to take on Nestle. "i cant
> see for the gruyere gas and the cowbells in my eyes." Burger KIng was
> mentioned previously but it is in fact part of Grand Met which is
> British. These monstrosities have transcended the nation state and are
> not tolerant of competition so they do actively act to eliminate
> diversity.Mint tea in a Swiss McDonald's (It was pissing down with rain
> and i had a cold give me a break)or people using a knife and fork in an
> english pizza hut are differences but not much and if that was all there
> was that is different you would be right to save your airfare and spend
> it on an extra 40 channels of unwatchable shit.
>
> The other side of this is the rather myopic world view that a lot of
> Americans seem to have about the effect of that which goes on in the
> U.S., has on the rest of the world.
> This may come as a shock to you but the vast ,and i do mean vast,
> majority of the world doesn't give a shit about baseball (world series ?
> but no invite for cuba or japan.) and the NBA .
> When 95% of the world talks about football they are talking Ronaldo not
> Elway.Most of Africa, Asia the middle East and Europe wouldn't know Jay
> Leno if he bled to death on their lawn.
> Its true that you can see MaccyD's the world over but really they don't
> change the architecture , the weather and most importantly the character
> of the people in these places. The average Dubliner or Glaswegian is
> still his same old friendly garrulous self, regardless of whether or not
> he has just had a quarter pounder and fries , He's just more likely to
> be sick over you. The reasons for traveling, and they must be more than
> shopping surely, are as compelling as ever. Mark is right in that
> countries that have developed strong cultures absorb what is useful from
> America and laughs at the rest.I don't remember seeing too much American
> music in your list Mark despite the fact that you grew up listening to
> it.
>
> I always thought MJs music could be divided into the personal and the
> political with the political reaching its peak between infected and
> mind bomb. However i think he may have got a bit carried away when he
> started calling press conferences to discuss political matters and i
> know he was very uncomfortable when being interviewed by a French
> journalist who was asking him lots of very involved questions about the
> nature of Islam. I personally felt that one of the themes in dusk was
> "i'll stick to the personal because who knows what to do with the world"
> I will be really interested to see if he goes back to the political in
> the next album.
>
> Writing this has made me realize i left David Byrne/talking heads off my
> unqualified list which was a mistake because If ever there's a person to
> set the consumerist oddities of the U.S. to music its him.As for the
> beautiful South using Americanisms,if it fits the line and gets the
> message across why not ?
> they still have lines like
> The world wont end in darkness
> it'll end in family fun
> with coca-cola clouds
> behind a big mac sun.
> Yours hoping that Brian will not be psychoanalysing Lea's spelling of
> the capital of Thailand.
> Ken
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 20:13:50 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"b5QnvD.A.PAD.4wlU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Ken Maclean
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: A Royale with cheese or le big mac. Decisions ! Decisions !
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 18:16:04 -0700
Message-ID: <35525CD4.2CC75F0D@sirius.com>

Very Very well said Ken.

> Its not true to say its only the old gits who are worried about the
> > influence of the U.S. on Britain. Nearly everybody could see Thatchers
> > health care "reforms" were leading to a two tier system based on the
> > ability to pay as you have here.


And all that went with it, and once gone, its very hard to get these
things BACK.

I think I better go have a listen to Beautiful South. Will I like
them? I agree heartilly with their lyrics:

> The world wont end in darkness
> it'll end in family fun
> with coca-cola clouds
> behind a big mac sun.


I think most of us will welcome most of these changes as "progress"
and hell, many people today would rather have fast food than a "home
cooked" meal. Who even KNOWS what good food tastes like anymore.
Most would prefer a machine knit sweater to the one I make with a few
mistakes in it. And I'm sure we won't miss those assembly jobs that are
being farmed out to Chinese prisoners, right? We can all be bank
presidents and engineers, and if THAT is something we are to lazy to do
we can jolly well work at Starbucks. Those factory workers and union
people were just lazy and way too expensive.


I never heard the words "working poor" until about 8 years ago...maybe
less. It's a whole new category of people that will include many of
us. Ken is absolutely on the ball here, and I think "Infected" was a
call to alarm. Way too late, but still....It was one of the ealiest
reactions to the new order, and it seems like music kind of went
flatline after it, as far as news is concerned.

Americans definitely have a warped sense of their impact, both in how
important it is in cutural influence,(not AS...) and how sinister it can
be, economically. (more THAN...)How many people know there is wide
spread famine in Haiti and that what was a jungle not very long ago, is
now mostly a rock? (89% deforested and rising exponentially, its TOAST)
The starvation is well under way complete with babies with big bellys
and it doesnt even make the news. A firiend just came back with an
eyewitness report. That was some of our influence, but you know? It
isnt just American. It's corporate and they really have little to do
with nations anymore.

I agree with Ken also that Europe will still be culturally different,
and it can absorb a lot more than Mac Donalds and still maintain its
character. When you start seeing this in Thailand, its more a symptom
than a cause. I suspect the second world will be asking for its piece
of mac-pie now too, apple or cherry, with all that goes with it, and
they will get it, even if it kills them.

Not all is doom and gloom, but maybe this is nature's way of making
you not envy the young! With any luck at all, I will just be sliding
into home base, before it gets too bad....and most of you guys will have
20 more years to deal with it! Its YOUR future Im worried about!
LOL!!!!

Did you want fries with that?

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 21:59:09 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"WplyD.A.fUD.qTnU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Johann C Chacko
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Pornogram Re: A Royale with cheese or le big mac. Decisions ! Decisions !
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 19:58:44 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID:


Dear the The public,

You've all made some great points (though I do wish you'd all
answer my original questions as well). I would tend to agree with my fellow
Brits regarding 'the land where nothing changes'. However all of you have
agreed that while their cultures may survive and indeed thrive they have
already taken the biggest step: accepting US style mass consumerism. The
process of Globalisation while including a great many other trends is
primarily based on this one linchpin, to make the world America in its
buying habits (choice, volume and frequency), and structuring the Global
Economy in such a way that all nations and economies must swallow it
enthusiastically or choke, fester and die in their isolation(Cuba's crime
and subsequent ounishment). The problem is the world cannot support six
billion people living like that! If the US already consumes 40% of the
worlds resources(energy & raw materials), and drowns the world with its
excretions, can anyone comprehend the upheaval when China's half a
billion middle class and India's quarter of a billion do their best to
emulate Phoenix (that cesspit of consumerism and concrete two hours north
of my university)? Our world is driven by the blind force of spending,
and that holiest of dieties, Growth and the worst part is that we have
eliminated all our other options. We are like a tandem bicycle, if we stop
moving, we'll fall (and pull every one else down as well). Worse yet we
have to move faster and faster, and to do that we have to persuade
everyone else to get on a bicycle and pedal as fast as their stubby
little feet will take them. We cannot deny 64 oz. Big Gulps to anyone,
and of course we must all have our pagers and cell phones. The problem is
not technological progress, but that we can only achieve it these days by
selling a shait load of shait to people who already have Diarrhea.
Technological progress has made social progress possible. Slavery was
pointless after the cotton gin (I think the US civil war was about the
economical impact of the south losing all its free labour. It might
never have happened if they had fertilizers and tractors:)) and women's
lib would never have happened without the pill or maybe even disposable
nappies. We need to find a new way to recoup the spiralling cost of
progress.
Arguably yours,
Johann.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 22:23:31 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ha7xzC.A.VXD.gqnU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Johann C Chacko
To: Lea Curry
cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 20:23:07 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID:


Dear Lea,

I think that you have made my point quite admirably. My thesis is
that the system is dynamical, but that it also proportionally amplifies
opinions. My fat cat
complaceny centers on people like you who I count on to stand up and
speak out BECAUSE they are in genuine danger. The system IS working
because it protects your freedom right here, and right now to stand up and
speak out, and you just did so about the horror of
the disabled watching their support disappear.You convinced me. If I were
a citizen here, I'd go out and tell others about it as well. It is YOUR
duty to make a difference, by alerting the majority who are not directly
experiencing what you are going through and thus mobilise opinion and
depending on how succesful you are, legislation. There is no superego in
government that worries over what is right and wrong, only a reflexive
response to pressure. It is only your fury that makes me complacent.

PS. If Germany gassed and burned Jews, that's because enough Germans
at the time didn't terribly mind it.They said nothing when the riots
were organised, the shops smashed and confiscated while they cheered
Hitler into power on his platform putting those filthy Juden into
place. Fear Apathy.

Alertly yours,
Johann.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 22:33:58 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"ysufHB.A.pZD.O0nU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Erin Osborne"
To: "the the"
Subject: non- the The- some stats
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 23:33:06 -0400
Message-ID: <19980508033254.AAA20830@default>

One of my anthropology teachers emailed this to some of his students. It
doesn't really have that much to do with any of the topics at hand, but I
found it to be very interesting. Perhaps it may put some things into
perspective. Enjoy!
- -erin

> > Subject: some stats
> > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > Here's a metric of the world's population that certainly puts
> > >> the global family into perspective.
> > >>
> > >> If we could shrink the Earth's population to a village of
> > >> precisely 100 people ... with all existing human ratios remaining
the
> > >> same, it would look something like this:
> > >>
> > >> There would be 57 Asians, 21 Europeans, 14 from the Western
> > >> Hemisphere (North and South) and 8 Africans.
> > >>
> > >> 51 would be female; 49 would be male.
> > >> 70 would be nonwhite; 30 would be white.
> > >> 70 would be non-Christian; 30 would be Christian.
> > >> 50 percent of the entire world's wealth would be in the hands
of
> > >> only 6 people and all 6 would be from the United States.
> > >> 80 would live in substandard housing. 70 would be unable to
> > >> read.
> > >> 50 would suffer from malnutrition.
> > >> 1 would be near death, 1 would be near birth. Only one would
> > >> have a college education.
> > >> No one would own a computer.
> > >>
> > >> When one considers our world from such an incredibly
compressed
> > >> perspective, the need for both tolerance and understanding
> > >> becomes glaringly apparent.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 01:09:28 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"TEwAGB.A.dlD.BGqU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: "Infected"
Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 23:12:32 -0700
Message-Id: <19980507231018.00c87d6d.in@mail.neversoft.com>


Interesting statistic I came across browsing my British Independent
newspaper a few weeks ago.

Homicides for the UK 1996 = 711

Sitting here in a San Fernado Valley office I wondered what the figures for
the USA would be for the same period.

Bare in mind that the population of the USA is between five and six times
as many as the United Kingdom.

I checked out the FBI's website and found a folder reeling off crime stats
for 1996.

Homicides in the USA 1996 = 27000+

A little more than five to six times as many, closer to forty times as many.

Guns anyone?

Another interesting stat.

One per cent of gun related deaths happen in self defence.

But America still needs them in case the King of England tries to take over
your house...

I'm so glad they finally closed all the loopholes in UK gun law

Cheers

Mark


At 11:49 PM 5/7/98 -0700, Kyle Milligan wrote:

>
>To all you gun-lovers, I welcome your explanations and arguments for guns.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 22:57:59 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"o2p9gC.A.9cD.xKoU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Kyle Milligan"
To: "Mark Scott"
Cc: "Infected"
Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 23:49:49 -0700
Message-Id: <199805080357.XAA20302@toronto.planeteer.com>


You Americans sure love your guns. That's why I love my country (Canada).
(Virtually) No guns.

Mark, I hear what you're saying about taking up arms against the government if
it gets out of line...

What are you waiting for? You're government is making it easy for Corporate
America to fuck you over, sell you out and pollute your land, and all in the
name of the almighty dollar (Read "Downsize This". See "The Big One"). So...
get your guns out. Come on, your government has shafted you, blow them away!

No wait, I have a better idea.

Just take it, after all, no one has really caused any physical harm to anyone
directly.

You can take a lesson from Canadian complacency.

Just take it. Take your gun, put it away, maybe in the nightstand. Then count
the days until a loved one is killed by your own gun, by accident. Or maybe
yourself as the phone rings and you answer the gun.

How about all the kids who "borrow" Daddy's gun and accidentally kill a friend
or sibling?

Yep, guns are great. Just keep in America. We don't want that much fun in
Canada.

To all you gun-lovers, I welcome your explanations and arguments for guns. I
just wonder how you'd put it to someone who had someone close to them killed by
a handgun, I'd like to see you try and win them over in an argument as to why
guns are so great and how no home should be without one.

Sorry about the rant. Touchy subject for me.

Kyle Milligan
toldyaso@planeteer.com

- ----------
> From: Mark Scott
> To: Johann C Chacko ;
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> Cc: Michael Bird ; infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
> Date: Thursday, May 07, 1998 4:50 PM
>
>
> Hello
>
> Personally I didn't feel free until I came to live in the USA. Knowing that
> there are all those individuals with guns ready to protect us against the
> government when the balloon goes up brings a tear to my eye.
>
> Many Americans have told me "you people aren't free" since I've come over
> here, because, apparently, having the right to blow someone away with the
> firepower of your choice is synonymous with freedom.
>
> And you know, I've come to believe they are right. Why should we be
> unprotected when the government tries to take over the country? I realise
> that I can only enjoy the full sensation of having the right to do whatever
> I want without the possibility of repercussion and without experiencing the
> burden of responsibility if I have a complete arsenal of high calibre
> weaponry at my disposal. God bless America!
>
> When the government starts making us do things we don't want to do, like
> drive at a certain speed and pay taxes and...
>
> Even more seriously though, we have had surveillance cameras the length and
> breadth of Britain for years now - basically because of the Tories and
> their (somewhat justified) paranoia. Those little black windows at floor
> level in police vans weren't for the dogs to look out of, they were for
> cameras.
>
> As for the right to assemble, well the Criminal Justice Bill was introduced
> by the Tories late in their term, and it essentially stomps all over human
> rights. Of course these people always argue that "if you're a law abiding
> citizen then you have no cause to worry". Then they go and change the law
> so that you're no longer abiding by it. A source of constant amusement to
> me is that Americans think they are so free. That's a good one, I have
> never seen so many cops in my life!
>
> Cheers
>
> Mark Scott
>
> >If you have the freedom of speech,freedom of movement, freedom to
> >assemble, freedom to hold, preach and propogate any belief(so long as it
> >doesn't harm others),
> >you are well and truly free. Anything beyond that is really just a state
> >of mind, i.e. you are going to feel that you are opressed only if you let
> >yourself feel that way.
> > Pensively Yours,
> > Johann.
> >
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 11:01:33 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"q2RpFC.A.P4D.FxyU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Michael Bird"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 09:00:30 PDT
Message-ID: <19980508160030.18789.qmail@hotmail.com>

OK, I'm gonna nip this shit in the bud. Just so all of the lovely
yank-baiters in the room are aware, the ills of America are very well
known to us. We know our failings and are doing what we can.

Because we are one of the most powerful countries in the world, we are
in the spotlight and thusly, in a position where others get to take pot
shots at us. I've heard just this morning remarks regarding policies on
our health care system, gun control, lack of nationalism, etc.

I don't love America as is and am under the constant temptation to
leave. The problems and flaws you take delight in pointing out to us are
ones that we recognize and would like to remedy but because there are so
many of us here, there is very little room for grass roots movements.

This kind of criticism levelled at another country, from us, would never
be tolerated. I expect the same consideration from the rest of you as we
are a multinational mailing list and a certain amount of respect is due
here as not all of us are rolling around in Cadillacs, waving guns
around with Big Macs impaled on the end of our Viagra induced hard-ons.
I'm tired of this image and most of you know that it isn't accurate
anyway.

So I'll say this as politely and in the most civil way I know how:
Please, fuck off. Thank you

mothy

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 11:56:49 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"D3wfCD.A.5EE.-kzU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: Mark@neversoft.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 09:50:03 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E17BD@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>

Afraid I can't get involved in his argument. Basically, because nobody is disagreeing. ( Although, I think somebody misunderstood your humour earlier and started chastising you about supporting guns.)

What's the lame line they use : "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." When are they gonna add the clause "with guns".

Anyway, what I replied for.


I'm so glad they finally closed all the loopholes in UK gun law

Cheers

Mark

Is this true? What have they actually done? Are there really no loopholes ? I've seen a few reports but I'm out of touch. I spend far too much time watching the news. 20 minutes advertizing, 20 minutes of Bay Area news, 10 minutes of national news, 2 minutes of international news and 8 minutes of weather. Although weathers share is significantly increase since we had Rain-in-May; STOP THE PRESSES !


[snip]
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 12:08:59 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"w_x9GD.A.cJE.ZwzU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: mrmoth@hotmail.com
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 10:07:49 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E17BE@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>


[michael nips the shit. Whines about yank-baiting]

> So I'll say this as politely and in the most civil way I know how:
> Please, fuck off. Thank you
>
No why don't you. You Americans are so rude, always saying 'let me tell yer something'......

You're not reading very well Michael. Not all the critism is leveled from Other Countries. Most is tempered by remarks that there is a lot of goo stuff here. Why do you think Mr Scott and I are in the united states. I was financially better off in England and had all my family close by yet I came here and stayed. I am marrying an American and will probably have kids who call my wife mOmmy (shudder). So America must have something going for it. I'll leave it to you to tell us all about it and I'll continue to get under your skin with snide comments.

It's Ironic that when I go 'home', you can't help but point things out that suck in England. This may make be sound like a bit of a tosser but it's just that things jump out and suprise you. You just have to make a comment. I got up at 4am jetlagged at my mums house last year and we were staggered that there was nowhere in the town to get a cup of coffee. Yeah, I commented on it because that's one problem you don't get round here where it's unlawful not to have a starbucks on your block.

I must say though, at lunch yesterday when this person started telling everybody how awfull English food is I had to bite my tongue. The truth can be irritating sometimes.


> mothy
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 12:21:05 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"O3Q2I.A.GME.t7zU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Patrick A. Stewart"
To: Michael Bird
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 12:20:34 -0500
Message-Id: <35533EE2.68BB@corn.cso.niu.edu>

Here, here!!

When people complain about the U.S., it is usually about the
multinationals that are identified with the U.S. and causing problems...
so, in the interest of equal time, I think we should start attacking
Britain, the Netherlands and Germany (especially now that Damlier Benz
has acquired Chrysler!) because of their role in the multinational
system. And as we all know, business is in it for the money, and as a
result does not have any ethical aspirations... that's the role of
government... so, I don't want to hear any complaining unless y'all are
trying to change it by voting and being involved in causes, and maybe
boycotting different companies.

Thanks,

Patrick

ps-- guns don't kill people, bullets kill people (unless the gun is used
as a club), and last time I checked, the second amendment of the U.S.
Constitution only talked about the right to bear arms, not possess
bullets. So let people own their guns, just treat them like Barney Fife
and don't give them bullets.

Michael Bird wrote:
>
> OK, I'm gonna nip this shit in the bud. Just so all of the lovely
> yank-baiters in the room are aware, the ills of America are very well
> known to us. We know our failings and are doing what we can.
>
> Because we are one of the most powerful countries in the world, we are
> in the spotlight and thusly, in a position where others get to take pot
> shots at us. I've heard just this morning remarks regarding policies on
> our health care system, gun control, lack of nationalism, etc.
>
> I don't love America as is and am under the constant temptation to
> leave. The problems and flaws you take delight in pointing out to us are
> ones that we recognize and would like to remedy but because there are so
> many of us here, there is very little room for grass roots movements.
>
> This kind of criticism levelled at another country, from us, would never
> be tolerated. I expect the same consideration from the rest of you as we
> are a multinational mailing list and a certain amount of respect is due
> here as not all of us are rolling around in Cadillacs, waving guns
> around with Big Macs impaled on the end of our Viagra induced hard-ons.
> I'm tired of this image and most of you know that it isn't accurate
> anyway.
>
> So I'll say this as politely and in the most civil way I know how:
> Please, fuck off. Thank you
>
> mothy
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 11:27:37 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"bnv_F.A.qAE.mJzU1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: ndizon@specialized.com
To:
Subject: Re[2]: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Fri, 08 May 98 09:23:15 -0800
Message-Id: <9805088946.AA894644794@specialized.com>


Besides, I would imagine that this stereotypical American everyone is critcizing
is hardly what most of us (the The fans) are really like. If we were, we
probably wouldn't care about the The in the first place...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
From: at INTERNET
Date: 5/8/98 11:01 AM

This kind of criticism levelled at another country, from us, would never
be tolerated. I expect the same consideration from the rest of you as we
are a multinational mailing list and a certain amount of respect is due
here as not all of us are rolling around in Cadillacs, waving guns
around with Big Macs impaled on the end of our Viagra induced hard-ons.
I'm tired of this image and most of you know that it isn't accurate
anyway.



------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 12:33:42 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"kVhRTB.A.aOE.jH0U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 10:36:45 -0700
Message-Id: <19980508103433.033b080c.in@mail.neversoft.com>


Following that incident in Scotland a couple of years ago - when all those
tiny kids were shot at their school by a total psycho - one can only own
.22s without going through all manner of processes as far as I can remember.

I stumbled on a gun nut site by accident a while back (www.wyattearp.com in
case you're interested) and there are a number of BB posts there from some
seriously deranged British gun nuts accusing the Labour government of
conspiracy and of being Communists! To my certain knowledge the current
Labour government aren't even socialists, never mind communists...

Cheers

Mark


At 09:50 AM 5/8/98 -0700, astubbs@BayNetworks.COM wrote:
> Afraid I can't get involved in his argument. Basically, because nobody
is disagreeing. ( Although, I think somebody misunderstood your humour
earlier and started chastising you about supporting guns.)
>
> What's the lame line they use : "Guns don't kill people. People kill
people." When are they gonna add the clause "with guns".
>
> Anyway, what I replied for.
>
>
> I'm so glad they finally closed all the loopholes in UK gun law
>
> Cheers
>
> Mark
>
> Is this true? What have they actually done? Are there really no
loopholes ? I've seen a few reports but I'm out of touch. I spend far
too much time watching the news. 20 minutes advertizing, 20 minutes of Bay
Area news, 10 minutes of national news, 2 minutes of international news and
8 minutes of weather. Although weathers share is significantly increase
since we had Rain-in-May; STOP THE PRESSES !
>
>
> [snip]
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 12:39:40 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"iy-51C.A.cQE.KN0U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Mark Scott
CC: Infected
Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 10:41:48 -0700
Message-ID: <355343DC.15BD0AD@sirius.com>

> Guns anyone?
>
> Another interesting stat.
>
> One per cent of gun related deaths happen in self defence.

I wonder if that includes manslaughters, ie drunk drivers, negligent
deaths etc. Certainly the gang stuff has driven it up outrageously.

Drugs, drugs and more drugs. Keeping them illegal is sure saving
lives, isnt it?

> But America still needs them in case the King of England tries to
take over
> your house...
>
> I'm so glad they finally closed all the loopholes in UK gun law
>


I wonder if its too late here? Would we have more gangland style
slayings, etc over guns? Is the horse ot of the barn? There are so many
of them already out there. England is in an enviable position here,
because handguns have never really been legal there or widely
distributed. Maybe they need to register and highly regulate bullets
and bullet casings, etc. (mostly kidding, bullets are way too easy to
make).


The fact that assault weapons and mnachine guns are legal, virtually,
shows how easilly our legislators can be bought. Add to it that the
richest sector of the economy has sucessfully managed to get the
looniest and dumbest sector on their side...(ie that the Federal
government and regulation is the bad guy), and its a nasty combo.

I think these militia people are nothing more than lackies of the rich
gone nuts. They buy the big lie that their dwindeling jobs, and crummy
health care, etc is the governments fault, and ignor the fact that the
rich are getting richer on their backs. Rush Limbaugh and people like
him keep them from looking at the real source of the problem. The rich
point at the Federal Government, and regulation, and the poor as the
cause of all that is evil, and these dumb F*cks buy it and never look at
who's pointing. They feel they have more in common with the rich then
they do the poor. They are dangerous and stupid and who is keeping them
all worked up and re-focusing their anger?

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 13:05:53 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"4_H5L.A.qWE.ql0U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Michael Bird"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 11:04:55 PDT
Message-ID: <19980508180455.16018.qmail@hotmail.com>

I think these militia people are nothing more than lackies of the rich
gone nuts. They buy the big lie that their dwindeling jobs, and crummy
health care, etc is the governments fault, and ignor the fact that the
rich are getting richer on their backs. Rush Limbaugh and people like
him keep them from looking at the real source of the problem. The rich
point at the Federal Government, and regulation, and the poor as the
cause of all that is evil, and these dumb F*cks buy it and never look at
who's pointing. They feel they have more in common with the rich then
they do the poor. They are dangerous and stupid and who is keeping them
all worked up and re-focusing their anger?

Lea, I was kinda under the impression that problem diversion was the
only real function of the Federal government.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 13:03:43 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"1Hu8jD.A.uTE.rj0U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Johann C Chacko
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Pornogram Re: A Royale with cheese or le big mac. Decisions ! Decisions !
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 11:05:53 -0700
Message-ID: <35534981.46D4D6CB@sirius.com>

John gets it! The government is a big reflex and I fear the rich who
want to disable it and get it "out of their lives" far more than I do
the government.

What has deregulation meant to me? Did prices go down? Hell no. It
SOUNDS like a great thing, but in actuality, it just hands the keys to
the hen house to the fox! It was popular to hate the government during
Viet Nam, But times have changed. The rich exploit the fact that most
poor people still have their heads stuck in the 70s. We need to get the
government on our side, and go back to the good old fashioned business
of regulating the wealthy and powerful, and taxing them accordingly.
Without regulation they run rough shod, over our backs! We have more
power in votes and pressure than we do in money. So why take the
government out of the loop? How else do we have ANY representation.
The wealthy are just fine with the US turning into one big Calcutta.
They will just retreat into their gated communities, like they do
everywhere else.

> technological progress has made social progress possible. Slavery was
> pointless after the cotton gin (I think the US civil war was about the
> economical impact of the south losing all its free labour. It might
> never have happened if they had fertilizers and tractors:))

It WAS, but you are maybe sort of blaming the victim here. The south
was modelled on a more Jeffersonian idea. That everyone who wanted one,
could have a great big farm. That we would be a nice, slow agricultural
country. I dont think they WANTED to turn the farms into factories and
there was so much abundance of land, they didnt NEED to. He certainly
foresaw the end of slavery and (tried to set his own inherited ones free
many times, only to be shut down), and that was coming regardless, but
the South could have survived that. With the Louisiana Purchase, it
looked like we could just indefinitly expand and that any person who was
so inclined could create their own life.

The north was full swing into the industrial revolution, (which he
detested), and couldnt compete with all the free labor of the
south.Cotton was high, my oh my.(and fetched a far better price in
Europe). There was a poor balance of trade, as it were. Because like
you say: Everybody had to get on the bicycle. ("Anybody can be a
millionaire so everybodies gotta try"- M.J.). It wasnt about Slaves
being FREE. Lincoln was willing to concede that, even in the last year
of the war!
It was about the South being part of the north and goosestepping to
the industrial beat.

The north brought in huge increases in population, and as many slaves
as they could cajole north to man the sweatshops, factories and do the
hokey pokey. And thats what its all about.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 13:45:36 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"AnxhV.A.MiE.-K1U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Michael Bird
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 11:47:51 -0700
Message-ID: <35535357.D373AD76@sirius.com>

> Lea, I was kinda under the impression that problem diversion was the
> only real function of the Federal government.
>


Hmmm...sometimes it seems like that..but isnt that sort of inherant
in ALL committees? In the 60s and 70s the middle calsses really took
on the federal Government. We were in a war most people didnt WANT, and
we had just come out of the Mc Carthy era which was a grim period of
Federal excess.

But NOW, the government is one of the few resources that the
disenfranchised HAVE. The rich can tell us that welfare doesnt work,
and that economic Darwinism is the only way things will work, but what
will they replace the safety net with when it's gone? NOTHING.They want
to pay less taxes and run roughshod with no one regulating their abuse
of resources, or holding them accountable. Thats ALL they want. And
they will use any appeal to get there. They want us dead, for all they
care, because there are way too many middle class people with middle
class skills that can be performed by the third world at higher profit.

Their NIGHTMARE is trade regulation, unions, and socialism. And from
what I hear they are almost as bad in Britain.

It isnt the GOVERNMENT that is doing this. Its BIG MONEY. (of course I
certainly admit that the government is mostly bought up by them).

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 13:55:34 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"QxJEG.A.PkE.VU1U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Michael Bird
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 11:57:46 -0700
Message-ID: <355355AA.8F17FC4D@sirius.com>

> The problems and flaws you take delight in pointing out to us are
> ones that we recognize and would like to remedy but because there are so
> many of us here, there is very little room for grass roots movements.


Im not sure why a large population should be an inhibition to grass
roots movements.

> This kind of criticism levelled at another country, from us, would never
> be tolerated. I expect the same consideration from the rest of you


But at least SOME of that criticism is coming FROM us. Britain is
certainly not exempt from most of these problems, and those who think
its just an American problem are naive. Britain was in the "aquisition
game" before the US ever existed, and they are a VERY capitalistic
country. But they used to manage to use the government as a sort of
insulation from the big greedsters. Maggie pretty much ended that and
they are having the same free for all there, far as I hear. better
health care and still a more enlightened view towards pubic service
though. And you HAVE to admit theyve nowhere NEAR the violence.

America didnt invent greed or materialism, we were just real GOOD at
it! I think people really know that or will figure it out soon enough.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 14:08:32 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Fh218D.A.InE.eg1U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
CC: mrmoth@hotmail.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: English Food AVAILABLE
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 12:09:24 -0700
Message-ID: <35535864.4D59EC3E@sirius.com>

The store across the street from me is always trying silly things.
They tried to sell 10.00 cigars here in the slums last year. Didnt
work. But their LATEST is English Food.

So in case anyone is REALLY and I mean REALLY desperate, we have Heinz
beans, (the good veggie ones in the blue can- good with crumpets), Heinz
cream sald dressing, (looks dreadful), Heinz real tomato soup (so say my
British freiends), and canned spaghetti, etc, and Cadberrys Flakes, and
the ones with honey comb in them, Some Digestive Biscuits (why do they
call them THAT? sounds gross)- Mc Evetys or Mc Nultys or something-
they are Irish I think,) and some kind of cream pudding in a can, which
says its made with Devonshire cream. Might be ok. A couple of other
Heinz products as well. They say more is coming. This won't last
because its another hairbrained idea (tm) of Hausein, the owner. (There
is an Irish Bar next door and he thinks they will eat this stuff). If
anyone is terribly homesick for any of this stuff and sends me cash, I
might be persuaded to ship a care package. Probably you are all happy
to be quit of it.

Lea

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 14:21:34 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"ino0Z.A.KrE.ls1U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Mark_Gaertner@wbsaunders.com (Mark Gaertner)
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: suffering from affluenza
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 15:14:37 -0400
Message-ID: <001ADAAD.@wbsaunders.com>

I have to agree with Paul, and my earlier statements were a little
misplaced, blaming American government for the spread of mulitnational
corporations... but you also have to agree that the American
government is actively aiding and abetting multinationals. Much of
what is wrong is due to them, and their lack of social or ethical
responsibilities. But, the government continues to provide corporate
welfare, tax breaks, and other cushy Acts and laws.

I agree with Lea, as well, although she says the government is not to
blame, the rich are. What is the average income of a congressman,
even BEFORE he runs for office? The government is made up of rich
people.

Matt talks about one of the above-mentioned Acts in his letter on the
Sony site. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was peddled to us as a
way to "increase competition" and provide better, cheaper services.
Remember when they said we'd be able to buy whatever cable channels we
wanted, rather than buying packages? Can anyone do this yet? And
what was the other result? Multinationals buying up every radio
station in every market, Disney buying ABC, Westinghouse buying CBS...
Ultimately a limiting of what's availible to be seen/heard, just like
what's been going on in the publishing industry since the Regan era.
Same thing can be said about NAFTA. What are the benefits again?

What Johann wrote about growth and prosperity is true too, that
they're pretty much out of date values. Instead the focus needs to be
on maintaining and improving what we have. We tend to let things
decay and toss them out as old, such as the movement to HMO's in our
healthcare system. As Jim Hightower writes, I don't recall the
national referendum on having our healthcare dictated to us by big
insurance companies (I'm paraphrasing). Of course, I'm listening to
Billy Bragg as I type this...

To quote the Beautiful South again, "The sound of New York isn't
police sirens wailing/It's the sound of Wall Street tills, whilst
everyone is flailing." The question is, what is to be done? I'm not
anti-government, militia (don't get me started about guns... how many
ten year olds need to go on a shooting spree before something is
done?). I just think, as Lea writes, that corporations need to be
regulated more, and government needs to be for the people, not for
corporate identities.

I'm getting off my soapbox now...
MG


------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 14:21:03 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"I_WYKB.A.0pE.Ms1U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Mark_Gaertner@wbsaunders.com (Mark Gaertner)
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re[2]: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 15:17:39 -0400
Message-ID: <001ADABE.@wbsaunders.com>

- --IMA.Boundary.778456498
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part

"Let the poor drink the milk, while the rich eat their honey..."

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
Author: Lea Curry at ~internet
Date: 5/8/98 11:47 AM


> Lea, I was kinda under the impression that problem diversion was the
> only real function of the Federal government.
>


Hmmm...sometimes it seems like that..but isnt that sort of inherant
in ALL committees? In the 60s and 70s the middle calsses really took on
the federal Government. We were in a war most people didnt WANT, and we
had just come out of the Mc Carthy era which was a grim period of Federal
excess.

But NOW, the government is one of the few resources that the
disenfranchised HAVE. The rich can tell us that welfare doesnt work,
and that economic Darwinism is the only way things will work, but what
will they replace the safety net with when it's gone? NOTHING.They want
to pay less taxes and run roughshod with no one regulating their abuse
of resources, or holding them accountable. Thats ALL they want. And
they will use any appeal to get there. They want us dead, for all they
care, because there are way too many middle class people with middle
class skills that can be performed by the third world at higher profit.

Their NIGHTMARE is trade regulation, unions, and socialism. And from
what I hear they are almost as bad in Britain.

It isnt the GOVERNMENT that is doing this. Its BIG MONEY. (of course I
certainly admit that the government is mostly bought up by them).

Lea

- --IMA.Boundary.778456498
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="RFC822 message headers"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="RFC822 message headers"

Received: from purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu (128.135.24.50) by
smtpgate.harcourtbrace.com with SMTP
(IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 Enterprise) id 001AD94A; Fri, 8 May 98 14:53:21
- -0400
Received: (from list@localhost) by purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu (8.8.5/8.8.3) id
NAA18596; Fri, 8 May 1998 13:45:24 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 13:45:24 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <35535357.D373AD76@sirius.com>
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 11:47:51 -0700
From: Lea Curry
Organization: not
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael Bird
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
References: <19980508180455.16018.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"AnxhV.A.MiE.-K1U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/614
X-Loop: infected@lists.uchicago.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: infected-request@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu

- --IMA.Boundary.778456498--
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 15:52:51 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Y1zR3.A.HxE.PC3U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Michael Bird"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 13:51:56 PDT
Message-ID: <19980508205157.29565.qmail@hotmail.com>

> Im not sure why a large population should be an inhibition to grass
>roots movements.

Lea, I think your perspective is a little distorted by the fact that you
live in San Francisco, where there is certainly a legacy for grass roots
movement. There's a precident. Step outside in some of the remote rural
areas or even B grade metro areas and you'll find a predominantly
apathetic populace, who feel so overwhelmed by the size and magnatude of
the county they feel they have no way to combat problems. Our local
legislators and government are becoming more tasking to deal with than
the federal and that leaves even the most idealistic, radical faint of
heart. So, perspectiuve is a part of this.

> But at least SOME of that criticism is coming FROM us. Britain is
>certainly not exempt from most of these problems, and those who think
>its just an American problem are naive. Britain was in the "aquisition
game" before the US ever existed, and they are a VERY capitalistic
country. But they used to manage to use the government as a sort of
insulation from the big greedsters. Maggie pretty much ended that and
they are having the same free for all there, far as I hear. better
health care and still a more enlightened view towards pubic service
though. And you HAVE to admit theyve nowhere NEAR the violence.

Bottom Line: They've also had a hell of a lot longer to develop their
society than we.

America didn't invent greed or materialism, we were just real GOOD at
it! I think people really know that or will figure it out soon enough.

Why don't we ever get a pat on the back for this? I want a trophy.
(careful flamethrowers... smell that? sarcasm)

love, mothy

PS: Just so you know, I want to apologize for my earlier post. No coffee
this morning as there is no Starbucks on my corner. I get a little
feisty without my spoon-fed consumerist ass/arse being pampered. ; )

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 17:12:54 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"LGOz4B.A.-zE.RN4U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: "Michael Bird" , infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 15:15:53 -0700
Message-Id: <19980508151354.043ad2e2.in@mail.neversoft.com>


Oh, well why didn't you say. I empathise with you entirely.

>Mark<

At 01:51 PM 5/8/98 -0700, Michael Bird wrote:

>PS: Just so you know, I want to apologize for my earlier post. No coffee
>this morning as there is no Starbucks on my corner. I get a little
>feisty without my spoon-fed consumerist ass/arse being pampered. ;
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 17:22:19 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"igCjaB.A.w2E.FW4U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: A Royale with cheese or le big mac. Decisions ! Decisions !
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 18:23:27 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD7AAE.657B00A0.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

In response to :

>Funny I never felt the remotest tweak of nationalism at all until I moved
>over to the USA where of course everyone's at it. Seems the only people to
>call themselves "Americans" are the WASPs. Everyone else is an "Asian -
>American" or "African - American" or "Hispano - Cymru - Fish - Apple - Hat
>- American". (I notice there are no "English - Americans", just
>Brits...)This seems to be because there is no deep rooted cultural sense of
>being an American, so you have to hang onto what your family brought with
>you. So one's identity is labelled by one's roots first, one's location
>second. That exists for some sections of the community in Britain too, but
>not to the degree exhibited in the US.

I am just a plain everyday "American" and damn proud of it.


Vonn "Devo"

- -----Original Message-----
From: Mark Scott [SMTP:Mark@neversoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 12:26 PM
To: ANGHARAD LOUISE WILLIAMS; infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: A Royale with cheese or le big mac. Decisions ! Decisions !


Funny I never felt the remotest tweak of nationalism at all until I moved
over to the USA where of course everyone's at it. Seems the only people to
call themselves "Americans" are the WASPs. Everyone else is an "Asian -
American" or "African - American" or "Hispano - Cymru - Fish - Apple - Hat
- - American". (I notice there are no "English - Americans", just
Brits...)This seems to be because there is no deep rooted cultural sense of
being an American, so you have to hang onto what your family brought with
you. So one's identity is labelled by one's roots first, one's location
second. That exists for some sections of the community in Britain too, but
not to the degree exhibited in the US.

Yes there IS culture in South East London just as there is in darkest
Newcastle or Brum or Leeds or Brizzle, similar but different, ancient and
very real, ways of thinking, ways of believing, traditions, ideals.

Yes you're really correct, Thatcher and her hordes really did a number on
Britain throughout the eighties, damage that can never be reversed. I was
talking to an eighteen year old nephew of mine online the other day and he
has no idea what the world was like before the day he was born, which was
minutes after Thatcher got in the first time.

Had they been allowed to continue then there surely would be no NHS and
undoubtedly we would see people taking shotguns to themselves on the
motorway on primetime television because their HMO won't pay up. Appaling.

Not only did I get my university education free and gratis I was given a
feeble amount of money to feed myself. In seven years time I will be even
more in debt putting my son through college, and he will be in debt for
several years repaying his college loan. My younger brother is still
repaying his.

You're absolutely right about my selection of music. Most of it is British
and I had never even considered it. I don't think Dave Matthews is a Brit,
I know very little about him, just like the music! Had I had any of my
Talking Heads. Prince,Pearl Jam,Nirvana or various other US acts' CDs at
work when I posted my list, undoubtedly they would have received honorary
mentions. At present they have time off for good behaviour.

Cheers

Mark S

At 12:37 AM 5/8/98 +0100, ANGHARAD LOUISE WILLIAMS wrote:
>
>Here, Here.
>
>
>At 17:26 07/05/98 MDT, you wrote:
>>Brace yourself Euthelene this may take a while, still that is what the
>>delete button is for.
>>
>>Somewhere in the middle of Mark's waving of the Union Jack (culcha in
>>sarf east London ? When i call someone a Kant i aint talkin
>>philosophy!)and Lea's corporate nightmare is where i feel the truth
>>lies.
>>Its not true to say its only the old gits who are worried about the
>>influence of the U.S. on Britain. Nearly everybody could see Thatchers
>>health care "reforms" were leading to a two tier system based on the

>>ability to pay as you have here.I'm pretty certain you got your higher
>>education completely gratis as i did , but you would'nt now and if you
>>have kids in the future, start saving for their college now because
>>never mind the grant not being there, you or they will be paying their
>>tuition.The gap between rich and poor was getting wider and wider just
>>like America and there is no denying the effect that large corporations
>>have had on the average British high street but its not just American
>>corporations. For some reason MJ doesn't want to take on Nestle. "i cant
>>see for the gruyere gas and the cowbells in my eyes." Burger KIng was
>>mentioned previously but it is in fact part of Grand Met which is
>>British. These monstrosities have transcended the nation state and are
>>not tolerant of competition so they do actively act to eliminate
>>diversity.Mint tea in a Swiss McDonald's (It was pissing down with rain
>>and i had a cold give me a break)or people using a knife and fork in an
>>english pizza hut are differences but not much and if that was all there
>>was that is different you would be right to save your airfare and spend
>>it on an extra 40 channels of unwatchable shit.
>>
>>The other side of this is the rather myopic world view that a lot of
>>Americans seem to have about the effect of that which goes on in the
>>U.S., has on the rest of the world.
>>This may come as a shock to you but the vast ,and i do mean vast,
>>majority of the world doesn't give a shit about baseball (world series ?
>>but no invite for cuba or japan.) and the NBA .
>>When 95% of the world talks about football they are talking Ronaldo not
>>Elway.Most of Africa, Asia the middle East and Europe wouldn't know Jay
>>Leno if he bled to death on their lawn.
>>Its true that you can see MaccyD's the world over but really they don't
>>change the architecture , the weather and most importantly the character
>>of the people in these places. The average Dubliner or Glaswegian is
>>still his same old friendly garrulous self, regardless of whether or not
>>he has just had a quarter pounder and fries , He's just more likely to
>>be sick over you. The reasons for traveling, and they must be more than
>>shopping surely, are as compelling as ever. Mark is right in that
>>countries that have developed strong cultures absorb what is useful from
>>America and laughs at the rest.I don't remember seeing too much American
>>music in your list Mark despite the fact that you grew up listening to

>>it.
>>
>>I always thought MJs music could be divided into the personal and the
>>political with the political reaching its peak between infected and
>>mind bomb. However i think he may have got a bit carried away when he
>>started calling press conferences to discuss political matters and i
>>know he was very uncomfortable when being interviewed by a French
>>journalist who was asking him lots of very involved questions about the
>>nature of Islam. I personally felt that one of the themes in dusk was
>>"i'll stick to the personal because who knows what to do with the world"
>>I will be really interested to see if he goes back to the political in
>>the next album.
>>
>>Writing this has made me realize i left David Byrne/talking heads off my
>>unqualified list which was a mistake because If ever there's a person to
>>set the consumerist oddities of the U.S. to music its him.As for the
>>beautiful South using Americanisms,if it fits the line and gets the
>>message across why not ?
>>they still have lines like
>>The world wont end in darkness
>>it'll end in family fun
>>with coca-cola clouds
>>behind a big mac sun.
>>Yours hoping that Brian will not be psychoanalysing Lea's spelling of
>>the capital of Thailand.
>>Ken
>>
>>
>>______________________________________________________
>>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 17:38:19 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ex9RsC.A.66E.Il4U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 18:39:27 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD7AB0.A201C660.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

So I'll say this as politely and in the most civil way I know how:
Please, fuck off. Thank you

mothy

I fully agree!!

Vonn "Devo"

- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Bird [SMTP:mrmoth@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 12:01 PM
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc

OK, I'm gonna nip this shit in the bud. Just so all of the lovely
yank-baiters in the room are aware, the ills of America are very well
known to us. We know our failings and are doing what we can.

Because we are one of the most powerful countries in the world, we are
in the spotlight and thusly, in a position where others get to take pot
shots at us. I've heard just this morning remarks regarding policies on
our health care system, gun control, lack of nationalism, etc.

I don't love America as is and am under the constant temptation to
leave. The problems and flaws you take delight in pointing out to us are
ones that we recognize and would like to remedy but because there are so
many of us here, there is very little room for grass roots movements.

This kind of criticism levelled at another country, from us, would never
be tolerated. I expect the same consideration from the rest of you as we
are a multinational mailing list and a certain amount of respect is due
here as not all of us are rolling around in Cadillacs, waving guns
around with Big Macs impaled on the end of our Viagra induced hard-ons.
I'm tired of this image and most of you know that it isn't accurate
anyway.

So I'll say this as politely and in the most civil way I know how:
Please, fuck off. Thank you

mothy

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 17:45:06 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"jnhfe.A.K9E.fr4U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 18:46:22 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD7AB1.998A0000.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

>>What's the lame line they use : "Guns don't kill people. People kill
people." When are they gonna >>add the clause "with guns".

and you might as well add :

cars, knives, rocks, boats, rope, etc. etc. and the list goes on and on
and on. Well, we might as well cut everyones hands off too since people
get beat to death with fists. Oh, yea and feet need to go too.

Vonn "Devo"


- -----Original Message-----
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM [SMTP:astubbs@BayNetworks.COM]
Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 12:50 PM
To: Mark@neversoft.com; infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: freedom, freeeedom etc

Afraid I can't get involved in his argument. Basically, because nobody is
disagreeing. ( Although, I think somebody misunderstood your humour earlier
and started chastising you about supporting guns.)

What's the lame line they use : "Guns don't kill people. People kill
people." When are they gonna add the clause "with guns".

Anyway, what I replied for.


I'm so glad they finally closed all the loopholes in UK gun law

Cheers

Mark

Is this true? What have they actually done? Are there really no loopholes
? I've seen a few reports but I'm out of touch. I spend far too much
time watching the news. 20 minutes advertizing, 20 minutes of Bay Area
news, 10 minutes of national news, 2 minutes of international news and 8
minutes of weather. Although weathers share is significantly increase
since we had Rain-in-May; STOP THE PRESSES !


[snip]


------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 18:05:33 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"-EiIZ.A.x_E.p-4U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 19:06:47 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD7AB4.733E3300.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

I love my guns. I love my gun safety courses. I love my NRA. I love to
hunt. I love to know I have the right to own a gun to protect myself
against those who use guns for other reasons other than hunting and
protection.

Bottom line : If you have a problem with guns, don't buy one, don't accept
one as a gift and don't bitch and whine at the rest of us who own guns,
understand gun safety, and do not allow accessibility to those who are not
capable of exercising gun safety (i.e. children).


Vonn "Devo"


- -----Original Message-----
From: Kyle Milligan [SMTP:toldyaso@planeteer.com]
Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 2:50 AM
To: Mark Scott
Cc: Infected
Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc


You Americans sure love your guns. That's why I love my country (Canada).
(Virtually) No guns.

Mark, I hear what you're saying about taking up arms against the government
if
it gets out of line...

What are you waiting for? You're government is making it easy for
Corporate
America to fuck you over, sell you out and pollute your land, and all in
the
name of the almighty dollar (Read "Downsize This". See "The Big One").
So...
get your guns out. Come on, your government has shafted you, blow them
away!

No wait, I have a better idea.

Just take it, after all, no one has really caused any physical harm to
anyone
directly.

You can take a lesson from Canadian complacency.

Just take it. Take your gun, put it away, maybe in the nightstand. Then
count
the days until a loved one is killed by your own gun, by accident. Or maybe
yourself as the phone rings and you answer the gun.

How about all the kids who "borrow" Daddy's gun and accidentally kill a
friend
or sibling?

Yep, guns are great. Just keep in America. We don't want that much fun in
Canada.

To all you gun-lovers, I welcome your explanations and arguments for guns.
I
just wonder how you'd put it to someone who had someone close to them
killed by
a handgun, I'd like to see you try and win them over in an argument as to
why
guns are so great and how no home should be without one.

Sorry about the rant. Touchy subject for me.

Kyle Milligan
toldyaso@planeteer.com

- ----------
> From: Mark Scott
> To: Johann C Chacko ;
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> Cc: Michael Bird ;
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
> Date: Thursday, May 07, 1998 4:50 PM
>
>
> Hello
>
> Personally I didn't feel free until I came to live in the USA. Knowing
that
> there are all those individuals with guns ready to protect us against the
> government when the balloon goes up brings a tear to my eye.
>
> Many Americans have told me "you people aren't free" since I've come over
> here, because, apparently, having the right to blow someone away with the
> firepower of your choice is synonymous with freedom.
>
> And you know, I've come to believe they are right. Why should we be
> unprotected when the government tries to take over the country? I realise
> that I can only enjoy the full sensation of having the right to do
whatever
> I want without the possibility of repercussion and without experiencing
the
> burden of responsibility if I have a complete arsenal of high calibre
> weaponry at my disposal. God bless America!
>
> When the government starts making us do things we don't want to do, like
> drive at a certain speed and pay taxes and...
>
> Even more seriously though, we have had surveillance cameras the length
and
> breadth of Britain for years now - basically because of the Tories and
> their (somewhat justified) paranoia. Those little black windows at floor
> level in police vans weren't for the dogs to look out of, they were for
> cameras.
>
> As for the right to assemble, well the Criminal Justice Bill was
introduced
> by the Tories late in their term, and it essentially stomps all over
human
> rights. Of course these people always argue that "if you're a law abiding
> citizen then you have no cause to worry". Then they go and change the law
> so that you're no longer abiding by it. A source of constant amusement to
> me is that Americans think they are so free. That's a good one, I have
> never seen so many cops in my life!
>
> Cheers
>
> Mark Scott
>
> >If you have the freedom of speech,freedom of movement, freedom to
> >assemble, freedom to hold, preach and propogate any belief(so long as it
> >doesn't harm others),
> >you are well and truly free. Anything beyond that is really just a state
> >of mind, i.e. you are going to feel that you are opressed only if you
let
> >yourself feel that way.
> > Pensively Yours,
> > Johann.
> >
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 18:41:49 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"xOTvzD.A.aEF.qg5U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Ken Maclean"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Shitnipping gun sluts
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 17:40:56 MDT
Message-ID: <19980508234056.26188.qmail@hotmail.com>

I was going to do my best to keep out of this one and just assume that
if "please,Fuck off,thank you" is Mothy's idea of politeness then the
wilderness that is his dance card is no mystery.Then he went and
apologized and i for one say he is a stand up guy and urge all female
subscribers to this list to now send (preferably off list) their details
of availability to him. Seriously though, saying you think you made a
mistake on a sort of public forum is always something i admire,
especialy as i think i can understand what he's on about regarding being
American and always being sniped at by the rest of the world even when
your intentions are good e.g. Somalia. The problem is that's the price
of being top dog. The Government in power has to expect to be the main
satirical target and believe me the majority of the third world would
love to have your cross to bear. I can well understand why Nat is proud
to be an American but when people make observations about the U.S. from
a different perspective its not a personal attack .moreover i think its
safe to say that they come with the standard "present company excepted."
I personaly think that Americans on a personal level are amongst the
most open hearted and generous in the world, and it is for precisely
this reason that i am often supprised by the things that are done in
their name. But the staement below is really too much for me.
E


>>What's the lame line they use : "Guns don't kill people. People kill
people." When are they gonna >>add the clause "with guns".

and you might as well add :

cars, knives, rocks, boats, rope, etc. etc. and the list goes on and
on
and on. Well, we might as well cut everyones hands off too since people
get beat to death with fists. Oh, yea and feet need to go too.


I have heard this tired old arguement trotted out so many times!
A few years ago a guy went nuts in Hungerford with a variety of assault
weapons. At the time there was a big public call for Guns to be banned.
It got rid of automatic rifles etc but it took another massacre at
Dunblane to finish the Job. Anyway at the time some colonel Blimp figure
wrote into the evening standard saying.
"I could do as much damage if i went mad with my set of golf clubs, its
people not guns."
I wrote a letter which wasnt published,to the paper challenging this guy
to a duel. He was to have his golf clubs and i would have a Kalashnikov.
The point,that seems to be whooshing over your hairstyle is that guns
give any inadequate little runt the ability to kill lots of people
easily.That is what they are designed for, especialy assault rifles.It
takes a lot of training and certain physical attributes to be able to
kill someone with your bare hands and you cannot lay waste to an entire
resturaunt with rocks.

The more available guns are the more people get shot . People lose their
tempers and guns give them a unacceptable outlet for their frustration
besides which any other weapon pales in comparison.
Switzerland ,despite being tiny and very very peacable has a murder rate
10 fold greater than the U.K. Why ? Because every Swiss man between a
certain age is in the army reserve and has a gun at home.

But the problem has gone too far in the U.S as there are so many Guns in
circulation (i can buy one in my local K-mart for fucks sake)that a ban
now would probably be pointless.

As i said before i am fascinated by the paradoxes in America and one of
the best i have seen so far was a documentary about a guy who stockpiled
ammo and weapons for years and then held off an entire police
department. The guy had a kevlar helmet and bullet proof vest and took
numerous hits but just carried on. The whole tone of the programme and
the police was not about how many guns or ammunition he had stockpiled
but how bullet proof vests should be made illegal.

I remeber Ben Elton a few years back saying the form for people wanting
gun licences needed to be tightened up to weed out the unsuitable.
Question a Do you feel the need to own a large powerful automatic
assault rifle ? If the answer is yes you are clearly not a suitable
person to have one.

Thats more than enough of the bleeding obvious from me
Ken



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 19:36:09 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"2vDPqD.A.QJF.jT6U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: HeWhoGetsSlapped
To: Mark Scott
CC: ANGHARAD LOUISE WILLIAMS ,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: A Royale with cheese or le big mac. Decisions ! Decisions
!
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 17:35:28 -0700
Message-ID: <3553A4D0.2B98@pacbell.net>

Mark Scott wrote:
>
> Funny I never felt the remotest tweak of nationalism at all until I moved
> over to the USA where of course everyone's at it. Seems the only people to
> call themselves "Americans" are the WASPs. Everyone else is an "Asian -
> American" or "African - American" or "Hispano - Cymru - Fish - Apple - Hat
> - American". (I notice there are no "English - Americans", just
> Brits...)

And African, Asian, etc is used to denote a race, yet that is
also just naming another location. Caucasians or native to Northern
Africa...also native to a good portion of Asia (middle easterners, yes,
even indians..all caucasian). And then the Native Americans aren't even
native to America. What are the actual racial names? Africans are
Negroid, Asians are mongolians, Native Americans are same as Asians, so
what, North American Mongolians? I've forgotten the term for the
Australian Aboriginals pacific-something..It's ridiculous...Americans
are Americans. I'll accept European-American, Asian-American etc if they
were actually born in that country. Hey, *I'm* technically a Native
American and my race is caucasian, but if I want to call the race card I
can click on Latin for I'm mostly Italian. Making an issue out of
nothing.

> You're absolutely right about my selection of music. Most of it is British
> and I had never even considered it. I don't think Dave Matthews is a Brit,
> I know very little about him, just like the music!

I think he's from South Africa. I personally don't like his music

> Had I had any of my
> Talking Heads. Prince,Pearl Jam,Nirvana or various other US acts' CDs at
> work when I posted my list, undoubtedly they would have received honorary
> mentions. At present they have time off for good behaviour.

Of all the music I listen to, I can only name three American acts that I
listen to. Jane's Addiction, Porno 4 Pyros and Nirvana. Nine Inch Nails
too if you forget about Trent's newer stuff (the day perfect drug was
released was a very sad day for me). And I listen to a lot of music. Of
all the movies, tv shows, books, etc, hardly any of them are American,
and this is all completely unintentional.

What is it? I don't know. From what I've seen what is typically American
requires a real processed feel to it, and I really hate to enter the
cliche of 'america sucks man'. But maybe it does? At least when it comes
to its artistic product.
Megan
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 23:29:40 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Pi_oiD.A.GWF.hu9U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Mark Gaertner
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: suffering from affluenza
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 21:31:56 -0700
Message-ID: <3553DC3C.A08C8CD5@sirius.com>

> I agree with Lea, as well, although she says the government is not to
> blame, the rich are. What is the average income of a congressman,
> even BEFORE he runs for office? The government is made up of rich
> people.
>


Middle Class people run for office allthe time, from the local level
on up, and quite a bit of information is available about them long
before the election.

So who always elects the rich?? Are the majority of voters rich or
poor or middle class?

The one place where the poor and middle class have ANY power is at the
polls. Why is it that only rich people get elected? Because we are
stupid and we elect them based on their ability to advertise. They are
in office because we put them there, because we don't bother to find out
about candidates without big advertising budgets. We instead, wait for
the wealthy to spoon feed uson TV; "yes masser, yes masser".... And its
going to probably stay that way no matter how mad I get because we are
stupid and lazy and full of the carrots they dangle. As long as we get
our few little trinkets, and our half hour sit coms, we are happy. And
hey, maybe thats ok and they are more fit to rule because they sure know
how to get themselves elected.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 18:23:33 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"d14g_.A.GCF.iP5U1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Martijn Warnier
To: maillinglist
Subject: I love my guns???????
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 01:28:30 -0500
Message-Id:

>I love my guns. I love my gun safety courses. I love my NRA. I love
to

>hunt. I love to know I have the right to own a gun to protect myself


>against those who use guns for other reasons other than hunting and

>protection.


If nobody owned a gun, then there was no reason for "protection". And
if you really want to hunt use a slingshot: ten times as difficult and
much beter for the animals. So I really can't see why guns shouldn't be
forbidden. F*ck the NRA, I'm glad I live in the Netherlands where
(almost) nobody has a gun.


>Bottom line : If you have a problem with guns, don't buy one, don't
accept

>one as a gift and don't bitch and whine at the rest of us who own
guns,

>understand gun safety, and do not allow accessibility to those who are
not

>capable of exercising gun safety (i.e. children).


I agree with this (espicially the children part), but I still don't see
a reason why guns shouldn't be forbidden.


>Vonn "Devo"



Martijn Warnier


Your smarter than TV

So What? (Douglas "Generation X" Coupland)

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 02:46:24 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"g9yBe.A.QcF.8mAV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mr.SelfDestruct"
To: "infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: Re: suffering from affluenza
Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 01:43:37 -0700
Message-ID: <35541739.33E85D1C@inreach.com>

>
> Middle Class people run for office allthe time, from the local level
> on up, and quite a bit of information is available about them long
> before the election.
>
> So who always elects the rich?? Are the majority of voters rich or
> poor or middle class?
>
> The one place where the poor and middle class have ANY power is at
> the
> polls. Why is it that only rich people get elected? Because we are
> stupid and we elect them based on their ability to advertise. They are
> in office because we put them there, because we don't bother to find
> out
> about candidates without big advertising budgets. We instead, wait
> for
> the wealthy to spoon feed uson TV; "yes masser, yes masser".... And
> its
> going to probably stay that way no matter how mad I get because we are
> stupid and lazy and full of the carrots they dangle. As long as we
> get
> our few little trinkets, and our half hour sit coms, we are happy.
> And
> hey, maybe thats ok and they are more fit to rule because they sure
> know
> how to get themselves elected.
>
> Lea


So who is to blame here? i for one have never voted for anyone i did not
feel was qualified for the position (even if it meant leaving a blank).
Also, i always vote with the goal of benefitting myself personally.
Isn't that the very nature of voting? If the great unwashed masses (and
i include myself therein) cannot even get it together enuf to project an
image of community and coherence, then it follows that those who (whom?)
we elect will be a reflection of ourselves...unfocussed, greedy,
immoral, apathetic. We reap what we sow.

i personally have a huge problem with the condition of government as it
stands, but i also accept that not everybody can see through my eyes,
and do not expect them to. Listening to Rush Limbugbutt (or whatever his
name is) spout non-sensical rants and preening himself to the calls of
his "adoring" pubic (uh, public...whatever) makes me sick and just
emphasises the problems with the preception of government as a whole. i
don't agree or disagree with everything he says, but his attitude
nauseates me. Since when did government become all about one party or
the other winning this or voting for that? Wasn't the whole goal here to
be "government for the people, by the people"? Or am i just losing my
mind here?

Just another (college educated) working slob...
Nick

"some cool qoute here by a nearly anonymous band from europe/britain"
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 03:03:49 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"i6qVn.A.oeF.Q3AV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mr.SelfDestruct"
To: "infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: RE: Shitnipping gun sluts
Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 02:01:06 -0700
Message-ID: <35541B52.23624B26@inreach.com>

i really should'nt say anything here, but i am too stupid to el-keepo
myo el-moutho shut....

Somebody said......

>The more available guns are the more people get shot . People lose their
>tempers and guns give them a unacceptable outlet for their frustration
besides which any other weapon pales in comparison.


Not every weapon pales by comparison. The educated (or even slightly
determined) mind can find a number of much more effective ways of
killing than using a puny gun. Witness the action of certain bio-toxins
and chemical agents. These are neither tough to make or hard to find.
The one thing a gun has is viceral immediacy. Pull the trigger ...
immediate gout of blood. It is THIS nature of guns and few others that
make it the favorite of the frustrated/uneducated/angry/mentally flawed.
i believe that the baseball bat follows as a close second. At least,
that is the nature as it appears to my humble mind.

Secondly (there is a second thing? jeez), i can easily see both sides of
the gun issue, but as it currently stands, the point is mute. Too many
are out there and if not, it would be too easy to get one anyway.
Unlawful to shoot someone? Then why would the illegality of owning the
gun scare you? Beyond all that... if not a gun, then what? The human
mind is aflutter with the multitude of ways we can slay one another.
Witness human history. Pick a time, any time, and see if humans did not
commit mass violence on one-another. The very act of having hands with
opposable thumbs and the will to overcome adversity (read as "overcome
your neighbors percieved greed") has lead humanity down the merry path
of mutual oblivion. History overflows with the tools of detruction we
have created. Moreso (is that a word?) than any other thing. That we
have survived this long never ceases to amaze me......

Nick

"Some alluring quote from a poet i never read in the hopes of impressing
the readers of this list"
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 09:27:24 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"vDJIJC.A.1jF.5eGV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: Shitnipping gun sluts
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 10:28:39 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD7B35.3C20AF20.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

Excellent point.
And now I am finished with the subject. All the flames in the world will
not convince me to accept gun control or accept the destruction of my right
to own a firearm. My comments are completed now.

Apologies to those I have angered,

Vonn "Devo"

- -----Original Message-----
From: Mr.SelfDestruct [SMTP:nspivey@inreach.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 5:01 AM
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: Shitnipping gun sluts

i really should'nt say anything here, but i am too stupid to el-keepo
myo el-moutho shut....

Somebody said......

>The more available guns are the more people get shot . People lose their
>tempers and guns give them a unacceptable outlet for their frustration
besides which any other weapon pales in comparison.


Not every weapon pales by comparison. The educated (or even slightly
determined) mind can find a number of much more effective ways of
killing than using a puny gun. Witness the action of certain bio-toxins
and chemical agents. These are neither tough to make or hard to find.
The one thing a gun has is viceral immediacy. Pull the trigger ...
immediate gout of blood. It is THIS nature of guns and few others that
make it the favorite of the frustrated/uneducated/angry/mentally flawed.
i believe that the baseball bat follows as a close second. At least,
that is the nature as it appears to my humble mind.

Secondly (there is a second thing? jeez), i can easily see both sides of
the gun issue, but as it currently stands, the point is mute. Too many
are out there and if not, it would be too easy to get one anyway.
Unlawful to shoot someone? Then why would the illegality of owning the
gun scare you? Beyond all that... if not a gun, then what? The human
mind is aflutter with the multitude of ways we can slay one another.
Witness human history. Pick a time, any time, and see if humans did not
commit mass violence on one-another. The very act of having hands with
opposable thumbs and the will to overcome adversity (read as "overcome
your neighbors percieved greed") has lead humanity down the merry path
of mutual oblivion. History overflows with the tools of detruction we
have created. Moreso (is that a word?) than any other thing. That we
have survived this long never ceases to amaze me......

Nick

"Some alluring quote from a poet i never read in the hopes of impressing
the readers of this list"
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 11:15:47 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"xvGfRB.A.SqF.ZEIV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: "Mr.SelfDestruct"
CC: "infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: Rush and the company he keeps
Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 09:17:47 -0700
Message-ID: <355481AB.CA8BA9F9@sirius.com>

While we are complaining....

> Since when did government become all about one party or
> the other winning this or voting for that? Wasn't the whole goal here to
> be "government for the people, by the people"? Or am i just losing my
> mind here?


It strikes me as very off that the Clinton HATERS (tm) (and his dyke
wife, too), seem MOST upset that "Clinton changes his mind and acts
according to whatever the polls say". They cite this with venom as
evidence that he has no backbone, and is evil and hypocritical.

I have a right wing acquaintance that I keep handy (as a canary in the
coal mine, mainly), and when we argue and scream at each other (bout all
we do), he always brings this up, after I point out that the economy and
everything he holds most important is just JAKE. Finally, in the end,
THIS is why he really hates Clinton. When I ask him, "Isn't that what he
is SUPPOSED TO DO?" he starts back pedaling and whining. Voice gets
that high pitched whine....and mumbles about "wishy washy...no
backbone...blah blah blah" and even HE knows the argument is over..

> Listening to Rush Limbugbutt (or whatever his
> name is) spout non-sensical rants and preening himself to the calls of
> his "adoring" pubic (uh, public...whatever) makes me sick and just
> emphasises the problems with the preception of government as a whole. i
> don't agree or disagree with everything he says, but his attitude
> nauseates me.


All this Hate radio, Rush crap is pure emotion. He's a master at
manipulating anger and anxiety away from the rich and towards anything
even faintly populist. Populist movements that are not controlled by
them, scare these people to death. (I think after the 60's, the powers
that really be all met somewhere and said "never again".)


My right wing friend (who fancies himself a liberal of course) is a
little above Rush, although he dismisses him as a really funny guy. He
reads Forbes, and owns a building in SF (the equivalent of being a Lord
in GB ) But he's still chasing the same stupid carrot, and has the
same anger level because even HE really is middle class at the heart of
it and has never been able to be really wealthy. Most of his plans to
get richer quicker fall through and hell, he doesn't even know WHY he
wants MORE! This is the kind of guy they (the wealthiest 10 %) LOVE.
He champions their cause because he WANTS to be one of them, and its as
close as he will ever get. He's a lackey.

Rush had a TV show on UHF here for a while and it was pretty amusing
on a few levels. His audience always looks like it is dressed for an
affair of state. Ive never EVER seen a live TV audience so well
dressed, and there are no exceptions. The grooming is unbelievable. Id
love to see the dress code for this thing, and see how many adoring Rush
Fans are turned away at the door because they just don't "get" the
requirement. (Maybe they lend them clothes and run them through
wardrobe for the show). This is STAGED. BUT the show was on at noon
weekdays, at least in this market. Hummmmmm.... How many people that
Rush CLAIMS are his following, are home at this time of the day? So its
like he is doing all this manipulative stuff, to get people who ARE home
at noon, (and ANGRY) to identify with this upper class image. "HEY if
you agree with Rush , you are really more like these fine people, even
if you Do live in a trailer Park and work the graveyard shift."

This is creepily similar to the Mc Carthy era where everybody had to
have that picket fence and conformity was the Prime Directive. And its
creepily similar to something else FAR more sinister.

The other amusing thing is that his show was sponsored by SKOAL
(smokeless tabbacco ie SNUFF), and Pizza Pockets. Not exactly the toney
sponsors he might want. He doesn't talk too much about the tobacco
lobbyists.

Luckily, Rush is a buffoon and already a has been , but he WAS
potentially very dangerous. He came way too close to starting a not so
cool movement and some of the militia activity got its start from Rush
Limbaugh groups. The "ditto heads" have a fanatic following in Oregon
and Washington, and these are the same people. (they also don't believe
the holocaust really happened - hint hint). I have fairly conservative
family involved in local and state politics up there, who are more
afraid of him than I ever was, and its exactly that bad. Their next
leader may not be such a buffoon.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 16:00:09 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"gML_KC.A.G7F.EPMV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Ken Maclean"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: I just lost it and reached for my bacterial
culture..............
Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 14:59:13 MDT
Message-ID: <19980509205914.28142.qmail@hotmail.com>

First of all Nat relax . Nobody is coming to take your toys away. As i
said previously the U.S. is a lost cause as far as guns are concerned.
Not everybody feels the same way about it as you but so what? There is
no need to start stockpiling canned goods in the compound. The federal
government doesnt have you surrounded and is never likely to.
So enjoy!

Somebody said......

>The more available guns are the more people get shot . People lose
their
>tempers and guns give them a unacceptable outlet for their frustration
besides which any other weapon pales in comparison.


Not every weapon pales by comparison. The educated (or even slightly
determined) mind can find a number of much more effective ways of
killing than using a puny gun. Witness the action of certain bio-toxins
and chemical agents. These are neither tough to make or hard to find.
The one thing a gun has is viceral immediacy. Pull the trigger ...
immediate gout of blood. It is THIS nature of guns and few others that
make it the favorite of the frustrated/uneducated/angry/mentally flawed.
i believe that the baseball bat follows as a close second. At least,
that is the nature as it appears to my humble mind.

I agree with this entirely but if you consider this in terms of
percentages i.e. the actual, rather than the hypothetical (the latter is
often the debating tool of those who find the former too inconvenient to
work with.)How many people died in the U.S. last year from anthrax or
the botulism toxin ? Then compare that with the number of shootings by
people who bitterly regret doing it and just dont know what came over
them. "ah wuz eatin muh corn dog when suddenly the red mists decended."
There are a tiny number of people with the mind set for pre-meditated
mass destruction and even less with the ability. But the number of
people with the ability feel blind range for a few seconds is enormous
and if they have the means to hand to express their visceral
feelings.... As i said in an earlier post there are unacceptable
feelings lurking within us all but very few of us cant regain our senses
before we reach the reservoir after making a fraudulent application to
the American tissue culture collection for the reagents and a few pilot
experiments with the fermenter and then three stages of chromatography
to extract the toxin. However when my neighbour makes my internal organs
resonate in time to his rap music, its fortunate for both of us that
there isnt a heckler and Koch to hand.

Secondly (there is a second thing? jeez), i can easily see both sides of
the gun issue, but as it currently stands, the point is mute. Too many
are out there and if not, it would be too easy to get one anyway.
Unlawful to shoot someone? Then why would the illegality of owning the
gun scare you?

This really comes down to the difference between our rational selves and
our caveman selves. A large amount of people who shot other people when
drunk,on drugs or just plain angry will tell you " i never saw myself as
a criminal" and thats because 99.99999% of the time thay are not. So if
guns were illegal these people wouldnt have them because it wouldnt be
acceptable to them to be outside the law. I am ONLY talking about a
section of gun related deaths and yes, hardened criminals will still
want and carry guns but this all leads to the contention that if guns
were not so acceptable here and so widely available SOME of these deaths
would not happen.Dealing with hard core wing nuts is a seperate issue.

Beyond all that... if not a gun, then what? The human
mind is aflutter with the multitude of ways we can slay one another.
Witness human history. Pick a time, any time, and see if humans did not
commit mass violence on one-another. The very act of having hands with
opposable thumbs and the will to overcome adversity (read as "overcome
your neighbors percieved greed") has lead humanity down the merry path
of mutual oblivion. History overflows with the tools of detruction we
have created. Moreso (is that a word?) than any other thing. That we
have survived this long never ceases to amaze me......

Agreed but as i said before guns paticularly those that fire lots and
lots of rounds allow a percentage of people for whom violence was
never an option before (on the grounds of physical
ineptitude,squeamishness or just the inability to attract a horde of
followers on horse back) to express their inadequasies and frustrations
in such a lethal way.People can run away from swords and maces, its not
so easy with a pattern of automatic weapon fire. It all comes down to
numbers. The simple question is will gun control reduce deaths by
shooting. Well if you do the maths then yes it will, not to zero, but it
will reduce it significantly.

Your homework for the evening is to compare the gun related deaths in
the U.S. with your more civillised Northern neighbour.And they have
social medicine too.Not one more word on this from me i promise.

Yours feeling that to the majority of the C.D. buying public the world
over would think that The The fits Nicks definition of an obscure G.B
band that nobody has heard of.
Ken.
P.S. Gun control in America ? i repeat, forget about it.



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 17:38:38 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"ymWczB.A.jTG.XrNV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: NatLight@worldnet.att.net, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 15:37:26 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E17C2@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>

Oh yeah, you're right. I remember the head-line now. 2 Kids steal mums steak knives and go on a rampage at their school. Or was it HIGH POWERED RIFLES ? Get a clue 'dude'.

- -Adrian
Free to be living in America. Free to slag off things in America I detest (as long as Moth-boy Vonn"Devo" don't get too upset and ... Free to slag of what I despise about England.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nat Light [SMTP:NatLight@worldnet.att.net]
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 3:46 PM
> To: INFECTED (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: freedom, freeeedom etc
>
> >>What's the lame line they use : "Guns don't kill people. People kill
> people." When are they gonna >>add the clause "with guns".
>
> and you might as well add :
>
> cars, knives, rocks, boats, rope, etc. etc. and the list goes on and on
> and on. Well, we might as well cut everyones hands off too since people
> get beat to death with fists. Oh, yea and feet need to go too.
>
> Vonn "Devo"
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM [SMTP:astubbs@BayNetworks.COM]
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 12:50 PM
> To: Mark@neversoft.com; infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> Subject: RE: freedom, freeeedom etc
>
> Afraid I can't get involved in his argument. Basically, because nobody is
> disagreeing. ( Although, I think somebody misunderstood your humour earlier
> and started chastising you about supporting guns.)
>
> What's the lame line they use : "Guns don't kill people. People kill
> people." When are they gonna add the clause "with guns".
>
> Anyway, what I replied for.
>
>
> I'm so glad they finally closed all the loopholes in UK gun law
>
> Cheers
>
> Mark
>
> Is this true? What have they actually done? Are there really no loopholes
> ? I've seen a few reports but I'm out of touch. I spend far too much
> time watching the news. 20 minutes advertizing, 20 minutes of Bay Area
> news, 10 minutes of national news, 2 minutes of international news and 8
> minutes of weather. Although weathers share is significantly increase
> since we had Rain-in-May; STOP THE PRESSES !
>
>
> [snip]
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 15:31:38 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ns0es.A.t3F.Y0LV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Kyle Milligan"
To: "Infected"
Subject: Devo, Are we not men?
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 16:23:34 -0700
Message-Id: <199805092031.QAA05760@toronto.planeteer.com>

Kyle Milligan
toldyaso@planeteer.com

- ----------
> From: Kyle Milligan
> To: Nat Light
> Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
> Date: Saturday, May 09, 1998 4:17 PM
>
>
>
> > Bottom line : If you have a problem with guns, don't buy one, don't accept
> > one as a gift and don't bitch and whine at the rest of us who own guns,
> > understand gun safety, and do not allow accessibility to those who are not
> > capable of exercising gun safety (i.e. children).
> >
> >
> > Vonn "Devo"
>
> Please don't treat this like a "if you don't like what you're hearing, turn
off
> the radio" argument.
> This is a lot different. It's a matter of life and death.
>
> It's all fine and good to pretend it won't be a problem, and as long as you
> don't own a gun nothing can happen to you... until you're faced with the
> reality of too much lead content in your brain because of some fucker who
> thinks he's John Wayne and plugs you for something as trivial as taking the
> parking spot he was aiming for. People are prone to their own personal
moments
> of insanity and put a gun in that hand and you have a prescription for
murder.
>
> The only safe gun is one that shoots water. Period. Even a gun that shoots
> blanks can prove deadly "Brandon Lee". So who the hell are you trying to kid?
> Does some maniac or kid have to shoot you in the leg before you begin to
think
> it's not such a great idea? Or would the point be.. just don't let that
> happen.. always carry your piece with you.
>
> Do not allow accessibility to those not capable?
> You obviously have no idea how resourceful a six year old can be.
>
> Yes, guns don't kill people, people do. But guns make it especially easy for
> people to kill people, and we don't need any extra help.
>
> Spike
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kyle Milligan [SMTP:toldyaso@planeteer.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 2:50 AM
> > To: Mark Scott
> > Cc: Infected
> > Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
> >
> >
> > You Americans sure love your guns. That's why I love my country (Canada).
> > (Virtually) No guns.
> >
> > Mark, I hear what you're saying about taking up arms against the government

> > if
> > it gets out of line...
> >
> > What are you waiting for? You're government is making it easy for
> > Corporate
> > America to fuck you over, sell you out and pollute your land, and all in
> > the
> > name of the almighty dollar (Read "Downsize This". See "The Big One").
> > So...
> > get your guns out. Come on, your government has shafted you, blow them
> > away!
> >
> > No wait, I have a better idea.
> >
> > Just take it, after all, no one has really caused any physical harm to
> > anyone
> > directly.
> >
> > You can take a lesson from Canadian complacency.
> >
> > Just take it. Take your gun, put it away, maybe in the nightstand. Then
> > count
> > the days until a loved one is killed by your own gun, by accident. Or maybe
> > yourself as the phone rings and you answer the gun.
> >
> > How about all the kids who "borrow" Daddy's gun and accidentally kill a
> > friend
> > or sibling?
> >
> > Yep, guns are great. Just keep in America. We don't want that much fun in
> > Canada.
> >
> > To all you gun-lovers, I welcome your explanations and arguments for guns.
> > I
> > just wonder how you'd put it to someone who had someone close to them
> > killed by
> > a handgun, I'd like to see you try and win them over in an argument as to
> > why
> > guns are so great and how no home should be without one.
> >
> > Sorry about the rant. Touchy subject for me.
> >
> > Kyle Milligan
> > toldyaso@planeteer.com
> >
> > ----------
> > > From: Mark Scott
> > > To: Johann C Chacko ;
> > infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> > > Cc: Michael Bird ;
> > infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> > > Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
> > > Date: Thursday, May 07, 1998 4:50 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > Personally I didn't feel free until I came to live in the USA. Knowing
> > that
> > > there are all those individuals with guns ready to protect us against the
> > > government when the balloon goes up brings a tear to my eye.
> > >
> > > Many Americans have told me "you people aren't free" since I've come over
> > > here, because, apparently, having the right to blow someone away with the
> > > firepower of your choice is synonymous with freedom.
> > >
> > > And you know, I've come to believe they are right. Why should we be
> > > unprotected when the government tries to take over the country? I realise
> > > that I can only enjoy the full sensation of having the right to do
> > whatever
> > > I want without the possibility of repercussion and without experiencing
> > the
> > > burden of responsibility if I have a complete arsenal of high calibre
> > > weaponry at my disposal. God bless America!
> > >
> > > When the government starts making us do things we don't want to do, like
> > > drive at a certain speed and pay taxes and...
> > >
> > > Even more seriously though, we have had surveillance cameras the length
> > and
> > > breadth of Britain for years now - basically because of the Tories and
> > > their (somewhat justified) paranoia. Those little black windows at floor
> > > level in police vans weren't for the dogs to look out of, they were for
> > > cameras.
> > >
> > > As for the right to assemble, well the Criminal Justice Bill was
> > introduced
> > > by the Tories late in their term, and it essentially stomps all over
> > human
> > > rights. Of course these people always argue that "if you're a law abiding
> > > citizen then you have no cause to worry". Then they go and change the law
> > > so that you're no longer abiding by it. A source of constant amusement to
> > > me is that Americans think they are so free. That's a good one, I have
> > > never seen so many cops in my life!
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Mark Scott
> > >
> > > >If you have the freedom of speech,freedom of movement, freedom to
> > > >assemble, freedom to hold, preach and propogate any belief(so long as it
> > > >doesn't harm others),
> > > >you are well and truly free. Anything beyond that is really just a state

> > > >of mind, i.e. you are going to feel that you are opressed only if you
> > let
> > > >yourself feel that way.
> > > > Pensively Yours,
> > > > Johann.
> > > >
> > >
> >
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 18:43:33 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"IPhOJ.A.XWG.QoOV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: HeWhoGetsSlapped
To: "Mr.SelfDestruct"
CC: "infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: Re: suffering from affluenza
Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 16:42:49 -0700
Message-ID: <3554E9F9.32F0@pacbell.net>

Mr.SelfDestruct wrote:
>
> >
> > Middle Class people run for office allthe time, from the local level
> > on up, and quite a bit of information is available about them long
> > before the election.
> >
> > So who always elects the rich?? Are the majority of voters rich or
> > poor or middle class?
> >
> > The one place where the poor and middle class have ANY power is at
> > the
> > polls. Why is it that only rich people get elected? Because we are
> > stupid and we elect them based on their ability to advertise. They are
> > in office because we put them there, because we don't bother to find
> > out
> > about candidates without big advertising budgets. We instead, wait
> > for
> > the wealthy to spoon feed uson TV; "yes masser, yes masser".... And
> > its
> > going to probably stay that way no matter how mad I get because we are
> > stupid and lazy and full of the carrots they dangle. As long as we
> > get
> > our few little trinkets, and our half hour sit coms, we are happy.
> > And
> > hey, maybe thats ok and they are more fit to rule because they sure
> > know
> > how to get themselves elected.
> >
> > Lea
>
> So who is to blame here? i for one have never voted for anyone i did not
> feel was qualified for the position (even if it meant leaving a blank).
> Also, i always vote with the goal of benefitting myself personally.
> Isn't that the very nature of voting? If the great unwashed masses (and
> i include myself therein) cannot even get it together enuf to project an
> image of community and coherence, then it follows that those who (whom?)
> we elect will be a reflection of ourselves...unfocussed, greedy,
> immoral, apathetic. We reap what we sow.
>
> i personally have a huge problem with the condition of government as it
> stands, but i also accept that not everybody can see through my eyes,
> and do not expect them to. Listening to Rush Limbugbutt (or whatever his
> name is) spout non-sensical rants and preening himself to the calls of
> his "adoring" pubic (uh, public...whatever) makes me sick and just
> emphasises the problems with the preception of government as a whole. i
> don't agree or disagree with everything he says, but his attitude
> nauseates me. Since when did government become all about one party or
> the other winning this or voting for that? Wasn't the whole goal here to
> be "government for the people, by the people"? Or am i just losing my
> mind here?

I don't understand the complete off-base attacks on Rush, which more
often are not from people who have ever listened to his show, and when
they do, they've forgotten their sense of humor.
For all the attacks I have seen against the conservatives, along with
Rush, all of them fully apply to the Left Wing of this country.
'you are what you hate' I would suppose fully applies to this situation.

Sloaganeering is an understatement.

Anyhoo, I do agree with you, it shouldn't be 'so what party are you in'
(which Rush is not for, I was a skeptical listener for quite some time,
but I stuck in to see what he really had to say, and I can fully stand
by this). It's quite a sad situation here.

> Just another (college educated) working slob...ditto
Megan

theres a simple answer to everything, and its wrong
- -hl menken
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 22:38:52 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"bXoE6B.A.9vG.4ESV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: HeWhoGetsSlapped
To: Lea Curry
CC: "Mr.SelfDestruct" ,
"infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: Re: Rush and the company he keeps
Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 20:38:10 -0700
Message-ID: <35552122.6EF3@pacbell.net>

Lea Curry wrote:

> Luckily, Rush is a buffoon and already a has been , but he WAS
> potentially very dangerous. He came way too close to starting a not so
> cool movement and some of the militia activity got its start from Rush
> Limbaugh groups. The "ditto heads" have a fanatic following in Oregon
> and Washington, and these are the same people. (they also don't believe
> the holocaust really happened - hint hint). I have fairly conservative
> family involved in local and state politics up there, who are more
> afraid of him than I ever was, and its exactly that bad. Their next
> leader may not be such a buffoon.

This holds the record as the most misinformation I have seen in a post
to date.

lol...are you listening to yourself?

Hippocracy doesn't come close
Megan
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 02:43:09 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"KsImrC.A.e7G.2pVV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Lea Curry , "Mr.SelfDestruct"
Cc: "infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: Re: Rush and the company he keeps
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 00:46:18 -0700
Message-Id: <19980510004424.0b6bc2bc.in@mail.neversoft.com>


Now...even us foreigners have heard of Rush (I even read "Rush Limbaugh is
a Big Fat Idiot") and we all know he is a fat wanker who deserves to be
beaten up by Denis Leary in his Fish Shoes(see Suicide Kings).

However, who is the white haired evil right wing psycho who is on really
late at night in Los Angeles and who appears to be just about to bust a
bloodvessel? No I don't mean that talking head, Tom Snyder...

And Charles Grodin, what a fake - I hate the way he sits at an angle to the
screen the pompouse arrogant ham. Another talking head.

Sorry about that - anyway, who is that right wing idiot is the question...

Cheers

Marcus Limbaugh (damn what a dead giveaway)


At 09:17 AM 5/9/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:
>While we are complaining....
>
>> Since when did government become all about one party or
>> the other winning this or voting for that? Wasn't the whole goal here to
>> be "government for the people, by the people"? Or am i just losing my
>> mind here?
>
>
> It strikes me as very off that the Clinton HATERS (tm) (and his dyke
>wife, too), seem MOST upset that "Clinton changes his mind and acts
>according to whatever the polls say". They cite this with venom as
>evidence that he has no backbone, and is evil and hypocritical.
>
> I have a right wing acquaintance that I keep handy (as a canary in the
>coal mine, mainly), and when we argue and scream at each other (bout all
>we do), he always brings this up, after I point out that the economy and
>everything he holds most important is just JAKE. Finally, in the end,
>THIS is why he really hates Clinton. When I ask him, "Isn't that what he
>is SUPPOSED TO DO?" he starts back pedaling and whining. Voice gets
>that high pitched whine....and mumbles about "wishy washy...no
>backbone...blah blah blah" and even HE knows the argument is over..
>
>> Listening to Rush Limbugbutt (or whatever his
>> name is) spout non-sensical rants and preening himself to the calls of
>> his "adoring" pubic (uh, public...whatever) makes me sick and just
>> emphasises the problems with the preception of government as a whole. i
>> don't agree or disagree with everything he says, but his attitude
>> nauseates me.
>
>
> All this Hate radio, Rush crap is pure emotion. He's a master at
>manipulating anger and anxiety away from the rich and towards anything
>even faintly populist. Populist movements that are not controlled by
>them, scare these people to death. (I think after the 60's, the powers
>that really be all met somewhere and said "never again".)
>
>
> My right wing friend (who fancies himself a liberal of course) is a
>little above Rush, although he dismisses him as a really funny guy. He
>reads Forbes, and owns a building in SF (the equivalent of being a Lord
>in GB ) But he's still chasing the same stupid carrot, and has the
>same anger level because even HE really is middle class at the heart of
>it and has never been able to be really wealthy. Most of his plans to
>get richer quicker fall through and hell, he doesn't even know WHY he
>wants MORE! This is the kind of guy they (the wealthiest 10 %) LOVE.
>He champions their cause because he WANTS to be one of them, and its as
>close as he will ever get. He's a lackey.
>
> Rush had a TV show on UHF here for a while and it was pretty amusing
>on a few levels. His audience always looks like it is dressed for an
>affair of state. Ive never EVER seen a live TV audience so well
>dressed, and there are no exceptions. The grooming is unbelievable. Id
>love to see the dress code for this thing, and see how many adoring Rush
>Fans are turned away at the door because they just don't "get" the
>requirement. (Maybe they lend them clothes and run them through
>wardrobe for the show). This is STAGED. BUT the show was on at noon
>weekdays, at least in this market. Hummmmmm.... How many people that

>Rush CLAIMS are his following, are home at this time of the day? So its
>like he is doing all this manipulative stuff, to get people who ARE home
>at noon, (and ANGRY) to identify with this upper class image. "HEY if
>you agree with Rush , you are really more like these fine people, even
>if you Do live in a trailer Park and work the graveyard shift."
>
> This is creepily similar to the Mc Carthy era where everybody had to
>have that picket fence and conformity was the Prime Directive. And its
>creepily similar to something else FAR more sinister.
>
> The other amusing thing is that his show was sponsored by SKOAL
>(smokeless tabbacco ie SNUFF), and Pizza Pockets. Not exactly the toney
>sponsors he might want. He doesn't talk too much about the tobacco
>lobbyists.
>
> Luckily, Rush is a buffoon and already a has been , but he WAS
>potentially very dangerous. He came way too close to starting a not so
>cool movement and some of the militia activity got its start from Rush
>Limbaugh groups. The "ditto heads" have a fanatic following in Oregon
>and Washington, and these are the same people. (they also don't believe
>the holocaust really happened - hint hint). I have fairly conservative
>family involved in local and state politics up there, who are more
>afraid of him than I ever was, and its exactly that bad. Their next
>leader may not be such a buffoon.
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 02:54:56 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"GMCYiC.A.X_G.70VV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: HeWhoGetsSlapped , Lea Curry
Cc: "Mr.SelfDestruct" ,
"infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: Re: Rush and the company he keeps
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 00:58:07 -0700
Message-Id: <19980510005613.0b769763.in@mail.neversoft.com>

At 08:38 PM 5/9/98 -0700, HeWhoGetsSlapped wrote:
>Lea Curry wrote:
>
>> Luckily, Rush is a buffoon and already a has been , but he WAS
>> potentially very dangerous. He came way too close to starting a not so
>> cool movement and some of the militia activity got its start from Rush
>> Limbaugh groups. The "ditto heads" have a fanatic following in Oregon
>> and Washington, and these are the same people. (they also don't believe
>> the holocaust really happened - hint hint). I have fairly conservative
>> family involved in local and state politics up there, who are more
>> afraid of him than I ever was, and its exactly that bad. Their next
>> leader may not be such a buffoon.
>
>This holds the record as the most misinformation I have seen in a post
>to date.
>
>lol...are you listening to yourself?
>
>Hippocracy doesn't come close
>Megan

Er...in what way is this disinformation? Disinformation generally consists
of falsehoods. Their is nothing incorrect in these statements.

The question is, what on Earth would someone with the slightest hint of a
right wing attitude be doing on a the The mailing list...unless of course
they don't get the The.

Perhaps if someone had no sense of irony one perhaps might take Matt
Johnson's tongue in cheek ironic lyrics as his own political stance.

In which case I should only offer my strongest heartfelt condolences to
such people. However given that such people have right wing (i.e.
vitriolic, narrow minded, bigoted, selfish) attitudes, I laugh in their
general direction, whilst shaking my head rather sarcastically.

Cheese

Mark


------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 14:04:28 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"xuobSD.A.TF.4nfV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Richard Ings
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Shitnipping gun sluts
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 12:08:47
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980510120847.2cd734f0@mail.clara.net>

I agree with all those who say guns should not be banned.

What is missing from the debate, going on around the Western world, is the
issue of responsibility. Simply put, whether a person murders someone with
a gun, an axe, a knife or his fists the crime is the same - murder, and
they are held responsible for their actions. The assumption in this debate
is that *none* of us can be trusted, that we are not responsible adults,
therefore we must be treated like children and have our "toys" taken away
from us in case we are bad. The same logic applies to censorship, which
most netizens would presume to be against - it takes away our adult ability
to decide for ourselves and treats us like children who must be told what
we can hear or see. In other words we cannot trust ourselves not to act
responsibly with what we hear, see or own and must abdicate that power to
decide to someone else - the state.

Fortunately we can trust the police and army with weapons...phew!*

*irony

>
>The more available guns are the more people get shot . People lose their
>tempers and guns give them a unacceptable outlet for their frustration
>besides which any other weapon pales in comparison.
>Switzerland ,despite being tiny and very very peacable has a murder rate
>10 fold greater than the U.K. Why ? Because every Swiss man between a
>certain age is in the army reserve and has a gun at home.
>
>But the problem has gone too far in the U.S as there are so many Guns in
>circulation (i can buy one in my local K-mart for fucks sake)that a ban
>now would probably be pointless.
>
>

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression"
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 14:04:19 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"AcC6bD.A.5E.wnfV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Richard Ings
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: Shitnipping gun sluts
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 12:10:15
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980510121015.2cd76280@mail.clara.net>

Woe, what a terrible fate - born with hands, you're a potential mass murderer.

Talk about a degraded view of human beings....


The very act of having hands with
>opposable thumbs and the will to overcome adversity (read as "overcome
>your neighbors percieved greed") has lead humanity down the merry path
>of mutual oblivion. History overflows with the tools of detruction we
>have created. Moreso (is that a word?) than any other thing. That we
>have survived this long never ceases to amaze me......
>
>Nick


"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression"
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 14:04:11 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"jIORYB.A.sE.unfV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Richard Ings
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: suffering from affluenza
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 12:10:34
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980510121034.2cd71c96@mail.clara.net>

Speak for yourself!

>Why is it that only rich people get elected? Because we are
>stupid and we elect them based on their ability to advertise. They are
>in office because we put them there, because we don't bother to find out
>about candidates without big advertising budgets. We instead, wait for
>the wealthy to spoon feed uson TV; "yes masser, yes masser".... And its
>going to probably stay that way no matter how mad I get because we are
>stupid and lazy and full of the carrots they dangle. As long as we get
>our few little trinkets, and our half hour sit coms, we are happy. And
>hey, maybe thats ok and they are more fit to rule because they sure know
>how to get themselves elected.
>
>Lea
>
>

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression"
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 13:21:10 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"rbf8a.A.NRH.CAfV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 14:22:29 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD7C1F.10E95740.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

If that's what helps you sleep at night, go on and believe it.
I am finished with the subject.

Vonn "Devo"

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kyle Milligan [SMTP:toldyaso@planeteer.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 7:18 PM
To: Nat Light
Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc



> Bottom line : If you have a problem with guns, don't buy one, don't accept
> one as a gift and don't bitch and whine at the rest of us who own guns,
> understand gun safety, and do not allow accessibility to those who are not
> capable of exercising gun safety (i.e. children).
>
>
> Vonn "Devo"

Please don't treat this like a "if you don't like what you're hearing, turn off
the radio" argument.
This is a lot different. It's a matter of life and death.

It's all fine and good to pretend it won't be a problem, and as long as you
don't own a gun nothing can happen to you... until you're faced with the
reality of too much lead content in your brain because of some fucker who
thinks he's John Wayne and plugs you for something as trivial as taking the
parking spot he was aiming for. People are prone to their own personal moments
of insanity and put a gun in that hand and you have a prescription for murder.

The only safe gun is one that shoots water. Period. Even a gun that shoots
blanks can prove deadly "Brandon Lee". So who the hell are you trying to kid?
Does some maniac or kid have to shoot you in the leg before you begin to think
it's not such a great idea? Or would the point be.. just don't let that
happen.. always carry your piece with you.

Do not allow accessibility to those not capable?
You obviously have no idea how resourceful a six year old can be.

Yes, guns don't kill people, people do. But guns make it especially easy for
people to kill people, and we don't need any extra help.


>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kyle Milligan [SMTP:toldyaso@planeteer.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 2:50 AM
> To: Mark Scott
> Cc: Infected
> Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
>
>
> You Americans sure love your guns. That's why I love my country (Canada).
> (Virtually) No guns.
>
> Mark, I hear what you're saying about taking up arms against the government
> if
> it gets out of line...
>
> What are you waiting for? You're government is making it easy for
> Corporate
> America to fuck you over, sell you out and pollute your land, and all in
> the
> name of the almighty dollar (Read "Downsize This". See "The Big One").
> So...
> get your guns out. Come on, your government has shafted you, blow them
> away!
>
> No wait, I have a better idea.
>
> Just take it, after all, no one has really caused any physical harm to
> anyone
> directly.
>
> You can take a lesson from Canadian complacency.
>
> Just take it. Take your gun, put it away, maybe in the nightstand. Then
> count
> the days until a loved one is killed by your own gun, by accident. Or maybe
> yourself as the phone rings and you answer the gun.
>
> How about all the kids who "borrow" Daddy's gun and accidentally kill a
> friend
> or sibling?
>
> Yep, guns are great. Just keep in America. We don't want that much fun in
> Canada.
>
> To all you gun-lovers, I welcome your explanations and arguments for guns.
> I
> just wonder how you'd put it to someone who had someone close to them
> killed by
> a handgun, I'd like to see you try and win them over in an argument as to
> why
> guns are so great and how no home should be without one.
>
> Sorry about the rant. Touchy subject for me.
>
> Kyle Milligan
> toldyaso@planeteer.com
>
> ----------
> > From: Mark Scott
> > To: Johann C Chacko ;
> infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> > Cc: Michael Bird ;
> infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> > Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
> > Date: Thursday, May 07, 1998 4:50 PM
> >
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > Personally I didn't feel free until I came to live in the USA. Knowing
> that
> > there are all those individuals with guns ready to protect us against the
> > government when the balloon goes up brings a tear to my eye.
> >
> > Many Americans have told me "you people aren't free" since I've come over
> > here, because, apparently, having the right to blow someone away with the
> > firepower of your choice is synonymous with freedom.
> >
> > And you know, I've come to believe they are right. Why should we be
> > unprotected when the government tries to take over the country? I realise
> > that I can only enjoy the full sensation of having the right to do
> whatever
> > I want without the possibility of repercussion and without experiencing
> the
> > burden of responsibility if I have a complete arsenal of high calibre
> > weaponry at my disposal. God bless America!
> >
> > When the government starts making us do things we don't want to do, like
> > drive at a certain speed and pay taxes and...
> >
> > Even more seriously though, we have had surveillance cameras the length
> and
> > breadth of Britain for years now - basically because of the Tories and
> > their (somewhat justified) paranoia. Those little black windows at floor
> > level in police vans weren't for the dogs to look out of, they were for
> > cameras.
> >
> > As for the right to assemble, well the Criminal Justice Bill was
> introduced
> > by the Tories late in their term, and it essentially stomps all over
> human
> > rights. Of course these people always argue that "if you're a law abiding
> > citizen then you have no cause to worry". Then they go and change the law
> > so that you're no longer abiding by it. A source of constant amusement to
> > me is that Americans think they are so free. That's a good one, I have
> > never seen so many cops in my life!
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Mark Scott
> >
> > >If you have the freedom of speech,freedom of movement, freedom to
> > >assemble, freedom to hold, preach and propogate any belief(so long as it
> > >doesn't harm others),
> > >you are well and truly free. Anything beyond that is really just a state
> > >of mind, i.e. you are going to feel that you are opressed only if you
> let
> > >yourself feel that way.
> > > Pensively Yours,
> > > Johann.
> > >
> >
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 13:24:39 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"ttN_jC.A.hTH.RDfV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: I just lost it and reached for my bacterial culture..............
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 14:26:01 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD7C1F.8F8AA360.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

But I like my toys.

Vonn "Devo"

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ken Maclean [SMTP:ken_maclean@hotmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 4:59 PM
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: I just lost it and reached for my bacterial culture..............

First of all Nat relax . Nobody is coming to take your toys away. As i
said previously the U.S. is a lost cause as far as guns are concerned.
Not everybody feels the same way about it as you but so what? There is
no need to start stockpiling canned goods in the compound. The federal
government doesnt have you surrounded and is never likely to.
So enjoy!

Somebody said......

>The more available guns are the more people get shot . People lose
their
>tempers and guns give them a unacceptable outlet for their frustration
besides which any other weapon pales in comparison.


Not every weapon pales by comparison. The educated (or even slightly
determined) mind can find a number of much more effective ways of
killing than using a puny gun. Witness the action of certain bio-toxins
and chemical agents. These are neither tough to make or hard to find.
The one thing a gun has is viceral immediacy. Pull the trigger ...
immediate gout of blood. It is THIS nature of guns and few others that
make it the favorite of the frustrated/uneducated/angry/mentally flawed.
i believe that the baseball bat follows as a close second. At least,
that is the nature as it appears to my humble mind.

I agree with this entirely but if you consider this in terms of
percentages i.e. the actual, rather than the hypothetical (the latter is
often the debating tool of those who find the former too inconvenient to
work with.)How many people died in the U.S. last year from anthrax or
the botulism toxin ? Then compare that with the number of shootings by
people who bitterly regret doing it and just dont know what came over
them. "ah wuz eatin muh corn dog when suddenly the red mists decended."
There are a tiny number of people with the mind set for pre-meditated
mass destruction and even less with the ability. But the number of
people with the ability feel blind range for a few seconds is enormous
and if they have the means to hand to express their visceral
feelings.... As i said in an earlier post there are unacceptable
feelings lurking within us all but very few of us cant regain our senses
before we reach the reservoir after making a fraudulent application to
the American tissue culture collection for the reagents and a few pilot
experiments with the fermenter and then three stages of chromatography
to extract the toxin. However when my neighbour makes my internal organs
resonate in time to his rap music, its fortunate for both of us that
there isnt a heckler and Koch to hand.

Secondly (there is a second thing? jeez), i can easily see both sides of
the gun issue, but as it currently stands, the point is mute. Too many
are out there and if not, it would be too easy to get one anyway.
Unlawful to shoot someone? Then why would the illegality of owning the
gun scare you?

This really comes down to the difference between our rational selves and
our caveman selves. A large amount of people who shot other people when
drunk,on drugs or just plain angry will tell you " i never saw myself as
a criminal" and thats because 99.99999% of the time thay are not. So if
guns were illegal these people wouldnt have them because it wouldnt be
acceptable to them to be outside the law. I am ONLY talking about a
section of gun related deaths and yes, hardened criminals will still
want and carry guns but this all leads to the contention that if guns
were not so acceptable here and so widely available SOME of these deaths
would not happen.Dealing with hard core wing nuts is a seperate issue.

Beyond all that... if not a gun, then what? The human
mind is aflutter with the multitude of ways we can slay one another.
Witness human history. Pick a time, any time, and see if humans did not
commit mass violence on one-another. The very act of having hands with
opposable thumbs and the will to overcome adversity (read as "overcome
your neighbors percieved greed") has lead humanity down the merry path
of mutual oblivion. History overflows with the tools of detruction we
have created. Moreso (is that a word?) than any other thing. That we
have survived this long never ceases to amaze me......

Agreed but as i said before guns paticularly those that fire lots and
lots of rounds allow a percentage of people for whom violence was
never an option before (on the grounds of physical
ineptitude,squeamishness or just the inability to attract a horde of
followers on horse back) to express their inadequasies and frustrations
in such a lethal way.People can run away from swords and maces, its not
so easy with a pattern of automatic weapon fire. It all comes down to
numbers. The simple question is will gun control reduce deaths by
shooting. Well if you do the maths then yes it will, not to zero, but it
will reduce it significantly.

Your homework for the evening is to compare the gun related deaths in
the U.S. with your more civillised Northern neighbour.And they have
social medicine too.Not one more word on this from me i promise.

Yours feeling that to the majority of the C.D. buying public the world
over would think that The The fits Nicks definition of an obscure G.B
band that nobody has heard of.
Ken.
P.S. Gun control in America ? i repeat, forget about it.



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 13:32:56 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"bHkfvB.A.KB.CLfV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Mark Scott
CC: "Mr.SelfDestruct" ,
"infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: Re: Rush and the company he keeps
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 11:35:01 -0700
Message-ID: <3555F355.90511B90@sirius.com>

> However, who is the white haired evil right wing psycho who is on really
> late at night in Los Angeles and who appears to be just about to bust a
> bloodvessel? No I don't mean that talking head, Tom Snyder...
>
Well, hmmm... You certainly couldnt mean Conan O Brien!!!!! (my hero).

He Who gets slapped will certainly NOT understand what I say , or
agree with it and thats ok. There is way more to Rush than comedy, BUT
in the mainstream, thankfully, he has passed as a comedian, (and a big
fat idiot- great book!). Before anyone makes up their mind about what
his influence MIGHT be, you should maybe see some of the events his
Ditto Heads hold in the North East, and maybe live a few more years.
They don't think he is a comedian, at all, up there.
And there are a lot of them.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 14:18:31 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"XyftXB.A.MJ.y1fV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Patrick A. Stewart"
To: Lea Curry
Cc: Mark Scott , "Mr.SelfDestruct" ,
"infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: Re: Rush and the company he keeps
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 14:17:47 -0500
Message-Id: <3555FD5B.6B4E@corn.cso.niu.edu>

Lea Curry wrote:
>
> He Who gets slapped will certainly NOT understand what I say , or
> agree with it and thats ok. There is way more to Rush than comedy, BUT
> in the mainstream, thankfully, he has passed as a comedian, (and a big
> fat idiot- great book!). Before anyone makes up their mind about what
> his influence MIGHT be, you should maybe see some of the events his
> Ditto Heads hold in the North East, and maybe live a few more years.
> They don't think he is a comedian, at all, up there.
> And there are a lot of them.

I agree that Limbaugh is goodly portion comedy (heaping helping of it!)-
anyone that refers to his audience of "free thinkers" as "Ditto Heads"
has got to have a good sense of irony. However, what frightens me are
the people who proudly sport his bumper sticker (Ditto Head) and get
their political information solely from him (i.e., my parents). These
are the same people who think Jerry Springer is a serious talk show and
professional wrestling is real. Of course, how powerful these people
are is debatable. We see them out and about and it scares us because we
focus on them and their looniness, especially when large groups of them
get together. However, their power is dwarfed by Trekkers-- and that
really scares me!

What galls me most about people of this knee-jerk conservativism mind
set is their limited time horizon and their volatility. I have no
problem with conservatives (and consider myself a fiscal conservative
while being socially liberal), but please, lets be responsible for our
views. If you like guns, fine, but remember what the second amendment
_really_ says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

In other words, if you plan to have a gun, you sure as heck ought to
serve in the local state or national guard unit. It is pretty obvious
what the Founder's intent was when you read the entire amendment.

Likewise, if you are pro-life, be prepared to raise all those
illegitimate/unwanted babies- including crack babies- on your own. Of
course, when you do run across those rare individuals who put their
money where their mouth is (and I respect them highly for doing so), you
find these are the least vehement of proponents. On the other hand, the
extremists are usually those who can't keep a job, or be responsible for
their actions.

So basically- may the curse of the "monkey's paw" be on the Ditto Heads.

Patrick Stewart (not the bald one, sorry)

>
> Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 16:18:13 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"O8aUL.A.-y.k3gW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Richard Ings
To: Lea Curry
Cc: Ken Maclean , infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: A Royale with cheese or le big mac. Decisions ! Decisions
!
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 20:13:39
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980510201339.3ee76b34@mail.clara.net>

Two words: cheer up

At 18:16 07/05/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:

> I think most of us will welcome most of these changes as "progress"
>and hell, many people today would rather have fast food than a "home
>cooked" meal. Who even KNOWS what good food tastes like anymore.
>Most would prefer a machine knit sweater to the one I make with a few
>mistakes in it. And I'm sure we won't miss those assembly jobs that are
>being farmed out to Chinese prisoners, right? We can all be bank
>presidents and engineers, and if THAT is something we are to lazy to do
>we can jolly well work at Starbucks. Those factory workers and union
>people were just lazy and way too expensive.
>
>
> I never heard the words "working poor" until about 8 years ago...maybe
>less. It's a whole new category of people that will include many of
>us. Ken is absolutely on the ball here, and I think "Infected" was a
>call to alarm. Way too late, but still....It was one of the ealiest
>reactions to the new order, and it seems like music kind of went
>flatline after it, as far as news is concerned.
>
>Americans definitely have a warped sense of their impact, both in how
>important it is in cutural influence,(not AS...) and how sinister it can
>be, economically. (more THAN...)How many people know there is wide
>spread famine in Haiti and that what was a jungle not very long ago, is
>now mostly a rock? (89% deforested and rising exponentially, its TOAST)
>The starvation is well under way complete with babies with big bellys
>and it doesnt even make the news. A firiend just came back with an
>eyewitness report. That was some of our influence, but you know? It
>isnt just American. It's corporate and they really have little to do
>with nations anymore.
>
> I agree with Ken also that Europe will still be culturally different,
>and it can absorb a lot more than Mac Donalds and still maintain its
>character. When you start seeing this in Thailand, its more a symptom
>than a cause. I suspect the second world will be asking for its piece
>of mac-pie now too, apple or cherry, with all that goes with it, and
>they will get it, even if it kills them.
>
> Not all is doom and gloom, but maybe this is nature's way of making
>you not envy the young! With any luck at all, I will just be sliding
>into home base, before it gets too bad....and most of you guys will have
>20 more years to deal with it! Its YOUR future Im worried about!
>LOL!!!!
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 16:18:00 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"8fzVCC.A.ty.g3gW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Richard Ings
To: Lea Curry
Cc: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM, mrmoth@hotmail.com,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 20:27:22
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980510202722.3ee7755e@mail.clara.net>

As one astute critic of today's mood around the world has said - how
strange the contrast today with Voltaire's Mr. Pangloss "Everything is for
the best in this the best of all possible worlds". Now, there are nothing
but Mr. Panglums "All is for the worst in this the worst of all possible
worlds".

Since we indisputably live in a far healthier, far more prosperous world
than Voltaire's, one question: why the long face?

At 13:12 07/05/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:
>
>
> By The Way, heard a great quote from Norman Mailer on TV yesterday.
>he was talking about modern architecture and what a disaster great
>modern buildings are. He said that the older big buildings in cities
>had a charm, that poor people could look at them and think "must be
>pretty
>smart people, work there", but now the big monochrome buildings just say
>"keep out".
>
> Thats how "infected" hits me with its "cities of great solitude".
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 15:28:06 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"KXm7Y.A.eQ.B3gV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "'astubbs@BayNetworks.COM'"
Cc: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 16:29:23 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD7C30.CB2ADBE0.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

I do not own an automatic weapon, nor have I ever held one. So please do
not insert me into this group of murdering psychos you are refering to.

Vonn "Devo"

- -----Original Message-----
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM [SMTP:astubbs@BayNetworks.COM]
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 7:11 PM
To: NatLight@worldnet.att.net
Subject: RE: freedom, freeeedom etc

Ha, you must be embarrassing a lot of you fellow-americans. I haven't met
anyone in BayArea Surburban Bliss who has your point of view and I thank my
God for that. I have one friend who has owned guns to hunt but he doesn't
have an Uzi to protect himselve. I have a PROBLEM with arseholes who blow
innocent people away with Ammunition designed to do as much damage to their
insides as possible.

Hunting: As a member of an omniverous species, I wouldn't persume to stop
people doing it. I find it distasteful and wouldn't be able to shoot bambi
myself but I'd eat bambi so enjoy your hunting.

You guys make me laugh. The country where a parent is not FREE to buy a 16
yr old son/daughter a beer with their meal. The country presumes to know
what's best and not allow parents that kind of discretion yet alows you the
freedom to buy a weapon which is specifically design to kill lots of
people. IT'S FUCKED UP.

- -Adrian




> I love my guns. I love my gun safety courses. I love my NRA. I love to
> hunt. I love to know I have the right to own a gun to protect myself
> against those who use guns for other reasons other than hunting and
> protection.
>
> Bottom line : If you have a problem with guns, don't buy one, don't
accept
> one as a gift and don't bitch and whine at the rest of us who own guns,
> understand gun safety, and do not allow accessibility to those who are
not
> capable of exercising gun safety (i.e. children).
>
>
> Vonn "Devo"
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kyle Milligan [SMTP:toldyaso@planeteer.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 2:50 AM
> To: Mark Scott
> Cc: Infected
> Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
>
>
> You Americans sure love your guns. That's why I love my country (Canada).
> (Virtually) No guns.
>
> Mark, I hear what you're saying about taking up arms against the
government
> if
> it gets out of line...
>
> What are you waiting for? You're government is making it easy for
> Corporate
> America to fuck you over, sell you out and pollute your land, and all in
> the
> name of the almighty dollar (Read "Downsize This". See "The Big One").
> So...
> get your guns out. Come on, your government has shafted you, blow them
> away!
>
> No wait, I have a better idea.
>
> Just take it, after all, no one has really caused any physical harm to
> anyone
> directly.
>
> You can take a lesson from Canadian complacency.
>
> Just take it. Take your gun, put it away, maybe in the nightstand. Then
> count
> the days until a loved one is killed by your own gun, by accident. Or
maybe
> yourself as the phone rings and you answer the gun.
>
> How about all the kids who "borrow" Daddy's gun and accidentally kill a
> friend
> or sibling?
>
> Yep, guns are great. Just keep in America. We don't want that much fun in
> Canada.
>
> To all you gun-lovers, I welcome your explanations and arguments for
guns.
> I
> just wonder how you'd put it to someone who had someone close to them
> killed by
> a handgun, I'd like to see you try and win them over in an argument as to
> why
> guns are so great and how no home should be without one.
>
> Sorry about the rant. Touchy subject for me.
>
> Kyle Milligan
> toldyaso@planeteer.com
>
> ----------
> > From: Mark Scott
> > To: Johann C Chacko ;
> infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> > Cc: Michael Bird ;
> infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> > Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
> > Date: Thursday, May 07, 1998 4:50 PM
> >
> >
> > Hello
> >
> > Personally I didn't feel free until I came to live in the USA. Knowing
> that
> > there are all those individuals with guns ready to protect us against
the
> > government when the balloon goes up brings a tear to my eye.
> >
> > Many Americans have told me "you people aren't free" since I've come
over
> > here, because, apparently, having the right to blow someone away with
the>
> > firepower of your choice is synonymous with freedom.
> >
> > And you know, I've come to believe they are right. Why should we be
> > unprotected when the government tries to take over the country? I
realise
> > that I can only enjoy the full sensation of having the right to do
> whatever
> > I want without the possibility of repercussion and without experiencing
> the
> > burden of responsibility if I have a complete arsenal of high calibre
> > weaponry at my disposal. God bless America!
> >
> > When the government starts making us do things we don't want to do,
like
> > drive at a certain speed and pay taxes and...
> >
> > Even more seriously though, we have had surveillance cameras the length
> and
> > breadth of Britain for years now - basically because of the Tories and
> > their (somewhat justified) paranoia. Those little black windows at
floor
> > level in police vans weren't for the dogs to look out of, they were for
> > cameras.
> >
> > As for the right to assemble, well the Criminal Justice Bill was
> introduced
> > by the Tories late in their term, and it essentially stomps all over
> human
> > rights. Of course these people always argue that "if you're a law
abiding
> > citizen then you have no cause to worry". Then they go and change the
law
> > so that you're no longer abiding by it. A source of constant amusement
to
> > me is that Americans think they are so free. That's a good one, I have
> > never seen so many cops in my life!
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Mark Scott
> >
> > >If you have the freedom of speech,freedom of movement, freedom to
> > >assemble, freedom to hold, preach and propogate any belief(so long as
it
> > >doesn't harm others),
> > >you are well and truly free. Anything beyond that is really just a
state
> > >of mind, i.e. you are going to feel that you are opressed only if you
> let
> > >yourself feel that way.
> > > Pensively Yours,
> > > Johann.
> > >
> >
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 15:30:49 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"d60c8C.A.OS.j5gV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "'Richard Ings'"
Cc: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: Shitnipping gun sluts
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 16:32:11 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD7C31.2F691720.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

Excellent point.

Vonn "Devo"

- -----Original Message-----
From: Richard Ings [SMTP:bridge@starmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 1998 8:09 AM
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Shitnipping gun sluts

I agree with all those who say guns should not be banned.

What is missing from the debate, going on around the Western world, is the
issue of responsibility. Simply put, whether a person murders someone with
a gun, an axe, a knife or his fists the crime is the same - murder, and
they are held responsible for their actions. The assumption in this debate
is that *none* of us can be trusted, that we are not responsible adults,
therefore we must be treated like children and have our "toys" taken away
from us in case we are bad. The same logic applies to censorship, which
most netizens would presume to be against - it takes away our adult ability
to decide for ourselves and treats us like children who must be told what
we can hear or see. In other words we cannot trust ourselves not to act
responsibly with what we hear, see or own and must abdicate that power to
decide to someone else - the state.

Fortunately we can trust the police and army with weapons...phew!*

*irony

>
>The more available guns are the more people get shot . People lose their
>tempers and guns give them a unacceptable outlet for their frustration
>besides which any other weapon pales in comparison.
>Switzerland ,despite being tiny and very very peacable has a murder rate
>10 fold greater than the U.K. Why ? Because every Swiss man between a
>certain age is in the army reserve and has a gun at home.
>
>But the problem has gone too far in the U.S as there are so many Guns in
>circulation (i can buy one in my local K-mart for fucks sake)that a ban
>now would probably be pointless.
>
>

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression"
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 15:31:44 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"CljZ9D.A.IU.Y6gV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: Shitnipping gun sluts
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 16:33:04 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD7C31.4F3BC200.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

Excellent Point.

Vonn "Devo"

- -----Original Message-----
From: Richard Ings [SMTP:bridge@starmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 1998 8:09 AM
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Shitnipping gun sluts

I agree with all those who say guns should not be banned.

What is missing from the debate, going on around the Western world, is the
issue of responsibility. Simply put, whether a person murders someone with
a gun, an axe, a knife or his fists the crime is the same - murder, and
they are held responsible for their actions. The assumption in this debate
is that *none* of us can be trusted, that we are not responsible adults,
therefore we must be treated like children and have our "toys" taken away
from us in case we are bad. The same logic applies to censorship, which
most netizens would presume to be against - it takes away our adult ability
to decide for ourselves and treats us like children who must be told what
we can hear or see. In other words we cannot trust ourselves not to act
responsibly with what we hear, see or own and must abdicate that power to
decide to someone else - the state.

Fortunately we can trust the police and army with weapons...phew!*

*irony

>
>The more available guns are the more people get shot . People lose their
>tempers and guns give them a unacceptable outlet for their frustration
>besides which any other weapon pales in comparison.
>Switzerland ,despite being tiny and very very peacable has a murder rate
>10 fold greater than the U.K. Why ? Because every Swiss man between a
>certain age is in the army reserve and has a gun at home.
>
>But the problem has gone too far in the U.S as there are so many Guns in
>circulation (i can buy one in my local K-mart for fucks sake)that a ban
>now would probably be pointless.
>
>

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression"
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 15:39:12 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Q--UuD.A.TX.YBhV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: "Patrick A. Stewart"
CC: Mark Scott , "Mr.SelfDestruct" ,
"infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: Re: Rush and the company he keeps
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 13:41:13 -0700
Message-ID: <355610E9.670E2337@sirius.com>

> Patrick Stewart (not the bald one, sorry)
>
> >
> > Lea
>
>


DAMN...after I just agreed with everything you said, (well ALMOST,
anyway), now I find THIS out. Another fantasy....DASHED.

beam me up , Warf.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 16:07:26 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"7IJkBD.A.uZ.4bhV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Richard Ings
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Shitnipping gun sluts
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 14:09:38 -0700
Message-ID: <35561792.53B1E019@sirius.com>

> The assumption in this debate
> is that *none* of us can be trusted, that we are not responsible adults,
> therefore we must be treated like children and have our "toys" taken away
> from us in case we are bad. The same logic applies to censorship, which
> most netizens would presume to be against - it takes away our adult ability
> to decide for ourselves and treats us like children who must be told what
> we can hear or see. In other words we cannot trust ourselves not to act
> responsibly with what we hear, see or own and must abdicate that power to
> decide to someone else - the state.


This is easy to agree with. But what can/should the authorities, or
law enforcement do, when they know somebody is building an arsenal and
that they are whacky. Why can there not be a reasonable limit to the
type of firearms, a person can have? We keep asking that and none of
the gun enthusiests can really TELL us why they need automatic weapons.
I suspect its because they see ANY limitations as a slippery slope,
towards banning. But there is another slippery slope, and that is that
its just way too easy for INSANE NUTS and criminals to outgun the
authorities!!! They paint a constitutional picture and launch into
diatribes about SAFETY...(note that when a difficult question comes up
they will start talking about "gun safety"- pure NRA parroting) but this
ISNT the whole issue.

What are we gonna due about insane criminals indescriminately gunning
people down? As they get younger it gets worse. We have third and
fourth generation, inbred mutants (who breed like mice) who feel it is
their right to take whatever they want by force and they are ARMED!
Thats NOT ACCEPTABLE! And I want the NRA to tell me what we are gonna
do about it, because the cops dont get paid enough, and they AINT gonna
risk their tender backsides to disarm these people until they take a
fellow officer out. And even the most moronic of the thugs learn not to
do that at an early age because the cops DO have a bigger gang then
theirs, and will shoot back if so provoked. But jail is no threat to
them. Jail is SCHOOL to them!


All of this can seem like a tidy constitutional question, or one of
"gun safety" (something the NRA always starts spouting abut when put on
the line) behind the economically closed gates of the better
neighborhoods.


Everybody in my neighborhood is packing. They friggen CLANK when they
walk, and they clank right past the beat cops and everybody is so
worried about their rights (and their ass) that it just grows and grows.
It seems a little naive to think they are always going to stay in my
neighborhood.

But we are breeding a new kind of rat down here, in realsville!

Anybody can pack an UZI so everybody better.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 16:08:37 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"3g1rQB.A.hb.9chV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Richard Ings
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: suffering from affluenza
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 14:10:47 -0700
Message-ID: <355617D7.EF77C75B@sirius.com>

> Speak for yourself!


Well, I was automatically excepting MOST the The fans, of course!

L.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 21:33:24 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"hLoleD.A.-2.gNmV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: "Patrick A. Stewart" ,
Lea Curry
Cc: "Mr.SelfDestruct" ,
"infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: Re: Rush and the company he keeps
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 19:34:40 -0700
Message-Id: <19980510193308.0f754e53.in@mail.neversoft.com>

Patrick Stewart wrote:
>Likewise, if you are pro-life, be prepared to raise all those
>illegitimate/unwanted babies- including crack babies- on your own. Of
>course, when you do run across those rare individuals who put their
>money where their mouth is (and I respect them highly for doing so), you
>find these are the least vehement of proponents.

I largely agree with you but I wish you would write "pro life" in quotes -
we are referring to people that don't discourage the murder of doctors and
nurses in abortion clinics, thus appointing themselves the leading
hypocrites of the western world.

Cheers

Markus Embryoticus
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 21:43:17 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"0HHCsB.A.i7.yWmV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: Rush and the company he keeps
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 22:44:42 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD7C65.39943FC0.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

Good Call!

Vonn "Devo"

- -----Original Message-----
From: Mark Scott [SMTP:Mark@neversoft.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 1998 10:35 PM
To: Patrick A. Stewart; Lea Curry
Cc: Mr.SelfDestruct; infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Rush and the company he keeps

Patrick Stewart wrote:
>Likewise, if you are pro-life, be prepared to raise all those
>illegitimate/unwanted babies- including crack babies- on your own. Of
>course, when you do run across those rare individuals who put their
>money where their mouth is (and I respect them highly for doing so), you
>find these are the least vehement of proponents.

I largely agree with you but I wish you would write "pro life" in quotes -
we are referring to people that don't discourage the murder of doctors and
nurses in abortion clinics, thus appointing themselves the leading
hypocrites of the western world.

Cheers

Markus Embryoticus
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 21:46:16 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"lFqn3.A.P_.IZmV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Richard Ings , infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Shitnipping gun sluts
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 19:48:21 -0700
Message-Id: <19980510194648.0f81d462.in@mail.neversoft.com>

At 12:08 PM 5/10/98 +0000, Richard Ings wrote:

>
>Fortunately we can trust the police and army with weapons...phew!*
>
>*irony

I can't wait until the day the balloon goes up and the government takes
over the country...They'll probably make us pay taxes and stop us driving
faster than 65 and..and..other evil things. Yeah, they must be stopped!

There was a gun nut at the place I worked near San Francisco, was forever
spouting all this nonsense about how the government was drugging everyone
(not in California of course, people are too sharp...), there was all kinds
of stuff in the water, and they were using flash frames on TV to subjugate
folk. He and his pals were stockpiling Russian automatic weapons for "when
the balloon goes up".

He was not sure of the form this would take, but he used phrases like
"death from the skies" and "watch the skies" all the time. I suggested to
him that they might be tunnelling under California and Bugs Bunny style
would cut perfect circles through people's floors with saws.

Kevin kept an automatic shotgun by his bed in case they came in the night,
apparently packed with increasingly more violent shots in case they didn't
get the message the fist time.

Kevin was arrested after taking his fiancee's daughter hostage and holding
a gun to her head. His house was under siege for several hours. I agree it
could have just as easily been a knife, but that would not really fit in
with the gun obsessive's style, would it?

One question I asked of Kevin was what the governement intend to do when
they take over the country. There was no answer forthcoming, just a "you'll
see, you'll see".

Marcus Balloonigunnuticus
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 21:46:19 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"S5XLdC.A.d_.LZmV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Nat Light ,
"'Richard Ings'"
Cc: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: Shitnipping gun sluts
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 19:48:48 -0700
Message-Id: <19980510194716.0f824045.in@mail.neversoft.com>

At 04:32 PM 5/10/98 -0400, Nat Light wrote:
>Excellent point.
>

Not in the least
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 22:24:07 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"TRiwVC.A.2JB.D9mV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: Up Front
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 23:25:04 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD7C6A.DD436100.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

Just to clear the air a bit. I want all of you to know I do respect your
opinions and I am not trying to make any enemies on this list. The subject
matter chosen has been a sensitive one and I hope we are all mature enough
to accept we have different beliefs about many different topics in this
insane world today.

Again I express sympathy to those who may have lost family members to
intentional or accidental deaths involving firearms. I am not here to
upset anyone, only to listen to other opinions and provide my own when I
feel so inclined.

I am finished with this subject on the list, but have been replying to
certain individuals privately when my interest is prodded.

Honestly speaking,

Vonn "Devo"
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 03:17:05 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"gpOntD.A.7kB.uPrV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Ken Maclean"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: a broken promise or the nature of democracy.?
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 02:16:09 MDT
Message-ID: <19980511081609.9196.qmail@hotmail.com>

I like to think this message is not me breaking the promise to get off
the guns topic and is more about the a more subtle view on the nature of
democracy assuming such a thing really exists.


The assumption in this debate
> is that *none* of us can be trusted, that we are not responsible
adults,therefore we must be treated like children and have our "toys"
taken awayfrom us in case we are bad.

Seductive reasoning not least because it taps into our"most everyone
round here thinks their someone special" reflex but missing a subtle
point.

It is not so much that nobody can be trusted with guns but the FACT that
a significant number of people cant be trusted with them. Lots of
people, and im sure Nat is one of them,take their responsibilities very
seriously and many many people go through their shooting lives never
shooting anybody.Without wishing to make Nat a ventriloquist's dummy i
am also equally sure he knows there are people with guns who really
shouldnt have them . 26000 corpses a year are fairly incontrovertible
evidence of that. Basicly it boils down to this. Nat's hobby has
unwanted side effects that he as an individual abhors, but at the moment
there is no effective way to prevent. Is American society prepared to
accept these deaths as an acceptable price for Nat and co to continue
with their hobby ? If so, then fine and dandy thats democracy which may
occasionaly put us at the mercy of people who we as individuals feel to
be not as well informed as ourselves but i havent seen a better system
propsed so far.But the kind of parroted arguments put up by many gun
enthusiasts and the political lobbying of the NRA (backed by big time
money.) are actively trying to make sure that the question is never
posed. I wouldn't want a unilateral decision by the govt to decide this
but a referendum on this issue alone would provide a definitive answer
of what the majority of people want. If the NRA would support such a
thing i would take their claims about defending democracy (cf a vested
interest group)more seriously.
When a govt acts on the wishes of the majority it is doing what it is
supposed to do.
If Nats hobby was playing with plutonium but meaning no harm, would a
government ban on it be the actions of a sinister totalitarian regime
nefariously curtailing his individual rights or a reflection of the
wishes of his scaled finned and many headed neighbours ?

The same logic applies to censorship, which most netizens would presume
to be against - it takes away our adult ability to decide for ourselves
and treats us like children who must be told what we can hear or see. In
other words we cannot trust ourselves not to act responsibly with what
we hear, see or own

Are all netizens completely against all censorship or is it case
specific ?

You can look at guns and listen to the noises of guns without
interfering with anybody's ability to breathe but the widespread
ownership of guns undoubtably begins to weigh the right of one group
(gun owners) against those of another (everybody else). Democracy
tackles this conflict by deciding in terms of numbers. Absolute freedom
from any kind of proscription would mean child pornography and child sex
for those who wanted it (and there are plenty of them ) but the majority
of people want this behaviour/ ownership of material relating to it,
banned.This is frustrating to the average pedophile who probably feels
that such censorship is ill informed and against his interests. The
fundamental dillema for democracy is the conflict between individual
freedom as in anarchy against the wishes of the majority (even though
the majority may well be misinformed. ) The cooperative advantages of a
society working on the principles of majority rule are felt by most
people to outweigh the disadvantages that sometimes occur to curtail
individual freedoms.

and must abdicate that power to decide to someone else - the state.

This is only a problem if the state is not reflecting the wishes of
those it nominaly serves.

Everytime i have seen an Anarchist at home he or she has been invariably
been trying to tap into the cooperative advantages (unemployment benefit
and housing benefit, running water, electricity, gas, medical services
etc) whilst demanding the right that nobody curtails his freedom to do
fuck all as and how he pleases.

I cant hear him ask for his cake because his speech is muffled by the
fact that is chewing it.

Last thing. Nat,for me this has never been about you as an individual. I
dont think i even flamed you as such i just didnt agree with the logic
of treating hands the same as bazookas and of course you dont want to
give up your toys it looks like great fun. Wouldnt it be better if you
just joined the Army reserve and left your gun with them after you
finished ?

Cheers.
Ken

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 09:02:41 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"W111cD.A.erB.tTwV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Poltoranos, Ted"
To: "'Infected'"
Subject: New album
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 08:01:17 -0600
Message-ID:

I hate to change the subject of the recent postings back to the release
of the new album ... but I forwarded the last update to a buddy of mine
now living in London, and he had (what I thought) was a very good
question :

"Where is the album being recorded??? I just want to know if I'm
going to
hear a lot of songs about Blair, ladishness and "Cool Britannia"
or if
it will be full of sex & politics a la the Bill and Hillary
show."

Any answers? Or completely off-the-wall speculations?

My guess is that he's still living in New York, and has been for some
time, so there may be more of an American influence than usual (see the
last 8 postings for what this means). But how would I know? Seems that
everybody knows what's going on in the world, and I don't even know
what's goin' on in my self-el-elf.

Ted
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 11:19:35 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"azgy_B.A.R4B.FUyV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Benjamin Quincy Cabell
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: New album
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 12:19:31 -0400
Message-Id: <199805111525.LAA16445@mepc11.WPI.EDU>

In-Reply-To
a>

At 08:01 AM 5/11/98 -0600, Poltoranos, Ted wrote:
> "Where is the album being recorded??? I just want to know if I'm
>going to hear a lot of songs about Blair, ladishness and "Cool Britannia"
>or if it will be full of sex & politics a la the Bill and Hillary
>show."

He is in NYC now. He has been there for some time. I do not know if this
album includes any of the material rumoured to have been developed/possibly
recorded in Spain (last year, or was it the year before). I know he was
recording the vocal tracks in NYC, but don't know if the instrument-tracks
were recorded there as well. And, of course I don't know and don't think
that the location he chose for recording would have much (if any) influence
on the nature of the music.

>My guess is that he's still living in New York, and has been for some time

true.

>so there may be more of an American influence than usual (see the
>last 8 postings for what this means).

again, i don't think so, necessarily. but, that's just opinion based on
nothing provable.


- - Quincy


Benjamin 'Quincy' Cabell V
Quincy
Besiex Creations
the The

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 11:57:21 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"UtAvuB.A.E9B.d3yV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: NatLight@worldnet.att.net, astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: freedom, freeeedom etc
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 09:56:06 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E17C6@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>

I didn't.

> I do not own an automatic weapon, nor have I ever held one. So please do
> not insert me into this group of murdering psychos you are refering to.
>
> Vonn "Devo"
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM [SMTP:astubbs@BayNetworks.COM]
> Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 7:11 PM
> To: NatLight@worldnet.att.net
> Subject: RE: freedom, freeeedom etc
>
> Ha, you must be embarrassing a lot of you fellow-americans. I haven't met
> anyone in BayArea Surburban Bliss who has your point of view and I thank my
> God for that. I have one friend who has owned guns to hunt but he doesn't
> have an Uzi to protect himselve. I have a PROBLEM with arseholes who blow
> innocent people away with Ammunition designed to do as much damage to their
> insides as possible.
>
> Hunting: As a member of an omniverous species, I wouldn't persume to stop
> people doing it. I find it distasteful and wouldn't be able to shoot bambi
> myself but I'd eat bambi so enjoy your hunting.
>
> You guys make me laugh. The country where a parent is not FREE to buy a 16
> yr old son/daughter a beer with their meal. The country presumes to know
> what's best and not allow parents that kind of discretion yet alows you the
> freedom to buy a weapon which is specifically design to kill lots of
> people. IT'S FUCKED UP.
>
> -Adrian
>
>
>
>
> > I love my guns. I love my gun safety courses. I love my NRA. I love to
> > hunt. I love to know I have the right to own a gun to protect myself
> > against those who use guns for other reasons other than hunting and
> > protection.
> >
> > Bottom line : If you have a problem with guns, don't buy one, don't
> accept
> > one as a gift and don't bitch and whine at the rest of us who own guns,
> > understand gun safety, and do not allow accessibility to those who are
> not
> > capable of exercising gun safety (i.e. children).
> >
> >
> > Vonn "Devo"
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kyle Milligan [SMTP:toldyaso@planeteer.com]
> > Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 2:50 AM
> > To: Mark Scott
> > Cc: Infected
> > Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
> >
> >
> > You Americans sure love your guns. That's why I love my country (Canada).
> > (Virtually) No guns.
> >
> > Mark, I hear what you're saying about taking up arms against the
> government
> > if
> > it gets out of line...
> >
> > What are you waiting for? You're government is making it easy for
> > Corporate
> > America to fuck you over, sell you out and pollute your land, and all in
> > the
> > name of the almighty dollar (Read "Downsize This". See "The Big One").
> > So...
> > get your guns out. Come on, your government has shafted you, blow them
> > away!
> >
> > No wait, I have a better idea.
> >
> > Just take it, after all, no one has really caused any physical harm to
> > anyone
> > directly.
> >
> > You can take a lesson from Canadian complacency.
> >
> > Just take it. Take your gun, put it away, maybe in the nightstand. Then
> > count
> > the days until a loved one is killed by your own gun, by accident. Or
> maybe
> > yourself as the phone rings and you answer the gun.
> >
> > How about all the kids who "borrow" Daddy's gun and accidentally kill a
> > friend
> > or sibling?
> >
> > Yep, guns are great. Just keep in America. We don't want that much fun in
> > Canada.
> >
> > To all you gun-lovers, I welcome your explanations and arguments for
> guns.
> > I
> > just wonder how you'd put it to someone who had someone close to them
> > killed by
> > a handgun, I'd like to see you try and win them over in an argument as to
> > why
> > guns are so great and how no home should be without one.
> >
> > Sorry about the rant. Touchy subject for me.
> >
> > Kyle Milligan
> > toldyaso@planeteer.com
> >
> > ----------
> > > From: Mark Scott
> > > To: Johann C Chacko ;
> > infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> > > Cc: Michael Bird ;>
> > infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> > > Subject: Re: freedom, freeeedom etc
> > > Date: Thursday, May 07, 1998 4:50 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > Personally I didn't feel free until I came to live in the USA. Knowing
> > that
> > > there are all those individuals with guns ready to protect us against
> the
> > > government when the balloon goes up brings a tear to my eye.
> > >
> > > Many Americans have told me "you people aren't free" since I've come
> over
> > > here, because, apparently, having the right to blow someone away with
> the>
> > > firepower of your choice is synonymous with freedom.
> > >
> > > And you know, I've come to believe they are right. Why should we be
> > > unprotected when the government tries to take over the country? I
> realise
> > > that I can only enjoy the full sensation of having the right to do
> > whatever
> > > I want without the possibility of repercussion and without experiencing
> > the
> > > burden of responsibility if I have a complete arsenal of high calibre
> > > weaponry at my disposal. God bless America!
> > >
> > > When the government starts making us do things we don't want to do,
> like
> > > drive at a certain speed and pay taxes and...
> > >
> > > Even more seriously though, we have had surveillance cameras the length
> > and
> > > breadth of Britain for years now - basically because of the Tories and
> > > their (somewhat justified) paranoia. Those little black windows at
> floor
> > > level in police vans weren't for the dogs to look out of, they were for
> > > cameras.
> > >
> > > As for the right to assemble, well the Criminal Justice Bill was
> > introduced
> > > by the Tories late in their term, and it essentially stomps all over
> > human
> > > rights. Of course these people always argue that "if you're a law
> abiding
> > > citizen then you have no cause to worry". Then they go and change the
> law
> > > so that you're no longer abiding by it. A source of constant amusement
> to
> > > me is that Americans think they are so free. That's a good one, I have
> > > never seen so many cops in my life!
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Mark Scott
> > >
> > > >If you have the freedom of speech,freedom of movement, freedom to
> > > >assemble, freedom to hold, preach and propogate any belief(so long as
> it
> > > >doesn't harm others),
> > > >you are well and truly free. Anything beyond that is really just a
> state
> > > >of mind, i.e. you are going to feel that you are opressed only if you
> > let
> > > >yourself feel that way.
> > > > Pensively Yours,
> > > > Johann.
> > > >
> > >
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 11:59:23 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"FmAsGC.A.y-B.U5yV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: lea@sirius.com, t70pas1@corn.cso.niu.edu
Cc: Mark@neversoft.com, nspivey@inreach.com,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: Rush and the company he keeps
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 09:57:21 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E17C7@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>

Don't panic Lea, It is THE Patrick Stewart. He's discovered Rogaine.


> > Patrick Stewart (not the bald one, sorry)
> >
> > >
> > > Lea
> >
> >
>
>
> DAMN...after I just agreed with everything you said, (well ALMOST,
> anyway), now I find THIS out. Another fantasy....DASHED.
>
> beam me up , Warf.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 12:07:11 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"-wXSZB.A.sBC.rAzV1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: TedPoltoranos@metronet.ca, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: New album
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 10:05:46 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E17C9@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>


What the hell has this got to do with the gun-debate ? What the hell are you doing on this list ?
-Adrian

> I hate to change the subject of the recent postings back to the release
> of the new album ... but I forwarded the last update to a buddy of mine
> now living in London, and he had (what I thought) was a very good
> question :
>
> "Where is the album being recorded??? I just want to know if I'm
> going to
> hear a lot of songs about Blair, ladishness and "Cool Britannia"
> or if
> it will be full of sex & politics a la the Bill and Hillary
> show."
>
> Any answers? Or completely off-the-wall speculations?
>
> My guess is that he's still living in New York, and has been for some
> time, so there may be more of an American influence than usual (see the
> last 8 postings for what this means). But how would I know? Seems that
> everybody knows what's going on in the world, and I don't even know
> what's goin' on in my self-el-elf.
>
> Ted
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:55:06 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"fqFlMC.A.VmC.Fe1V1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Mark Scott
CC: "Patrick A. Stewart" ,
"Mr.SelfDestruct" ,
"infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: Re: Rush and the company he keeps
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 12:57:04 -0700
Message-ID: <35575810.346C550E@sirius.com>

> largely agree with you but I wish you would write "pro life" in quotes -
> we are referring to people that don't discourage the murder of doctors and
> nurses in abortion clinics, thus appointing themselves the leading
> hypocrites of the western world.
>
> Cheers


I second that motion.

What always gets me, is that you have people who are supposedly "pro
life", but FOR capital punshment, against welfare, and AGAINST any kind
of sex education is schools. What a messed up mangle of conflicts. Of
course, the ANSWER to all this, which you have to ferret out step by
step, is that if everybody believes and does as they believe and DO, it
will all be ok. they dont come out and say that, but when you work
through all of this it reduces down to the fact that they will settle
for nothing less than a state controlled by THEIR religion.

If one DOESNT believe EXACTLY as they do, then I guess it follows that
your illigitimate children should eventually end up on death row. (I
dont know exactly what the percentage of death row in mates are
illegitimate, but my GUESS is its way over 80%)

If the "pro-life" movement was pushing for day care, and better aid to
single mothers instead of less, I would at least have some respect for
them. But their "mean spiritedness" SHOWS, no matter how overworked
that cliche might be. Its a fact. (and I HOPE what will always keep
them cut off from the mainstream).



Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 15:32:39 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"rHea8B.A.LrC.UB2V1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Ken Maclean
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: a broken promise or the nature of democracy.?
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 13:34:44 -0700
Message-ID: <355760E4.4349D90A@sirius.com>

Ken, in a most rational post states:

> It is not so much that nobody can be trusted with guns but the FACT that
> a significant number of people cant be trusted with them. Lots of
> people, and im sure Nat is one of them,take their responsibilities very
> seriously and many many people go through their shooting lives never
> shooting anybody.Without wishing to make Nat a ventriloquist's dummy i
> am also equally sure he knows there are people with guns who really
> shouldnt have them . 26000 corpses a year are fairly incontrovertible
> evidence of that. Basicly it boils down to this. Nat's hobby has
> unwanted side effects that he as an individual abhors, but at the moment
> there is no effective way to prevent.


I wonder if possibly, carrying a weapon without a permit to do so,
shouldnt become a MUCH more serious crime than it is. Most of the
killings (aside from the death of children) do not take place where the
gun is supposed to be kept. Whether the killing takes place by a
responsible gun owner (responsible MOST of the time, anyway) or by a
thug.

I know a perfectly responsible yupoise, that seems to feel the need to
carry a gun in his car. He is also extremely prone to road rage. I was
recently in a situation, with a far more cool headed friend, lucklilly
where a guy was messing with us on the freeway rather late at night. He
slowed down to zero and brandished a gun, and my cool headed friend,
JUST managed to make an almost right TURN to a freeway exit just as the
creep in front of us coasted past the barrier.

I suspect that he saved our lives, and shudder to think of what would
have happened had my road rageous friend , with the gun been driving.
He is so angry at the world, I think that there would have DEFINITELY
been a showdown, and I was inbetween it. It SO made an impression that I
havent been in a car with this mostly responsible gun owner since, and
probably will not be.

So MAYBE, if he knew getting caught with that gun, which he is
carrying illegaly, would land him in prison for 20 years, with NO chance
of parole, just MAYBE he wouldnt carry it. I will be very suprised if
he lives out his life without using it, at some point. Everything on the
surface says he is responsible, well trained, etc. But only a very few
people who know him well, see what is going to happen. And I think
there are a lot of really angry people doing the same.

The rap for carrying is a joke now. I dont think it would in anyway
diminish our political safety to give it TEETH.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 15:49:40 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"PdWQPC.A.2tC.QR2V1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Patrick A. Stewart"
To: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
Cc: lea@sirius.com, Mark@neversoft.com, nspivey@inreach.com,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Rush and the company he keeps
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 15:48:37 -0500
Message-Id: <35576425.6048@corn.cso.niu.edu>

As long as you send $50 for every autograph, I'm the actor!

Patrick Stewart ("I'm not an actor, but I play one in real life.")

astubbs@BayNetworks.COM wrote:
>
> Don't panic Lea, It is THE Patrick Stewart. He's discovered Rogaine.
>
> > > Patrick Stewart (not the bald one, sorry)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Lea
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > DAMN...after I just agreed with everything you said, (well ALMOST,
> > anyway), now I find THIS out. Another fantasy....DASHED.
> >
> > beam me up , Warf.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 16:57:01 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"3sSvUB.A.SDD.YQ3V1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: jdrahn@alpha-us.com
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu, novabep@lists.colorado.edu,
4AD-L@american.edu
Subject: classical
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 15:06:32 -0800
Message-Id:

Message is sent with MIME. Attachments are base64 encoded
- --TFS-with-MIME-and-DIME
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Hi=2E
=20
Can anyone give me some names of classical composers (contemporary if
possible - avant garde is okay, but don't care much for Kronos Quartet=
- -
style) that someone into DCD, Sinead O'Connor, The The, Throwing Muses=
,
the Verve, Radiohead, Pixies, Leonard Cohen, Cranes, Mazzy Star, Bjork=
, =20
most anything on 4AD etc=2E would enjoy?
=20
I listened to John Tavener's "Thunder Entered Her"? yesterday in a sho=
p
and loved it! Didn't buy it because I've sworn off buying promos, but
will definitely pick this up sometime soon=2E
=20
Thanks for any help you can offer=2E
=20
Axlotl
- --TFS-with-MIME-and-DIME
Content-Type: TEXT/RTF; name="MSGCC.RTF"
Content-transfer-encoding: base64
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- --TFS-with-MIME-and-DIME--
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 20:42:07 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"bgaGcD.A.ojD.cj6V1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Cheryl
To: jdrahn@alpha-us.com
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: classical
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 18:36:57 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <19980512013657.21646.rocketmail@send1d.yahoomail.com>

Perhaps you'd like Gorecki. The Cure sometimes plays his stuff before
their shows.

Cheryl





==
There's no more blood. And no more pain.
In our kingdom of rain...




_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 22:29:41 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"N1hd4.A.mrD.QI8V1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Johann C Chacko
To: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
cc: NatLight@worldnet.att.net, astubbs@BayNetworks.COM,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: pornogram RE: guns or nukes, anyone?
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 20:29:11 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID:


Dear Infected list,

I know, I know every one is sick to the back teeth with all the
gun talk, and everyone has stated their opinions, and staked their own
piece of moral highground (and defending it with flamethrowers and pointed
barbs). However after reading all of your comments it has occured to me
that ironically enough all the arguments for and against firearms on the
individual level are repeated almost verbatim (adjusted for scale and
content) on the national level when it comes to nuclear weapons. Some
nations vigorously campaign for the right to possess nukes, citing the
fact that they have a right to self defence in a dangerous and
unpredictable world, and that it allows the little bloke to stand up to
the hulking yob. Others counter that no (person/state) should be
allowed to have that kind of firepower, able to kill (dozens/millions).
Instead the (police/western nations+Russia+China) should be the only ones
with
(guns/nukes), because only they can be trusted, because they as upholders
of the law must have a monoply on violence. The others clamor that they
are not children and have the right to be treated as responsible
(nations/people) , and who the blazes are they to make that call?
Others claim that it would be a much safer (world/country) if we all gave
them up, but the problem is that no one wants to go first, and even if
the good guys did, what about the bad guys who never listen to the
(US/law enforcement) anyway like (Iran,Libya + terrorists / criminals),
So lets do nothing either way and just wrangle about it like the petulant
children we are
comparetively yours,
Johann.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 00:04:58 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"1fr73D.A.2yD.mh9V1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Johann C Chacko
CC: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM, NatLight@worldnet.att.net,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: pornogram RE: guns or nukes, anyone?
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 22:07:02 -0700
Message-ID: <3557D8F6.3041500D@sirius.com>

> Others claim that it would be a much safer (world/country) if we all gave
> them up, but the problem is that no one wants to go first, and even if
> the good guys did, what about the bad guys who never listen to the
> (US/law enforcement) anyway like (Iran,Libya + terrorists / criminals),
> So lets do nothing either way and just wrangle about it like the petulant
> children we are
> comparetively yours,
> Johann.
>


We are getting a pretty good taste of how impossible it is to verify
that a nation / gang of thugs, whatever, does or doesn't have weapons
with Iraq, right now. Its a rather futile question at this point, dont
you think? Yeah, in many ways similar to the gun situation here.

Without the possibility of Iraq being turned into a giant piece of
glass, I imagine they would get quite obnoxius.

Pandora's box was opened a long time ago and such discussion seems
pretty academic, to say the least. Who knows who has what, now. Im not
so sure that the destabilization of the USSR was accomplished in a sane
way. They are too hungry and desperate. Didnt we learn our lessons
after WWI? I think its only a matter of time. What do other people
think? Will we see a city nuked in the US in our lifetime? Who will do
it and why? Is Israel more likely to retaliate (atomically), in the
Middle East than we are? And where is allthat Russian material going to
end up.

What a mess.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 03:14:51 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"_ZhBl.A.ENE.lTAW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Marcus Forsen
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Ang: Re: classical
Date: Tue, 12 May 98 10:33:31 PDT
Message-ID:

I've heard them(Cure) mention and play Erik Satie a number of times too.
Personally I think Satie is super.
Marcus


> Perhaps you'd like Gorecki. The Cure sometimes plays his stuff before
> their shows.
>
> Cheryl
>
>
>
>
>
> ==
> There's no more blood. And no more pain.
> In our kingdom of rain...
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>

marcus.forsen@sundbyberg.mail.telia.com

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:20:57 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"27WphC.A.0TH.xReW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "highwayman"
To: "infected list"
Subject: Gun debate
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 19:24:59 +0100
Message-ID: <01bd7dd3$46169b20$2d4c08c3@glennlem>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01BD7DDB.A7DB0320
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Banning guns restricts your personal freedom? I don't think so. Has =
making murder illegal restricted your personal freedom? How can =
something which can only be used to kill or injure increase your =
personal freedom?=20
Unless you want the freedom to kill or injure in which case it does. =
Otherwise the logical thing would, since it is impossible to weed out =
the potential psychos, make them unavailable to all. That way no =
mistake can be made. Do you really undervalue life by that much to allow =
such an accident to happen?
All life is sacred. All human beings are sacred. We cannot increase the =
risk of death by having legalized firearms. By allowing one accidental =
death or serial killing because of a arrogant refusal to opt to ban =
firearms, you are guilty of manslaughter, and so is everyone who ever =
defended legalized firearms.=20
Do the world a favour, do yourself a favour, ban guns. Who would need =
them anyway?


- ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01BD7DDB.A7DB0320
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable





http-equiv=3DContent-Type>



Banning guns restricts your personal freedom? I =
don't think=20
so. Has making murder illegal restricted your personal freedom? How can=20
something which can only be used to kill or injure increase your =
personal=20
freedom?

Unless you want the freedom to kill or injure in =
which case it=20
does. Otherwise the logical thing would, since it is impossible to weed =
out the=20
potential psychos,  make them unavailable to all. That way no =
mistake can=20
be made. Do you really undervalue life by that much to allow such an =
accident to=20
happen?

All life is sacred. All human beings are sacred. We =
cannot=20
increase the risk of death by having legalized firearms. By allowing one =

accidental death or serial killing because of a arrogant refusal to opt =
to ban=20
firearms, you are guilty of manslaughter, and so is everyone who ever =
defended=20
legalized firearms.

Do the world a favour, do yourself a favour, ban =
guns. Who=20
would need them anyway?

 


- ------=_NextPart_000_003F_01BD7DDB.A7DB0320--
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 16:36:49 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZyMYfC.A.WHF.dDMW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Kennedy, Sean"
To: "'Infected'"
Subject: Burning Blue Voyerism...
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 09:35:45 +1200
Message-Id: <98May13.095641nzst.27785@netgate.airways.co.nz>

Who was it that first posted the gem http://www.anacam.com during the
heated heater discussion?

You Bastard!!

This is worse than "Sylvanian waters".

Realtime soap opera.

I'm hooked.

It started with a couch.
Then the little doggie.
Then the boyfriend came around.
Then they watch the X-Files.
Then Ana checked her email...

How sad is it getting when people want to watch a web site of someone
surfing the web?

Sean
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 17:30:28 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Ja5Tp.A.KKF.u1MW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: marcus.forsen@sundbyberg.mail.telia.com
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Ang: Re: classical
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 15:32:41 -0700
Message-ID: <3558CE09.D5912CB5@sirius.com>

Some classical stuff Ive liked over the years and a MUST HAVE:


Glazenov's "Concerto for saxaphone". Really cool and bluesy and all
that. (written in the 30's). Nothing ELSE much by Glazenov, just the
sax piece. Its very dark and sleazy, sorta.

Im probably spelling it wrong, but Tower or any good classical music
store will know probably.

Respighi (again probably speling it wrong). Pines of Rome, is good.
Ancient Airs Suite. This is impressionistic, if you like that.
There was a Russian who matched music to color,(he inveted a color
organ) at around the same time. His is the most avant garde of the
impressionists but I cant think of his name. Very Russian Sounding and
he will be in the Impressionists section. ( Day of the Fawn, La Mer,
etc).


Mozarts last two symphonies 40th and 41st. Written when he was dying
and never heard BY him, they are the most expansive and metaphysical.
Not the pop parlor music he wrote earlier. The minuet in The 41st
(Jupiter) is modern sounding, almost like a Strauss Waltz before that
sort of thing was heard of. In the middle of this is a perfect
impressionistic "tear" where all the keys go minor and melt for a
minute.(breaks every rule of the time and far later, its blues). Its
definitely his BIG "goodbye it's been grand" to the world. In the 40th
this movement is Macaab. A dance with death, (which he was doing).

Beethovans 7th is also good.


THEN, A MUST HAVE:

There is a REALLY cool CD called "Music of the Chantilly Codex", that
came out a few years ago. It is all 12th-13th century French music that
was put together from an old codex. Some of this music was even woven
into tapestries. A Swiss group worked on it for years to restore it, and
plays it woith as close to original instruments as possible. It is like
"listening through a glass, darkly"! (and it has a VERY dark minor key
sound throughout. The lyrics are in Ancient French.(not much anything
like what we call French). (words are provided on sleeve notes). The
music is the earliest form of polyphonic (like it wasnt gregorian
chants, there is melody) secular music. (non religious). Much of this
was written down in codes, or stashed away in Palaces of the rich,
because it was then considered NOT acceptable to make music that wasnt
about God. This is the OLDEST form of pop music KNOWN.

Some (2 or 3)of the pieces on this CD are from an ancient group called
"the Society of smokers". There is a song that asks, "why do you call
me a smokehead, because I smoke, I love to smoke and if I harm no one
then let me smoke" (of course these were hasish smokers, and they were
singing the same old tune then!). this sounds amazingly like The Doors!
(only it was written in the 1300s).

Well, something to that effect, and the whole thing is very Joy
Divisonish.

The Chantilly Codex is a MUST if you like Cure, JD, Doors, or Dead
can Dance.

First listen it will sound WIERD. its minimally orchestrated and
played on old instruments, that buzz. (ancient instruments). But once
your ears tune in, I think you will LOVE the Smokers pieces and also the
ones about war. Chilling. Give it a chance and listen a few times. I
hated it, then loved it like no other.

title : Ars magis Subtiliter Secular music of the Chantilly Codex,

by: Project Ars Nova

lable is New Albion (it is also an audiophile quality recording)

Next: The opera singer, Jose Carreras does some non Operatic things.
he has an album out that has some Satie and other cool stuff on it. It
MAY be Catalan Songs, Im not sure. (Cant find it). His Misa Criolla (A
christmas Mass but with old Andian music) is also fabulous and not
operatic.(and a fine recording that will test any stereo system for all
its worth, see if you can hear the bird singing in the back garden of
the church it was recorded in). His voice is very accessible and a good
intro to opera, though. He wont make you WINCE, and he likes to sing
off beat stuff. He coulda been a rock star!

The Spanish modern stuff he does is pretty avant garde.

Spanish music in general is worth checking out. Madrid produces some
of the most forward "serious" music going, and its almost never heard
here.

FINALLY, penderecki, if no one has mentioned him, but it can be pretty
cacaphonous. Hiroshima gave me the creeps for a couple of years. Watch
out for shitty quality polish recordings and AVIOID the big set. It
sucks. If you like very NON melodic modern music with a bit of GORE
Penderecki is your man. he likes setting things like Hiroshima and The
Crucifixion to music.


Have Fun, Qnd order the Codex if its not in stock. Its really worth
it.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:29:04 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"syTj6.A.JSF.rsNW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Michael Bird"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu, sean.kennedy@airways.co.nz
Subject: Re: Burning Blue Voyerism...
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 16:28:08 PDT
Message-ID: <19980512232809.26891.qmail@hotmail.com>

>Who was it that first posted the gem http://www.anacam.com during the
heated heater discussion? You Bastard!! This is worse than "Sylvanian
waters". Realtime soap opera.
>
>I'm hooked.

Sadly I'm to blame and part of my misery expressed in the afore
mentioned e-mail is due to the fact that every 2 minutes, someone is
more interesting than me.

mothy

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 02:26:29 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"klZbnB.A.MCG.OsUW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Lea Curry , marcus.forsen@sundbyberg.mail.telia.com
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Ang: Re: classical
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 16:30:05 -0700
Message-Id: <19980512162859.1919ccd2.in@mail.neversoft.com>


Oh well in that case (I thought the guy was only interested in modern day
composers) Handel is THE MAN. Anything at all, he knew how to kiss up to
God and kings alike. Curiously there's a refrain on Coronation Anthems: My
Heart Is Inditing (sic) where the choir sound as if they're singing "Beef
Curtains!!!Beef Curtains!!!" over and over, which is a bit rude, especially
when you consider that the actual lyrics are "We Praise Him!! We Praise
Him!!!" - hey Paul Weller, eat yer heart out!

Also Bizet kicks ass, just about owt by Wagner if you're in a world
domination kind of mode. Elgar, he rocks, he rolls, he's a bit enigmatic, a
bit various.

Erik Satie, groove on down to Trois Gymnopedies (anyone ever hear Gary
Numan's version???)

Love Handel (?)

Holst wrote some good planety stuff, Mars is a great headbanging romp.

Tchaikovsky, 1812 overture, loud, preferably an analogue recording with
real cannons! Really really incredibly loud.

Prokofiev, Romeo and Juliet.

Anything by Handel, big religious noises, very cool.

Carl Orff (no not Boris Carl Orff): Carmina Burana - remember those Old
Spice ads?

Oh and I can highly recommend Michael Bolton's version of Nessun Dorma -
hey I had no idea that my tongue could actually punch it's way out through
my cheek...

Cheers

Mark

PS. Guns, religion, politics, Rush Numbnuts

At 03:32 PM 5/12/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:
...some stuff about classical music new and old...
(paraphrasing here, forgive me)
>
>Lea
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:29:38 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"JFk8qB.A.lTF.FtNW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: wally@clubi.ie, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: classical
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 16:32:18 -0700
Message-Id: <19980512163111.191bd17d.in@mail.neversoft.com>


...Moss Side Story...? I figure this Adamson bloke is probably from
Manchester then?

Mark


At 12:04 AM 5/13/98 +0000, Wally wrote:
>I'd go along with Henryk Gorecki & Eric Satie and would also suggest
>Dino Saluzzi (ECM Records, classical Tango with a sprinkling of
>jazz).
>Outside classical I'd recommend any fans of Matt to check out Barry
>Adamson, who writes mainly instrumental music, like soundtracks to
>films that don't exist. His music often reminds me of some of Matts
>instrumental b-sides and Burning Blue Soul.
>Check out 'Moss side story' or 'The negro inside me'...
>
>Wally.
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:09:20 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"xj2io.A._NF.KaNW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Wally"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: classical
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 00:04:52 +0000
Message-Id: <199805122308.AAA06559@ice.medianet.ie>

I'd go along with Henryk Gorecki & Eric Satie and would also suggest
Dino Saluzzi (ECM Records, classical Tango with a sprinkling of
jazz).
Outside classical I'd recommend any fans of Matt to check out Barry
Adamson, who writes mainly instrumental music, like soundtracks to
films that don't exist. His music often reminds me of some of Matts
instrumental b-sides and Burning Blue Soul.
Check out 'Moss side story' or 'The negro inside me'...

Wally.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 20:27:29 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Dxsz3.A._eF.ubPW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Euthelene's Madness"
To: wally@clubi.ie
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: classical
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 20:25:28 -0500
Message-ID: <3558F688.DC7CBB68@ix.netcom.com>

Wally wrote:

> I'd go along with Henryk Gorecki & Eric Satie and would also suggest
> Dino Saluzzi (ECM Records, classical Tango with a sprinkling of
> jazz).

Astor Piazolla!

> Outside classical I'd recommend any fans of Matt to check out Barry
> Adamson, who writes mainly instrumental music, like soundtracks to
> films that don't exist. His music often reminds me of some of Matts
> instrumental b-sides and Burning Blue Soul.
> Check out 'Moss side story' or 'The negro inside me'...
>

Also by Adamson, Oediopous Smodiopous excellent. spelling not
included.Chris Armstrong

Euthelene, who most certainly is amd and enjoying that state

Some people will prefer a fantasy of privacy over the ambiguity and
arduous decisions of life in an open society. David Brin.
Does anyone know why this isn't working? Anonymous technophobe.
I want that severenace pay directly deposited please, TODAY! Me to my
former boss when my "position was eliminated".

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 20:49:49 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"8RjFi.A.whF.nwPW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: HeWhoGetsSlapped
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: classical
Date: Tue, 12 May 1998 18:48:17 -0700
Message-ID: <3558FBE1.6F7B@pacbell.net>

Soundtrack to Oscar & Lucinda is a must.

I don't care if you hated the movie, the cd is brilliant.
Megan
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 01:53:55 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"hSNSOD.A.B9F.tNUW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mr.SelfDestruct"
To: "infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: Re: pornogram RE: guns or nukes, anyone?
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 00:50:57 -0700
Message-ID: <355950E1.59CCEF01@inreach.com>

>
> We are getting a pretty good taste of how impossible it is to verify
> that a nation / gang of thugs, whatever, does or doesn't have weapons
> with Iraq, right now. Its a rather futile question at this point,
> dont
> you think? Yeah, in many ways similar to the gun situation here.
>
> Without the possibility of Iraq being turned into a giant piece of
> glass, I imagine they would get quite obnoxius.
>
> Pandora's box was opened a long time ago and such discussion seems
> pretty academic, to say the least. Who knows who has what, now. Im
> not
> so sure that the destabilization of the USSR was accomplished in a
> sane
> way. They are too hungry and desperate. Didnt we learn our lessons
> after WWI? I think its only a matter of time. What do other people
> think? Will we see a city nuked in the US in our lifetime? Who will
> do
> it and why? Is Israel more likely to retaliate (atomically), in the
> Middle East than we are? And where is allthat Russian material going
> to
> end up.
>
> What a mess.
>
> Lea



At this point you are merely playing into the fears generated by a
generation ("my g, g, g, generation") of cold war propoganda. To think
that the former soviet union breakup would somehow allow anybody with a
million bucks to walk up and recieve an atomic device is ludicrous. i
don't doubt that there are those who have tried. Realistically tho, it
isn't the device that is hard to make. It is the correct grade of
plutonium that is. Ever wonder why the "fast breeder" type of nuclear
reactor is never built? "Fast breeders" are inherently safer, easier to
control, extremely resistant to operator error, and provide more output
per gram of fuel that just about any other type. The reason they aren't
built is becuase they aren't allowed to be built. The main byproduct is
weapon grade plutonium. It is THIS that they are looking for in Iraq,
not just the device itself. If i had enuf plutonium i could build a
nasty device. Its that simple.
Would anybody use it on a major (or minor for that matter) city in our
lifetime? Unlikely at best. Those that would are far too disorganized
and fractured to be able to come across a device much less impliment its
use. But what if they could? i find it hard to believe that an entire
group would be willing to sacrifice themselves just to make a big boom.
And i don't mean death. i mean socio-political suicide. There would be
only ONE response to that kind of lunacy. Utter rejection. From their
followers, from their opponents, from the world. Any cause they may have
had would be squelched in that single gesture. Merely look at the
response to the only two devices that were ever used to kill
millions..........

Ya, its me again,

"Quote from a politician saying how good he is at being a
politician...."
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 01:57:34 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"7LP6oB.A.W_F.GRUW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mr.SelfDestruct"
To: "infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: roadrage
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 00:54:46 -0700
Message-ID: <355951C6.70B47CEF@inreach.com>

i think Lea mentioned the road rage thingy.

My question is.... What the HECK is up with that? Just today i witnessed
two vehicles going at it in midday traffic at 50-60 MPH. Am i totally
lost here?

And don't say its a "penis compensation thing" cause if anybody knows
about that it is ME. i own two 1970 musclecars beefed up to outrageous
amounts of testosterone, yet i have NEVER engaged in a road rage fest.

Nick

Is the whole world clueless? Or is it just me?
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 05:17:57 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"c3-a1D.A.AGG._MXW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: mind_bomb@clear.net.nz (Nigel Rean)
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: roadrage
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:17:03 GMT
Message-ID: <35595ca0.2536505@smtp.clear.net.nz>

On Wed, 13 May 1998 00:54:46 -0700, you wrote:

>i think Lea mentioned the road rage thingy.
>
>My question is.... What the HECK is up with that? Just today i witnessed
>two vehicles going at it in midday traffic at 50-60 MPH. Am i totally
>lost here?

Aye lad... Yee don't want to be traveling roads on which drivers are
wanting to kill each other for failing to indicate a lane change.

>And don't say its a "penis compensation thing" cause if anybody knows
>about that it is ME. i own two 1970 musclecars beefed up to outrageous
>amounts of testosterone, yet i have NEVER engaged in a road rage fest.

I hear some of the more fashionable social scientists claiming that
its got sommit' to do with "population crowding" an' "personal-space".

I don't have much truck with social scientists.

S'far as I'm concerned they're a pack of lifeless nancy-boys
who'd be better off going down to the local for a jolly good lager an'
spouting their faithless theories to a crowd of besotted sponges
rather than allowing the media to regurgitate speculation as fact.

IMHO, it's just plain rude to point (and/or fire) a gun at fellow
motorists.

Even if they don't indicate lane changes. :-(

>Is the whole world clueless? Or is it just me?

It's nay just you Nicko m'boy. The world, as they say, is fucked.
But hey, that doesn't mean you can't spend your 15 minutes
of obscurity laughing at it, yeah? :-)


Hmm.. Methinks I've had a wee too many of those afore-mentioned
lagers this evening.

And just to annoy those naff buggers that would whine about this
being an off-topic post...

What's yer favorite theThe album artwork?

I think I lean towards the "Matt sitting under bulb" art-work that
appeared on the Uncertain Smile single.
Stark naked bulb shining down onto a Matt who appears (It's subtle)
to be hugging himself in defensive/conciliatory manner.

It silently speaks volumes.

A close second being the Mind Bomb album cover,
old' Matt looks positively DEVILISH on that. Those eyes....!

G'Night all.

- --
Nigel (atrophy) Rean.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 07:03:12 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"7AUbh.A.ZJG.pvYW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Richard Ings
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: the gun debate shall continue!
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:02:34 BST
Message-Id: <199805131202.NAA25012@athena.clara.net>

Are his eyes too close together as well?

To reiterate, we have entered a looking-glass world where people are assumed
not to be able to exercise self-control. If I believed we could not trust
people to be rational, I would be the first to argue against democracy, individual
rights against the powers-that-be, more regulation of our behaviour, and for a
"benevolent dictatorship". However, I do. We do not yet prosecute people for
what they might do but crimes they have actually committed. The alternative
is a prison-camp mentality where our liberties must be restricted in case
one of us commits a crime - a principle that the USSR was often criticised for.

There is a reality of violent crime and then there is perspective. We do not
argue for cars to be banned because some people have used them to kill people,
deliberately or accidentally - they nevertheless kill more people than guns.
At the same time, there are few campaigns now against Western armed
intervention in Iraq or Yugoslavia: soldiers, trained killers, are redefined as
"peacemakers". Your right to own and use a gun depends which side of the fence
you are on - a parallel with the debates over the right of third-world nations
to possess arms.

To summarise: I am far more worried about the implications for restrictions
on my freedom from those who would ban things such as guns than I am by a
handful of nutters with guns (and I am happy to exclude the vast majority of
gun-owners from this category).

> I wonder if possibly, carrying a weapon without a permit to do so,
> shouldnt become a MUCH more serious crime than it is. Most of the
> killings (aside from the death of children) do not take place where the
> gun is supposed to be kept. Whether the killing takes place by a
> responsible gun owner (responsible MOST of the time, anyway) or by a
> thug.

> So MAYBE, if he knew getting caught with that gun, which he is
> carrying illegaly, would land him in prison for 20 years, with NO chance
> of parole, just MAYBE he wouldnt carry it. I will be very suprised if
> he lives out his life without using it, at some point. Everything on the
> surface says he is responsible, well trained, etc. But only a very few
> people who know him well, see what is going to happen. And I think
> there are a lot of really angry people doing the same.
>
> The rap for carrying is a joke now. I dont think it would in anyway
> diminish our political safety to give it TEETH.
>
> Lea
>



- -----------------------------------------------------
This email was sent using ClaraNET's Email on the Web
feature, a service to its Customers. ClaraNET is not
responsible for the contents of this email.
http://www.clara.net/
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 09:31:12 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"9VjqV.A._SG.X6aW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Patrick A. Stewart"
To: kelly514@juno.com
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 09:30:34 -0500
Message-Id: <3559AE89.77C6@corn.cso.niu.edu>

Gee Brian-- for someone who claims to be middle of the road, you hold
some extreme views. But then, I guess no one will cop to being an
extremist, because that means that very few others share their position
and thus the position may not be tenable. Anyhow, thanks for sharing,
and I hope you don't mind if I don't adhere to your position and maybe
attack them (but not you personally, this is not a flame, just a
difference in opinion).

kelly514@juno.com wrote:
>
> It is interesting how extremists let themselves be known. If you talk
> about something they don't agree with then they label you as someone from
> the other side because of their insecurity of their own position. Being a
> black man who grew up in the ghetto of south Chicago I know first hand
> how liberals and conservatives have left my community to just talking
> points to seek out the rich who contribute to their parties.
Agreed, but with votes there is voice (however small).
>
> There are people who suffer from what I can the "Jesse" syndrome. They
> represent the extremist thinking of their conservative or liberal
> brothers. Being a moderate who is comfortable debating both wings,
> I see this from time to time. The far left wing (which Lea is clearly a
> part of as she sees everyone who disagrees with her as a right wing
> conservative who she must attack) don't understand individual
> responsibility thus are like Jesse Jackson. In the same vein the far
> right wing conservatives, who suffer from the Jesse (Helms) syndrome,
> don't understand compassion and believe everyone was born on a level
> playing field. In college I debated both conservatives and liberals and
> every once in a while I weeded out the extremists. When arguing against
> increased spending for defense, the death penalty, gun control, or
> government initiating in enterprise zones so people in my community had a
> better chance to get out of a fairly hopeless situation, the right wing
> extremists would label me as liberal and tell me what else I must surely
> believe so they could fit that reality in their mind.
Enterprise zones got you labelled as a liberal? Aren't they the favored
tool of right wing politicos?

When I argued for
> stopping the genocide that the government was supporting by giving people
> in my community, (namely black women) who were pregnant, money to suck
> their child into a sink so they could control black growth and have less
> people to show compassion to,
I'm not following your argument here. Are you arguing that government
funding of programs such as AFDC (now gone) led to more deaths (i.e.
genocide) or the favored argument of politicians, that it led to more
births (a friend is doing her dissertation research and has been finding
very little in support of that view-- and she held the presupposition
that AFDC led to more births, i.e. Welfare Queens)? Do you have any
evidence/data (other than the omnipresent polemics)?

or if I speak against Jesse Jackson's idea
> to free more black men from prison so they could come back to continue
> the growth of violence in the ghettos and encourage our children to use
> and sell drugs because the "government ain't treatin' dem too good" so
> they have to make a living somehow, I get labeled by people like Lea as a
Agreed in that this is a difficult position for anyone-- we end up
paying more to keep people (black and white, but most drug users- not
the most dangerous and feared of populations) in prison than to put them
through school at a private college. However, there are no jobs in the
inner city because of "white flight". The question is how to stem white
flight and work for more variegated communities, not only in terms of
ethnic makeup (race is so passe due to genetic understanding of
humanity), but also income. Of course, that runs counter to right wing
thought.

> right wing extremists. Both resort to name calling (I find the former a
> little more than the latter) because both are more concerned with sound
> bites over intellectual debate and lack the security to do such.
Agreed! Hey, if it works, why not do it?
>
> One problem I am seeing is comparing abortion with the death penalty. I'm
> against both but there are enormous differences between the two. Abortion
> is the taking of a innocent life while the death penalty is the taking of
> someone is guilty of a horrendous crime. I have hope for 99% of the
> latter and that is why I oppose it and I usually never know who is in
> that 1% that is so sick in the mind that they are beyond reform so
> keeping them all alive is a way to avoid overlooking the hopeful.
There probably is a high correlation between unwanted children
(presumably those who would have been aborted) and those up for the
death penalty. And I would hasten to correct the assumption that
anyone, even a newborn, is innocent. Dependent, maybe. Innocent, no.
Infants are exceptionally greedy (and, ok, incredibly cute!).

Finally, keeping them all alive means avoiding the issue of
overpopulation. Where are we going to find the food to feed all these
wee ones. Frankly, right now we are so abusing our planet, we might not
be able to support ourselves in the near future, let alone give our
children a decent planet to live on. Of course, this leads to my highly
unpopular view of supporting both the death penalty and abortion on
demand.

>
> Also as a therapist, I was hired by a Metropolitan Church (a church that
> labels itself as gay and Christian) to counsel homosexuals who were
> having trouble accepting their orientation or who had hostile family
> members.
> Here I was a black man who wasn't a Christian but known in my community
> to being "gay friendly" going to a church that is 80% gay and nearly 100%
> white. After two years of seeing so many people unhappy AFTER accepting
> their orientation (with some leaving to go elsewhere for reparative
> therapy) I studied more on the issue and found there is no genetic link
Have you read "The Sexual Brain" by Simon LeVay. He has some real nice
physiological evidence concerning the brain that suggests that brain
structures in gay men are different from straight men. In addition, a
recent study in "Science" finds that lesbians have different inner ear
structures than do straight women. In addition, consider the various
twin studies and also the fact that all species (with maybe .001%
exception) exhibit homosexuality. Now, it is arguable whether it is
genetically predetermined to be a homosexual (more likely an interaction
of genes and environment), but that it is a matter of choice, which
assumes cognition and will, would ignore foregoing evidence (and more,
as this is not a field of expertise for me).

> found and both religious and non-religious organizations have had great
> success in changing people who desire it to live a heterosexual lifestyle
> that was real. Now liberals and gay activists hate to hear this
Is it truly change-- how would you measure it? And, it might be that
these people are bisexual and can go either way. And how do you measure
a sexual orientation except by relationships? It just might be that
their relationships suck.

> (especially activists and militant activists like ACT-UP and Queer
> Nation) because they want to believe people don't have a choice in
> changing and don't want anyone practicing that choice because of their
> own insecurities. But conservatives, who usually only see the activists,
> who can get verbally abusive, hate it when I tell them that mainstream
> homosexuals are some of the friendliness people one will ever meet and
> the attitude that mainstream homosexual people have would be a welcome
> change on the face of Christianity in light of its current face that
> includes people like Falwell, Swaggart, and Helms who knows intollerence,
> hatred, and racism despite claiming to follow a man who preached about
> love and taking care of the poor.
I would have to say that people, regardless of sexual orientation, skin
color, or music tastes, are some of the friendliest people I know (kind
of like "I've got a black friend"!).


Patrick

And thanks for the thoughtful post-- which I don't agree with but
appreciate.

>
> Brian
>
> P.S. sorry for the long post
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> 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
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 08:47:30 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"SlN5tD.A.fQG.dRaW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: kelly514@juno.com
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 08:48:22 -0700
Message-ID: <19980513.085024.3462.0.kelly514@juno.com>


It is interesting how extremists let themselves be known. If you talk
about something they don't agree with then they label you as someone from
the other side because of their insecurity of their own position. Being a
black man who grew up in the ghetto of south Chicago I know first hand
how liberals and conservatives have left my community to just talking
points to seek out the rich who contribute to their parties.

There are people who suffer from what I can the "Jesse" syndrome. They
represent the extremist thinking of their conservative or liberal
brothers. Being a moderate who is comfortable debating both wings,
I see this from time to time. The far left wing (which Lea is clearly a
part of as she sees everyone who disagrees with her as a right wing
conservative who she must attack) don't understand individual
responsibility thus are like Jesse Jackson. In the same vein the far
right wing conservatives, who suffer from the Jesse (Helms) syndrome,
don't understand compassion and believe everyone was born on a level
playing field. In college I debated both conservatives and liberals and
every once in a while I weeded out the extremists. When arguing against
increased spending for defense, the death penalty, gun control, or
government initiating in enterprise zones so people in my community had a
better chance to get out of a fairly hopeless situation, the right wing
extremists would label me as liberal and tell me what else I must surely
believe so they could fit that reality in their mind. When I argued for
stopping the genocide that the government was supporting by giving people
in my community, (namely black women) who were pregnant, money to suck
their child into a sink so they could control black growth and have less
people to show compassion to, or if I speak against Jesse Jackson's idea
to free more black men from prison so they could come back to continue
the growth of violence in the ghettos and encourage our children to use
and sell drugs because the "government ain't treatin' dem too good" so
they have to make a living somehow, I get labeled by people like Lea as a
right wing extremists. Both resort to name calling (I find the former a
little more than the latter) because both are more concerned with sound
bites over intellectual debate and lack the security to do such.

One problem I am seeing is comparing abortion with the death penalty. I'm
against both but there are enormous differences between the two. Abortion
is the taking of a innocent life while the death penalty is the taking of
someone is guilty of a horrendous crime. I have hope for 99% of the
latter and that is why I oppose it and I usually never know who is in
that 1% that is so sick in the mind that they are beyond reform so
keeping them all alive is a way to avoid overlooking the hopeful.

Also as a therapist, I was hired by a Metropolitan Church (a church that
labels itself as gay and Christian) to counsel homosexuals who were
having trouble accepting their orientation or who had hostile family
members.
Here I was a black man who wasn't a Christian but known in my community
to being "gay friendly" going to a church that is 80% gay and nearly 100%
white. After two years of seeing so many people unhappy AFTER accepting
their orientation (with some leaving to go elsewhere for reparative
therapy) I studied more on the issue and found there is no genetic link
found and both religious and non-religious organizations have had great
success in changing people who desire it to live a heterosexual lifestyle
that was real. Now liberals and gay activists hate to hear this
(especially activists and militant activists like ACT-UP and Queer
Nation) because they want to believe people don't have a choice in
changing and don't want anyone practicing that choice because of their
own insecurities. But conservatives, who usually only see the activists,
who can get verbally abusive, hate it when I tell them that mainstream
homosexuals are some of the friendliness people one will ever meet and
the attitude that mainstream homosexual people have would be a welcome
change on the face of Christianity in light of its current face that
includes people like Falwell, Swaggart, and Helms who knows intollerence,
hatred, and racism despite claiming to follow a man who preached about
love and taking care of the poor.


Brian

P.S. sorry for the long post

_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:03:41 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"pZa22.A.8pG.JRcW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: mcmitchell@GRUMPY.fortlewis.edu
To: novabep@lists.colorado.edu
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu, 4AD-L@american.edu
Subject: Re: classical
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:02:43 -0600 (MDT)
Message-id:



On Mon, 11 May 1998 jdrahn@alpha-us.com wrote:

> Hi.
>
> Can anyone give me some names of classical composers (contemporary if
> possible - avant garde is okay, but don't care much for Kronos Quartet-
> style) that someone into DCD, Sinead O'Connor, The The, Throwing Muses,
> the Verve, Radiohead, Pixies, Leonard Cohen, Cranes, Mazzy Star, Bjork,
> most anything on 4AD etc. would enjoy?
>
> I listened to John Tavener's "Thunder Entered Her"? yesterday in a shop
> and loved it! Didn't buy it because I've sworn off buying promos, but
> will definitely pick this up sometime soon.
>
> Thanks for any help you can offer.
>
> Axlotl

Anyone with the throwing muses and the pixies and Bjork should have
respect for Cole Porter. late 1950's jazz/swing/ and showtune music- He
wrote lots of the music sung by Frank Sinatra. I know some of you are not
open to Ideas like this, and it does look like music your parents would
like, but it is actually great music, well written, and the
drunken/bar-room songs are the best.
Curious George
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:34:56 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"XV_iW.A.GtG.YucW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Michael Bird"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: classical...they mothy way
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 09:33:57 PDT
Message-ID: <19980513163357.27713.qmail@hotmail.com>

In addition to my selected favorites truly of the classical era, which
include most of Chopin's nocturnes, some of Schubert's trios (Pablo
Casals was the man), Mozart's requiem, Mussougsky (all of his stuff),
Gustav Mahler, etc... there are also some contemporary composers that I
enjoy. If you're looking something with the rock tie-in, I can recommend
without qualification the two Phillip Glass adaptations of Bowie's Low
and "Heroes." Not only do they incoporate themes from Bowie's work but
they also stand on their own. Truly landmark stuff.

mothy

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:59:43 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"TAO77D.A.w2G.lFdW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: Mark@neversoft.com, lea@sirius.com,
marcus.forsen@sundbyberg.mail.telia.com
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: Ang: Re: classical
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 09:56:23 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E17D7@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>



> Holst wrote some good planety stuff, Mars is a great headbanging romp.
>
Aye, good steering wheel thumping material there. oF course if you want to get really loud you can't go far wrong with Mahler. I believe he'd beef up the sound with more musicians than everybody else.

-Adrian
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 12:06:07 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"9jm14C.A.j9G.pLdW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: roadrage
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:04:04 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E17D8@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>


Ever had one of those days, when you get behind the wheel and just want to be calm and collected, you don't want to rush, you don't want to get home in record time, you don't care if you don't squeeze through the green-light and you don't shake your head in disbelief at all the people stressing out around you. You know the kind of day when you drive 60Mph down San Tomas Expressway without a care in the world. But then you get one of those people who just want to go fast and furious and sit 2 feet behind your bumper snarling and gnashing their teeth at you. Well that's me, get out the freaking way you pansy, stop pacing the car besides you and pull over before I.... before I.... jeeze

- -Anon (no peaking at my return address)

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 12:32:14 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"x8Z1OB.A.KaC.HqyW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "highwayman"
To: "infected list" ,
"Richard Ings"
Subject: Re: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 18:36:27 +0100
Message-ID: <01bd7e95$a8459040$4d4c08c3@glennlem>




>As one astute critic of today's mood around the world has said - how
>strange the contrast today with Voltaire's Mr. Pangloss "Everything is for
>the best in this the best of all possible worlds". Now, there are nothing
>but Mr. Panglums "All is for the worst in this the worst of all possible
>worlds".
>
>Since we indisputably live in a far healthier, far more prosperous world
>than Voltaire's, one question: why the long face?
>
Voltaire wrote Candide to disprove that idea. The essense is basically all
is not for the best.

If we believed blindly that all was for the best etc, then nobody would
bother to try and change things because all is for the best in the best of
all possible worlds.

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 12:33:44 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"kv-ssB.A.CcC.jryW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "highwayman"
To: "infected list"
Subject: Re: Gun debate
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 18:38:04 +0100
Message-ID: <01bd7e95$e1db1460$4d4c08c3@glennlem>


- -----Original Message-----
From: Nat Light
To: 'highwayman'
Date: 14 May 1998 01:22
Subject: RE: Gun debate


>I need them. I enjoy hunting and eating game.
>

I HOPE you are joking.

>Vonn "Devo"
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: highwayman [SMTP:highwayman@clara.net]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 2:25 PM
>To: infected list
>Subject: Gun debate
>
>Banning guns restricts your personal freedom? I don't think so. Has making
>murder illegal restricted your personal freedom? How can something which
>can only be used to kill or injure increase your personal freedom?
>Unless you want the freedom to kill or injure in which case it does.
>Otherwise the logical thing would, since it is impossible to weed out the
>potential psychos, make them unavailable to all. That way no mistake can
>be made. Do you really undervalue life by that much to allow such an
>accident to happen?
>All life is sacred. All human beings are sacred. We cannot increase the
>risk of death by having legalized firearms. By allowing one accidental
>death or serial killing because of a arrogant refusal to opt to ban
>firearms, you are guilty of manslaughter, and so is everyone who ever
>defended legalized firearms.
>Do the world a favour, do yourself a favour, ban guns. Who would need them
>anyway?
>
> << File: ATT00000.htm >>
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 12:37:00 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"d9Pxx.A.PhC.juyW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "highwayman"
To: "infected list"
Subject: Fw: Virus Warning
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 18:41:07 +0100
Message-ID: <01bd7e96$4f4d44a0$4d4c08c3@glennlem>

Look, I thought this might be impotant to know.


- -----Original Message-----
From: Glen Lemon
To: 'Glenn Lemon'
Date: 14 May 1998 13:29
Subject: FW: Virus Warning


>> Subject: FW: Virus Warning
>>
>> Please read the following
>>
>> ----------
>> From: IT Mick Bright
>> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 1998 12:11 PM
>> To: I.T. Business Unit
>> Subject: FW: Virus Warning
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Subject: Virus Warning
>> >
>> >
>> > << >THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!!!
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >"READ AND THEN FORWARD TO EVERYONE!!!!!!!"
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >If you receive an e-mail titled "WIN A HOLIDAY" DO NOT open it.
>> It
>> > will
>> > >erase everything on your hard drive. Forward this to as many
>> people
>> > that
>> > >you
>> > >know and as fast as possible.
>> > >This is a new, very malicious virus and not many people know about
>> > it.
>> > >This
>> > >information was announced yesterday morning from Microsoft; please
>> > share
>> > >it
>> > >with anyone that migh acess the internet. Once again, pass this
>> > along to
>> > >EVERYONE!!!!!! in your address book so that this may be stopped.
>> > >
>> > >ALSO, do not open or even look at any mail that says "RETURNED OR
>> > UNABLE
>> > >TO
>> > >DELIVER" This virus will attach itself to your computer
>> components
>> > and
>> > >render
>> > >them useless. Immediately delete any mail items that say this.
>> AOL
>> > has
>> > >said
>> > >that this is a very dangerous virus and that there is no remedy
>> for
>> > it at
>> > >this
>> > >time. Please practice cautionary measures and forward this to
>> all
>> > your
>> > >online friends ASAP.
>>
>>
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:02:09 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"KBtiGC.A.diG.dXbW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Kyle Milligan"
To: "Richard Ings"
Cc: "Infected"
Subject: Re: the gun debate shall continue!
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:50:14 -0700
Message-Id: <199805131501.LAA28974@toronto.planeteer.com>

Kyle Milligan
toldyaso@planeteer.com

- ----------
> From: Richard Ings
> To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> Subject: the gun debate shall continue!
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 6:02 AM
>
> Are his eyes too close together as well?
>
> To reiterate, we have entered a looking-glass world where people are assumed
> not to be able to exercise self-control. If I believed we could not trust
> people to be rational, I would be the first to argue against democracy,
individual
> rights against the powers-that-be, more regulation of our behaviour, and for
a
> "benevolent dictatorship". However, I do.

I don't, you shouldn't. People in general CAN be rational, and often aren't.
People are capable of so much and some of it good. Human nature is all about
not having self-control, from every part of our lives. Procrastination, spite,
gluttony, rage, revenge, just to name a few. Where's the self-control, would we
not steal if there was no legal repercussion? Would we not kill if there was no
legal repercussion?

> We do not yet prosecute people for
> what they might do but crimes they have actually committed. The alternative
> is a prison-camp mentality where our liberties must be restricted in case
> one of us commits a crime - a principle that the USSR was often criticised
for.

Restricting gun use/availability or toughening the gun laws and punishment for
illegal ownership is not synonymous with a prison-camp mentality. And no one is
suggesting that, so let's just take it down a notch. Let's deal with reality.
Oh, I see down below you have.

>
> There is a reality of violent crime and then there is perspective. We do not
> argue for cars to be banned because some people have used them to kill
people,
> deliberately or accidentally - they nevertheless kill more people than guns.

Now wait a minute, does this mean I can get around town in my gun? You
should've said so, I'll get rid of my car. Yes, car accidents are a big killer.
And a totally different issue. This isn't apples and oranges! A car's primarily
function is transportation, also entertainment and for lugging cargo. You can
toughen up the rules for the road and make it harder to get a license if you as
a driver suck, and the punishment for really bad driving could be a completely
revoked license when it comes to drinking and driving. Some people abuse the
PRIVILEGE to drive and some lose it, rightly so.

A gun's ONLY function is to kill or wound people, so that's all it can do and
all it ever will. Most people are killed by guns that belonged to them.
(Pretty rational, huh? Probably one of the most commonly held facts and still
people keep getting guns. "It won't happen to me, I know how to handle a gun."
Yeah, maybe his six year old doesn't yet, and blows him away, not even because
of revoked TV privileges.)

> At the same time, there are few campaigns now against Western armed
> intervention in Iraq or Yugoslavia: soldiers, trained killers, are redefined
as
> "peacemakers". Your right to own and use a gun depends which side of the
fence
> you are on - a parallel with the debates over the right of third-world
nations
> to possess arms.
>
> To summarise: I am far more worried about the implications for restrictions
> on my freedom from those who would ban things such as guns than I am by a
> handful of nutters with guns (and I am happy to exclude the vast majority of
> gun-owners from this category).

The implications of your (restricted) freedom in it's application to guns
probably stems from your constitutional right to bear arms. Do you as a member
of society really think you couldn't get along without a hand gun? If you
answered No, they maybe you should examine that. WHY?

Not knowing much about you, I can't assume what kind of occupation you hold.
Perhaps a gun is part of your everyday life and job, but few people qualify for
that position. For those of you who have no NEED for a gun in their day to day
life, can you imagine a world without them? Or do you answer the door with one
hand and your COLT .45 in the other, just in case you have to defend yourself?
Not too stressful of a way to live.

>
> > I wonder if possibly, carrying a weapon without a permit to do so,
> > shouldnt become a MUCH more serious crime than it is. Most of the
> > killings (aside from the death of children) do not take place where the
> > gun is supposed to be kept. Whether the killing takes place by a
> > responsible gun owner (responsible MOST of the time, anyway) or by a
> > thug.
>
> > So MAYBE, if he knew getting caught with that gun, which he is
> > carrying illegaly, would land him in prison for 20 years, with NO chance
> > of parole, just MAYBE he wouldnt carry it. I will be very suprised if
> > he lives out his life without using it, at some point. Everything on the
> > surface says he is responsible, well trained, etc. But only a very few
> > people who know him well, see what is going to happen. And I think
> > there are a lot of really angry people doing the same.
> >
> > The rap for carrying is a joke now. I dont think it would in anyway
> > diminish our political safety to give it TEETH.
> >
> > Lea
> >
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> This email was sent using ClaraNET's Email on the Web
> feature, a service to its Customers. ClaraNET is not
> responsible for the contents of this email.
> http://www.clara.net/
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 12:55:50 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"cgg3FC.A.QFH.P6dW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: "Mr.SelfDestruct"
CC: "infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: Re: pornogram RE: guns or nukes, anyone?
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:58:03 -0700
Message-ID: <3559DF2B.5D0DEF58@sirius.com>

Mr.SelfDestruct wrote:
>
> At this point you are merely playing into the fears generated by a
> generation ("my g, g, g, generation") of cold war propoganda. To think
> that the former soviet union breakup would somehow allow anybody with a
> million bucks to walk up and recieve an atomic device is ludicrous.

Oh REALLY? And what about all their weapons grade Plutonium? The
former Soviet Union isnt one place anymore. Its a zillion pieces, like
Chechneya. Much of it is in such chaos, and everyone is SO poor, (India
rates higher on the scale of developed SECURE nations at this point!
And where do you think India got ITS plutonium? (or probably Urnaium
which it processed). The "former USSR cant even BEGIN to account for
where this stuff is, or how much of it is left, or what state iti is
in. i wroite this BEFORE India started testeing. Have you not been
watching the news?


> don't doubt that there are those who have tried.

Like Iran, iraq and now ANYBODY that can muster the bucks. They dont
CARE because THEY are not a THEY anymore. just who is the "former
Soviet Union accountable to? Can we take Russia to task for something
Chechnia does?
Realistically tho, it
> isn't the device that is hard to make. It is the correct grade of
> plutonium that is.

Thats a given.

Ever wonder why the "fast breeder" type of nuclear
> reactor is never built? "Fast breeders" are inherently safer,

Highly untrue. They contain TONS of plutonium. That isnt SAFE. s the
most toxic substance known to MAN.

easier to
> control, extremely resistant to operator error, and provide more output
> per gram of fuel that just about any other type. The reason they aren't
> built is becuase they aren't allowed to be built. The main byproduct is
> weapon grade plutonium.

Yes, and it isnt a SAFE thing to even have setting around, much less the
political ramifications.

It is THIS that they are looking for in Iraq,
> not just the device itself. If i had enuf plutonium i could build a
> nasty device. Its that simple.

It isnt hard for a nation to build the device, but you couldnt assemble
the parts, machine them to the degree necessary, or devise a detonator.
Honest you couldnt. But any nation with a few capable tecnologists
could.


> Would anybody use it on a major (or minor for that matter) city in our
> lifetime? Unlikely at best.

You are a fool. Sorry, thats harsh, but you make statements that are
just plain silly.

Those that would are far too disorganized
> and fractured to be able to come across a device much less impliment its
> use.

Now wait a minute.... YOU could build a device, but Iraq couldnt? Or
Turkey or some of the rather more dismal countries in Africa? Do you
know what they are doing in Algiers, for instance? You think they
WOULDNT, or that they couldnt muster up enough money to buy starving
Russian talent? Are you NUTS? Are you on drugs?

But what if they could? i find it hard to believe that an entire
> group would be willing to sacrifice themselves just to make a big boom.

Hah, have you traveled? Do you even watch the news?


> And i don't mean death. i mean socio-political suicide. There would be
> only ONE response to that kind of lunacy. Utter rejection. From their
> followers, from their opponents, from the world. Any cause they may have
> had would be squelched in that single gesture. Merely look at the
> response to the only two devices that were ever used to kill
> millions..........

Yes, we were certainly squelched by the world. Everybody turned their
back on us after that war. You probably make your only logical point
here. it would be fairly counterproductive, politically for any nation
with a semi sane agenda. But you WAY underestimate the power of age old
disputes, and I dont think you appreciate how cheap life in way too many
places. Your view seems very naive. Combine that with EXTREME
fundamentalism that believes you have a better lfe next time , ANYWAY,
or that they are only following the will of Allah, (who DEMANDS
REVENGE), And of course its a possibility. One that worries the entire
NATO alliance.

It also might not be one of the psychopowers that uses it. If iraq was
to launch a half way serious attack on Israel, and our troops are not in
the crossfire, Iraq WILL turn to glass. You probably were not alive when
the isralies bombed iraqs nuclear power plant in the 70's. They didnt
ask anybodys permission, they just went in and got the job done, and i
ASSURE you they will not suffer a biological or missle attack from Iraq
without a final solution of their own. They dont GIVE a rats ass what
anybody thinks, when it comes right down to it. If you think Saddam is
just not that stupid, then you need to review the recent Mother of All
Wars.

Lea



>
> Ya, its me again,
>
> "Quote from a politician saying how good he is at being a
> politician...."
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 12:58:19 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"uFrrn.A.8HH.k8dW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: "Mr.SelfDestruct" ,
"infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: Re: roadrage
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:01:30 -0700
Message-Id: <19980513105902.0243df62.in@mail.neversoft.com>


Please stop this debate NOW

It will inevitably lead to all the Brits that live in the USA ragging on
the "standard" of American driving (a clue:appalling would be extremely
complimentary).

Mark





At 12:54 AM 5/13/98 -0700, Mr.SelfDestruct wrote:
>i think Lea mentioned the road rage thingy.
>
>My question is.... What the HECK is up with that? Just today i witnessed
>two vehicles going at it in midday traffic at 50-60 MPH. Am i totally
>lost here?
>
>And don't say its a "penis compensation thing" cause if anybody knows
>about that it is ME. i own two 1970 musclecars beefed up to outrageous
>amounts of testosterone, yet i have NEVER engaged in a road rage fest.
>
>Nick
>
>Is the whole world clueless? Or is it just me?
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:03:05 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"bIjP.A.rLH.DBeW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: mind_bomb@clear.net.nz, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: roadrage
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:06:12 -0700
Message-Id: <19980513110344.02482f27.in@mail.neversoft.com>





I have to go with Mind Bomb, those earlier painted covers have aged badly,
and Dusk looks like something my genius ten year old would have cast aside
as "rubbish".

Cheers

MLS


At 10:17 AM 5/13/98 +0000, Nigel Rean wrote:

> What's yer favorite theThe album artwork?
>
>I think I lean towards the "Matt sitting under bulb" art-work that
>appeared on the Uncertain Smile single.
> Stark naked bulb shining down onto a Matt who appears (It's subtle)
> to be hugging himself in defensive/conciliatory manner.
>
>It silently speaks volumes.
>
>A close second being the Mind Bomb album cover,
>old' Matt looks positively DEVILISH on that. Those eyes....!
>
>G'Night all.
>
>--
>Nigel (atrophy) Rean.
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:20:06 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"TXRcsD.A.cQH.9QeW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Mark_Gaertner@wbsaunders.com (Mark Gaertner)
To: "Mr.SelfDestruct" , Lea Curry
Cc: "infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: Re[2]: pornogram RE: guns or nukes, anyone?
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 14:13:30 -0400
Message-ID: <001B93E3.@wbsaunders.com>

- --IMA.Boundary.950380598
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part




Hesus Christi, does every intelligent, reasonable discussion have to degenerate
into personal attacks and name-calling? My god, this is just a discussion of
political and social issues/views, not a forum for bitching at each other. If
you can't respond reasonably and respect other people's views, please don't
respond at all. It's okay to disagree, just do it nicely... We're all friends
here...

And if we all die in a holocaust, will it really matter anyway?


Mr.SelfDestruct wrote:
>
> At this point you are merely playing into the fears generated by a
> generation ("my g, g, g, generation") of cold war propoganda. To think
> that the former soviet union breakup would somehow allow anybody with a
> million bucks to walk up and recieve an atomic device is ludicrous.

Oh REALLY? And what about all their weapons grade Plutonium? The
former Soviet Union isnt one place anymore. Its a zillion pieces, like
Chechneya. Much of it is in such chaos, and everyone is SO poor, (India
rates higher on the scale of developed SECURE nations at this point!
And where do you think India got ITS plutonium? (or probably Urnaium
which it processed). The "former USSR cant even BEGIN to account for
where this stuff is, or how much of it is left, or what state iti is
in. i wroite this BEFORE India started testeing. Have you not been
watching the news?


> don't doubt that there are those who have tried.

Like Iran, iraq and now ANYBODY that can muster the bucks. They dont
CARE because THEY are not a THEY anymore. just who is the "former
Soviet Union accountable to? Can we take Russia to task for something
Chechnia does?
Realistically tho, it
> isn't the device that is hard to make. It is the correct grade of
> plutonium that is.

Thats a given.

Ever wonder why the "fast breeder" type of nuclear
> reactor is never built? "Fast breeders" are inherently safer,

Highly untrue. They contain TONS of plutonium. That isnt SAFE. s the
most toxic substance known to MAN.

easier to
> control, extremely resistant to operator error, and provide more output
> per gram of fuel that just about any other type. The reason they aren't
> built is becuase they aren't allowed to be built. The main byproduct is
> weapon grade plutonium.

Yes, and it isnt a SAFE thing to even have setting around, much less the
political ramifications.

It is THIS that they are looking for in Iraq,
> not just the device itself. If i had enuf plutonium i could build a
> nasty device. Its that simple.

It isnt hard for a nation to build the device, but you couldnt assemble
the parts, machine them to the degree necessary, or devise a detonator.
Honest you couldnt. But any nation with a few capable tecnologists
could.


> Would anybody use it on a major (or minor for that matter) city in our
> lifetime? Unlikely at best.

You are a fool. Sorry, thats harsh, but you make statements that are
just plain silly.

Those that would are far too disorganized
> and fractured to be able to come across a device much less impliment its
> use.

Now wait a minute.... YOU could build a device, but Iraq couldnt? Or
Turkey or some of the rather more dismal countries in Africa? Do you
know what they are doing in Algiers, for instance? You think they
WOULDNT, or that they couldnt muster up enough money to buy starving
Russian talent? Are you NUTS? Are you on drugs?

But what if they could? i find it hard to believe that an entire
> group would be willing to sacrifice themselves just to make a big boom.

Hah, have you traveled? Do you even watch the news?


> And i don't mean death. i mean socio-political suicide. There would be
> only ONE response to that kind of lunacy. Utter rejection. From their
> followers, from their opponents, from the world. Any cause they may have
> had would be squelched in that single gesture. Merely look at the
> response to the only two devices that were ever used to kill
> millions..........

Yes, we were certainly squelched by the world. Everybody turned their
back on us after that war. You probably make your only logical point
here. it would be fairly counterproductive, politically for any nation
with a semi sane agenda. But you WAY underestimate the power of age old
disputes, and I dont think you appreciate how cheap life in way too many
places. Your view seems very naive. Combine that with EXTREME
fundamentalism that believes you have a better lfe next time , ANYWAY,
or that they are only following the will of Allah, (who DEMANDS
REVENGE), And of course its a possibility. One that worries the entire
NATO alliance.

It also might not be one of the psychopowers that uses it. If iraq was
to launch a half way serious attack on Israel, and our troops are not in
the crossfire, Iraq WILL turn to glass. You probably were not alive when
the isralies bombed iraqs nuclear power plant in the 70's. They didnt
ask anybodys permission, they just went in and got the job done, and i
ASSURE you they will not suffer a biological or missle attack from Iraq
without a final solution of their own. They dont GIVE a rats ass what
anybody thinks, when it comes right down to it. If you think Saddam is
just not that stupid, then you need to review the recent Mother of All
Wars.

Lea



>
> Ya, its me again,
>
> "Quote from a politician saying how good he is at being a
> politician...."

- --IMA.Boundary.950380598
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="RFC822 message headers"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="RFC822 message headers"

Received: from purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu (128.135.24.50) by
smtpgate.harcourtbrace.com with SMTP
(IMA Internet Exchange 2.1 Enterprise) id 001B92D7; Wed, 13 May 98 13:55:25
- -0400
Received: (from list@localhost) by purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu (8.8.5/8.8.3) id
MAA29037; Wed, 13 May 1998 12:55:38 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 12:55:38 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <3559DF2B.5D0DEF58@sirius.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 10:58:03 -0700
From: Lea Curry
Organization: not
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Mr.SelfDestruct"
CC: "infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: Re: pornogram RE: guns or nukes, anyone?
References:
<3557D8F6.3041500D@sirius.com> <355950E1.59CCEF01@inreach.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-Message-ID: <"cgg3FC.A.QFH.P6dW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/692
X-Loop: infected@lists.uchicago.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: infected-request@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu

- --IMA.Boundary.950380598--
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:26:38 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"wnuiiD.A.rC.GXeW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: kelly514@Juno.com
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:28:50 -0700
Message-ID: <3559E662.68AD0914@sirius.com>

brian, first you say:


> It is interesting how extremists let themselves be known. If you talk
> about something they don't agree with then they label you as someone from
> the other side because of their insecurity of their own position.

Then you say:

> The far left wing (which Lea is clearly a
> part of as she sees everyone who disagrees with her as a right wing
> conservative who she must attack) don't understand individual
> responsibility thus are like Jesse Jackson.

You seem to always exempt yourself from your own rules! I do not see
EVERYONE who disagrees with me as a right wing conservative, nor do I
attack EVERYONE who disagrees with me. And you just did EXACTLY what you
accuse others of doing. Who exempted YOU, Brian? I dont think you
listen to yourself enough.

L.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:28:52 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"T_a4WB.A.8E.OZeW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: kelly514@Juno.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:30:38 -0700
Message-Id: <19980513112809.025e8b51.in@mail.neversoft.com>

At 08:48 AM 5/13/98 -0700, kelly514@Juno.com wrote:
>
>It is interesting how extremists let themselves be known. If you talk
>about something they don't agree with then they label you as someone from
>the other side because of their insecurity of their own position. Being a
>black man who grew up in the ghetto of south Chicago I know first hand
>how liberals and conservatives have left my community to just talking
>points to seek out the rich who contribute to their parties.
>
>There are people who suffer from what I can the "Jesse" syndrome. They
>represent the extremist thinking of their conservative or liberal
>brothers. Being a moderate who is comfortable debating both wings,
>I see this from time to time. The far left wing (which Lea is clearly a
>part of as she sees everyone who disagrees with her as a right wing
>conservative who she must attack)

By my standards, Lea is in the middle ground. American politics is largely
so far to the right anyway that anyone with a social conscience is
immediately branded as leftist.

>I studied more on the issue and found there is no genetic link

That's not true, I understand that there is not only a "gay gene" but that
there is an entire section of the brain that is different in gay men to
hetero men.

> have had great
>success in changing people who desire it to live a heterosexual lifestyle
>that was real. Now liberals and gay activists hate to hear this
>(especially activists and militant activists like ACT-UP and Queer
>Nation) because they want to believe people don't have a choice in
>changing and don't want anyone practicing that choice because of their own
insecurities.

Sounds to me a little like deciding to be left handed instead of right
handed. AMongst my gay friends there were two that I knew all the way back
at primary school (elementary school) that were picked upon for being
"poofs" and "queer" and so on, which they each vehemently denied. One of my
friends got married and still people always assumed he was gay, he would
get picked on when he was out shopping with his wife - people assumed he
was his wife's brother.

In other words, people can know someone is gay even when they themselves
are doing everything they can to deny it. Bottom line it isn't fair on
anyone, and to encourage people to live as straight when they are gay seems
very cruel.

Mark


------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:39:02 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"UwRbhB.A.oJ.vieW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Mark Gaertner
CC: "Mr.SelfDestruct" ,
"infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu"
Subject: Re: pornogram RE: guns or nukes, anyone?
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:40:32 -0700
Message-ID: <3559E920.F55F0883@sirius.com>

> Hesus Christi, does every intelligent, reasonable discussion have to degenerate
> into personal attacks and name-calling? My god, this is just a discussion of
> political and social issues/views, not a forum for bitching at each other. If
> you can't respond reasonably and respect other people's views, please don't
> respond at all. It's okay to disagree, just do it nicely... We're all friends
> here...
>


Your right. Sorry. pre-coffee, menopause grumpiness. Its still
morning here.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:37:18 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"-3CGnC.A.oH.IheW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: "Richard Ings"
Cc: "Infected"
Subject: Re: the gun debate shall continue!
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:40:33 -0700
Message-Id: <19980513113805.0267a0e3.in@mail.neversoft.com>


Seems to me if you grew up with guns, then to have them taken away would be
like losing a limb.
Of course if you're like me and you have lost a child, then you can
understand losing something that is so much a part of you. The gun nuts
(that's any of you that think guns are a good thing) think that to lose the
gun is to lose part of themselves and to lose their freedom.

You'll get over it.

Mark


------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:45:53 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"FN_jQB.A.6M.LpeW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: "highwayman" ,
"infected list"
Subject: Re: Gun debate
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 11:49:07 -0700
Message-Id: <19980513114639.026f792f.in@mail.neversoft.com>






It's just in case the King of England comes around to your house for tea
and cakes 200 years ago.



It's about as relevant as the Pope's stand on contraception, although I
am the first to admit that contraception and guns have a lot in common.
Their primary purpose is to reduce the numbers of humans on this planet.
Both are also wielded by pricks.



Mark







At 07:24 PM 5/12/98 +0100, highwayman wrote:

Banning guns restricts your
personal freedom? I don't think so. Has making murder illegal restricted
your personal freedom? How can something which can only be used to kill
or injure increase your personal freedom?

Unless you want the freedom to kill or injure in which case it does.
Otherwise the logical thing would, since it is impossible to weed out the
potential psychos,=A0 make them unavailable to all. That way no mistake can
be made. Do you really undervalue life by that much to allow such an
accident to happen?

All life is sacred. All human beings are sacred. We cannot increase the
risk of death by having legalized firearms. By allowing one accidental
death or serial killing because of a arrogant refusal to opt to ban
firearms, you are guilty of manslaughter, and so is everyone who ever
defended legalized firearms.

Do the world a favour, do yourself a favour, ban guns. Who would need
them anyway?

=A0



------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 14:01:15 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"JD3aXD.A.bQ.m3eW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Ken Maclean"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: a broken promise or the nature of democracy.?
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:00:18 MDT
Message-ID: <19980513190019.29244.qmail@hotmail.com>


> We are getting a pretty good taste of how impossible it is to verify


At this point you are merely playing into the fears generated by a
generation ("my g, g, g, generation") of cold war propoganda. To think
that the former soviet union breakup would somehow allow anybody with a
million bucks to walk up and recieve an atomic device is ludicrous.

I am glad you have such faith in the integrity and stability of Russia
and the former Soviet republics and that you dont believe all the
stories coming out from these places about corruption and organized
crime even within the military itself (the same stories that i hear now
from recently arrived Russian scientists working here in the U.S. )Its
laudable optimism but i just don't happen to share it thats all.


is But what if they could? i find it hard to believe that an entire
group would be willing to sacrifice themselves just to make a big boom.

Tell me, did the suicide battallions of the Iran-Iraq war just pass you
by ?

And i don't mean death. i mean socio-political suicide. There would be
only ONE response to that kind of lunacy. Utter rejection. From their
followers, from their opponents, from the world. Any cause they may have
had would be squelched in that single gesture. Merely look at the
response to the only two devices that were ever used to kill
millions..........

First off, you are talking as though wide spread destruction was a means
to a political end but has it occured to you that for some people( who
hate with a passion that your western mind can't comprehend) that
destruction itself is the end. SOME (not all ) Muslim extremists detest
Israel so much that regardless of any political consequences (what do
they care of the opinions of some American adulterer, we listen only to
Allah in our hearts etc etc yawn yawn) they just want them dead.
Take a trip to kashmir and see the regard that India and Pakistan hold
each other in. See the Tamil tigers of Sri Lanka with their backs to the
sea and ask them "Its obvious you are going to lose this one, you can
expect no mercey but if you could take out the whole Sinhalese
population at the same time by pressing this button" What faith do you
have in their humanitarian response after the ravages they have seen
their famillies put through?

If Saddam Hussein were able to wipe out all of Israel, without damaging
any Islamic shrines, his own support would not give a shit. Some Arab
countries would denounce him because they would fear the effect of his
popularity on their own regimes. What does he care about the worlds
opinions. The US attacks him (rightly so) under the guise of a mandate
from the UN (hypocritical) but has the US ever acted on any of the UN
resolutions against Israel? They feel the world wont listen and when the
west knew he was gassing the Kurds (photos of women and children i hoped
never to see in my lifetime) we didnt care becase we were more scared of
Iran.

Merely look at the
response to the only two devices that were ever used to kill
millions..........

If you had been involved in hand to hand combat clearing Islands in the
pacific of a determined army who did not understand the concept of
surrender and someone asked you " You can carry on doing this and run a
very high risk of getting shot and thus leave your family with nobody to
protect them or we can end it tomorrow by visiting large scale death on
a people who wouldnt hesitate for a second to do it to you. Honestly and
from the heart what would you say bearing in mind that above a hundred,
deaths often become an abstract statistic ?

A lot of people can quite happily justify the decision for themselves
and the possibility of a small group of organized fanatics doing the
same may not worry you but it does me . This idyllic world where
fanatics and despots care what the world thinks of them sounds lovely,
any chance you could give me directions on how to get there from the
planet the rest of us are living on ?

Anyway my favourite artwork would have to be the cover for Perfect with
MJ and the wino. Second choice would be the poster that came with
infected.

Yours not needing a looking glass to know the difference between an
assumption and a verifiable observation ,in a society where the majority
accepts the costs of road deaths as necessary, but is never allowed to
ask the same question about gun ownership.
Ken



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 14:11:16 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"wUEOHD.A.2S._AfW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Megan le Momo
To: kelly514@juno.com
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 12:10:41 -0700
Message-ID: <3559F031.6F9@pacbell.net>

I agreed with most of what you said, up until a certain minor lil
point..

kelly514@juno.com wrote:
> But conservatives, who usually only see the activists,
> who can get verbally abusive, hate it when I tell them that mainstream
> homosexuals are some of the friendliness people one will ever meet and
> the attitude that mainstream homosexual people have would be a welcome
> change on the face of Christianity in light of its current face that
> includes people like Falwell, Swaggart, and Helms who knows intollerence,
> hatred, and racism despite claiming to follow a man who preached about
> love and taking care of the poor.

Personally I think there is a great difference between the average
conseravative and the few right wing extremists. I know a great deal of
conservatives, and I know of only one who could be considered a racist,
yet I know many a liberal who has serious racial issues that they have
yet to work through. Maybe it's because I live in LA, but all the
conservatives I know have no problems with homosexuals, yet I have seen
them in debates with those that are centered more to the left, and I
have been called a racist, extremist, fascist etc for saying nothing eve
n remotely close. I truly enjoy your observation of extremist, I'll have
to start using the tactic. Often these people are so blinded by their
emotions that they can not handle when someone else may not view the
world identically as themselves.

But one thing I do not see, is it occurring equally on both sides.
I don't consider myself left, right, center, liberal libertarian,
conservative, whatever. It's not about that, it's just plain common
sense, and out of all the people I have talked to the ones that are the
most guilty of hypocrisy are those of the left, and rarely do I see it
anywhere else. Though of course, its never completely black and white.

And what is really the center of the political field? From what I've
gathered it's the conservative right. I think people have been mislead
(as is so easy to do) by the blanket term of right wing and left wing,
but forgetting about the libertarian side.
Just an idea, but wouldn't it be libertarianism = freedom. Liberalism =
governmental nanny and Conservatism is in the middle ground of laws, up
to a point.

Megan le momo
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 14:20:41 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"-m657B.A.qW.zJfW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Megan le Momo
To: "Patrick A. Stewart"
CC: kelly514@juno.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 12:20:05 -0700
Message-ID: <3559F265.5CA2@pacbell.net>

Patrick A. Stewart wrote:
> Finally, keeping them all alive means avoiding the issue of
> overpopulation. Where are we going to find the food to feed all these
> wee ones. Frankly, right now we are so abusing our planet, we might not
> be able to support ourselves in the near future, let alone give our
> children a decent planet to live on. Of course, this leads to my highly
> unpopular view of supporting both the death penalty and abortion on
> demand.

Overpopulation is a myth, and Nightline did an interesting bit on it a
week or two ago. There is a replacement factor that isn't even being
met, and the population is actually going to start shrinking.

> Have you read "The Sexual Brain" by Simon LeVay. He has some real nice
> physiological evidence concerning the brain that suggests that brain
> structures in gay men are different from straight men. In addition, a
> recent study in "Science" finds that lesbians have different inner ear
> structures than do straight women. In addition, consider the various
> twin studies and also the fact that all species (with maybe .001%
> exception) exhibit homosexuality. Now, it is arguable whether it is
> genetically predetermined to be a homosexual (more likely an interaction
> of genes and environment), but that it is a matter of choice, which
> assumes cognition and will, would ignore foregoing evidence (and more,
> as this is not a field of expertise for me).

With regards to animal homosexuality. I have an aviary of parakeets
where several of them became pairs of males, that even attempted to
mate. Most of them were also the same ones as babies that I was not able
to tell if they were male or female..

> Is it truly change-- how would you measure it? And, it might be that
> these people are bisexual and can go either way. And how do you > measure
> a sexual orientation except by relationships? It just might be that
> their relationships suck.

I know plenty of heterosexuals that are miserable with their own love
life. Why would homosexuals be any different?

> I would have to say that people, regardless of sexual orientation, skin
> color, or music tastes, are some of the friendliest people I know (kind
> of like "I've got a black friend"!).

I'd have to say the opposite. Most of the people I know are the
nastiest, but then again, where do I live again?

> And thanks for the thoughtful post-- which I don't agree with but
> appreciate.

Well, you touched base on another portion that I didn't agree with, but
wasnt in the mood to tackle.
Megan
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 08:45:49 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"6CnxX.A.pHC.6VvW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: kelly514@juno.com
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Rush and the company he keeps
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 12:31:57 -0700
Message-ID: <19980514.084838.11166.0.kelly514@juno.com>


On Sun, 10 May 1998 19:34:40 -0700 "Mark Scott"
writes:
>Patrick Stewart wrote:
>>Likewise, if you are pro-life, be prepared to raise all those
>>illegitimate/unwanted babies- including crack babies- on your own.
>Of
>>course, when you do run across those rare individuals who put their
>>money where their mouth is (and I respect them highly for doing so),
>you
>>find these are the least vehement of proponents.
>
>I largely agree with you but I wish you would write "pro life" in
>quotes -
>we are referring to people that don't discourage the murder of doctors
>and
>nurses in abortion clinics, thus appointing themselves the leading
>hypocrites of the western world.
>
>Cheers
>
>Markus Embryoticus
>

Actually there is no evidence that crack babies are any different than
"normal" babies and you insult those who have been born from mothers who
were crack addicts. Even the most deformed babies are wanted and all you
have to do is call your local adoption agency to confirm this.

Secondly there is a difference between prolife and anti-abortion. The
former do not support killing doctors as some of the latter will go
through any means possible to stop abortions.

Anyone realize there is a 7 to 10 year waiting list for parents who want
to adopt babies in this country?
Anyone realize that 1 out of 5 couples have difficulty conceiving?

There is no such thing as an unwanted baby in this country!

Think about it.

Brian


_____________________________________________________________________
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
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 15:07:14 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"czcND.A.6c.b1fW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Patrick A. Stewart"
To: Megan le Momo
Cc: kelly514@juno.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 14:54:17 -0500
Message-Id: <3559FA69.E40@corn.cso.niu.edu>

Megan le Momo wrote:
>
Megan-- I'm glad that we agree on a lot of things here. However, I do
take quite a different stance when it comes to overpopulation. A good
citation would be a recent article in the Atlantic Monthly:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98may/special1.htm

It does a nice job of covering some of the issues tied to
overpopulation, especially concerning human-environment interaction. I
think what Nightline may have been referring to is the replacement rate
in the U.S. and other Western Nations. And I also agree that there
might be a natural limiting factor when there is too much population in
the vicinity (something that we see with various different species), but
there really is too much at stake, especially when there is quite
compelling evidence that we have destroyed more species (animal, plant,
bacteria, etc) in the past hundred years than in the previous history of
the planet combined.

While, granted, I do have a stake in this professionally, it is also a
personal cause. I don't want to have kids blaming me for the world's
problems in thirty years (like I blame my parents!!). Of course, they
probably will.

As far as people being some of the nastiest-- well, I've got to have
some delusions if I'm going to want to save the planet!

Patrick


> Patrick A. Stewart wrote:
> > Finally, keeping them all alive means avoiding the issue of
> > overpopulation. Where are we going to find the food to feed all these
> > wee ones. Frankly, right now we are so abusing our planet, we might not
> > be able to support ourselves in the near future, let alone give our
> > children a decent planet to live on. Of course, this leads to my highly
> > unpopular view of supporting both the death penalty and abortion on
> > demand.
>
> Overpopulation is a myth, and Nightline did an interesting bit on it a
> week or two ago. There is a replacement factor that isn't even being
> met, and the population is actually going to start shrinking.

> > Have you read "The Sexual Brain" by Simon LeVay. He has some real nice
> > physiological evidence concerning the brain that suggests that brain
> > structures in gay men are different from straight men. In addition, a
> > recent study in "Science" finds that lesbians have different inner ear
> > structures than do straight women. In addition, consider the various
> > twin studies and also the fact that all species (with maybe .001%
> > exception) exhibit homosexuality. Now, it is arguable whether it is
> > genetically predetermined to be a homosexual (more likely an interaction
> > of genes and environment), but that it is a matter of choice, which
> > assumes cognition and will, would ignore foregoing evidence (and more,
> > as this is not a field of expertise for me).
>
> With regards to animal homosexuality. I have an aviary of parakeets
> where several of them became pairs of males, that even attempted to
> mate. Most of them were also the same ones as babies that I was not able
> to tell if they were male or female..
>
> > Is it truly change-- how would you measure it? And, it might be that
> > these people are bisexual and can go either way. And how do you > measure
> > a sexual orientation except by relationships? It just might be that
> > their relationships suck.
>
> I know plenty of heterosexuals that are miserable with their own love
> life. Why would homosexuals be any different?
>
> > I would have to say that people, regardless of sexual orientation, skin
> > color, or music tastes, are some of the friendliest people I know (kind
> > of like "I've got a black friend"!).
>
> I'd have to say the opposite. Most of the people I know are the
> nastiest, but then again, where do I live again?
>
> > And thanks for the thoughtful post-- which I don't agree with but
> > appreciate.
>
> Well, you touched base on another portion that I didn't agree with, but
> wasnt in the mood to tackle.
> Megan
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 15:00:05 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"H5141B.A.ja.wufW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Megan le Momo
CC: kelly514@Juno.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 13:02:20 -0700
Message-ID: <3559FC4C.CC1436EC@sirius.com>

> And what is really the center of the political field? From what I've
> gathered it's the conservative right.


HUH? It SOUNDS, (lest I unfairly judge you), that this is your PERSONAL
center, but do you think it is really THE center?

> But one thing I do not see, is it occurring equally on both sides.
> I don't consider myself left, right, center, liberal libertarian,
> conservative, whatever. It's not about that, it's just plain common
> sense, and out of all the people I have talked to the ones that are the
> most guilty of hypocrisy are those of the left, and rarely do I see it
> anywhere else. Though of course, its never completely black and white.
>
So you can not be labelled, but everybody else can... those who agree
with you have common sense and those who dont? What?

> I truly enjoy your observation of extremist, I'll have
> to start using the tactic. Often these people are so blinded by their
> emotions that they can not handle when someone else may not view the
> world identically as themselves.
>
So rather than agreeing to disagree, or discussing it honestly, you
should employ "tactics" to win? hmmmmmm....

I have a question, and its serious. Are you originally from the US? I
sense a confusion here, or a newness to our political state, whatever
that may be. Just curious.

Lea

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:26:21 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"rLxBeD.A.HeD.pM1W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Richard Ings
To:
Subject: Re: the gun debate shall continue!
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 23:03:34
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980513230334.3ca79768@mail.clara.net>

>Where's the self-control, would we
>not steal if there was no legal repercussion? Would we not kill if there
was no
>legal repercussion?

As a materialist, rather than an idealist, I would say the law is normally
a reflection of what society considers acceptable or unacceptable. I would
hope that it is not just the law which prevents you killing someone, Kyle!

>Restricting gun use/availability or toughening the gun laws and punishment
for
>illegal ownership is not synonymous with a prison-camp mentality. And no
one is
>suggesting that,

Very few would argue they're acting against freedom, rights or democracy.
Indeed, gun control is argued for by extending "the rights of the victim".
I am extrapolating from a logic which considers our fellow humans to be
basically irresponsible and untrustworthy. The debate around guns is one of
many instances of a society showing less and less trust in its citizens to
act as adults: people fear strangers as potential
assailants/murderers/thieves/paedophiles. Why else would guns be more and
more popular?

>Yes, car accidents are a big killer.
>And a totally different issue. This isn't apples and oranges! A car's
primarily
>function is transportation, also entertainment and for lugging cargo.

My point is that you cannot fetishise the gun - there are many ways to kill
people. You yourself raise accidents as a reason why guns are inherently
dangerous:

>Most people are killed by guns that belonged to them.

Moreover, the majority uses of a privately-held gun are for entertainment -
hunting, target practice, etc.. To put further perspective on this - it is
now illegal in the UK to sell knives to people under 16. And this in the
country which invented scouting!

I notice you did not care to take up my point about who should have the
right to carry a weapon for the purpose of killing and those who should not.


------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 18:57:53 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"MmiiEC.A.fiB.sNjW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: roadrage
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 19:59:29 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD7EA9.A4775A20.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

>> IMHO, it's just plain rude to point (and/or fire) a gun at fellow
motorists.

So true. I just read the same thing in Emily Posts book of Etiquette this
afternoon. One thing I hate is rude people on the interstate (especially
those with weapons).

LOL,

Vonn "Devo"


- -----Original Message-----
From: Nigel Rean [SMTP:mind_bomb@clear.net.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 6:17 AM
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: roadrage

On Wed, 13 May 1998 00:54:46 -0700, you wrote:

>i think Lea mentioned the road rage thingy.
>
>My question is.... What the HECK is up with that? Just today i witnessed
>two vehicles going at it in midday traffic at 50-60 MPH. Am i totally
>lost here?

Aye lad... Yee don't want to be traveling roads on which drivers are
wanting to kill each other for failing to indicate a lane change.

>And don't say its a "penis compensation thing" cause if anybody knows
>about that it is ME. i own two 1970 musclecars beefed up to outrageous
>amounts of testosterone, yet i have NEVER engaged in a road rage fest.

I hear some of the more fashionable social scientists claiming that
its got sommit' to do with "population crowding" an' "personal-space".

I don't have much truck with social scientists.

S'far as I'm concerned they're a pack of lifeless nancy-boys
who'd be better off going down to the local for a jolly good lager an'
spouting their faithless theories to a crowd of besotted sponges
rather than allowing the media to regurgitate speculation as fact.

IMHO, it's just plain rude to point (and/or fire) a gun at fellow
motorists.

Even if they don't indicate lane changes. :-(

>Is the whole world clueless? Or is it just me?

It's nay just you Nicko m'boy. The world, as they say, is fucked.
But hey, that doesn't mean you can't spend your 15 minutes
of obscurity laughing at it, yeah? :-)


Hmm.. Methinks I've had a wee too many of those afore-mentioned
lagers this evening.

And just to annoy those naff buggers that would whine about this
being an off-topic post...

What's yer favorite theThe album artwork?

I think I lean towards the "Matt sitting under bulb" art-work that
appeared on the Uncertain Smile single.
Stark naked bulb shining down onto a Matt who appears (It's subtle)
to be hugging himself in defensive/conciliatory manner.

It silently speaks volumes.

A close second being the Mind Bomb album cover,
old' Matt looks positively DEVILISH on that. Those eyes....!

G'Night all.

- --
Nigel (atrophy) Rean.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 19:21:04 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"GmS-Z.A.NnB.bjjW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: roadrage
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 20:22:47 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD7EAC.E5432720.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

And old people are the worst for taking their sweet time.

Vonn "Devo"

- -----Original Message-----
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM [SMTP:astubbs@BayNetworks.COM]
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 1:04 PM
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: roadrage


Ever had one of those days, when you get behind the wheel and just want to
be calm and collected, you don't want to rush, you don't want to get home
in record time, you don't care if you don't squeeze through the
green-light and you don't shake your head in disbelief at all the people
stressing out around you. You know the kind of day when you drive 60Mph
down San Tomas Expressway without a care in the world. But then you get
one of those people who just want to go fast and furious and sit 2 feet
behind your bumper snarling and gnashing their teeth at you. Well that's
me, get out the freaking way you pansy, stop pacing the car besides you
and pull over before I.... before I.... jeeze

- -Anon (no peaking at my return address)



------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 19:56:06 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Z7GWK.A.ZqB.OEkW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Richard Ings , Lea Curry
Cc: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM, mrmoth@hotmail.com,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 17:58:45 -0700
Message-Id: <19980513175619.03c1f802.in@mail.neversoft.com>

At 08:27 PM 5/10/98 +0000, Richard Ings wrote:

>
>Since we indisputably live in a far healthier, far more prosperous world
>than Voltaire's, one question: why the long face?
>

Because despite the fact that for many people the world/happiness is
defined in terms of what you own and how much you have in the bank the
world is considerably more screwed up than it ever was.

Even I cannot single handedly fight off the forces of evil single handedly,
no matter how hard I try.

"Healthier"..?

Mark
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 20:18:08 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"cej73B.A.ttB.5YkW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Richard Ings , Lea Curry
Cc: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM, mrmoth@hotmail.com,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 18:21:10 -0700
Message-Id: <19980513181844.03d67df6.in@mail.neversoft.com>


Sorry, it's been a long day!


>Because despite the fact that for many people the world/happiness is
>defined in terms of what you own and how much you have in the bank the
>world is considerably more screwed up than it ever was.
>
>Even I cannot single handedly fight off the forces of evil single handedly,
>no matter how hard I try.
>
>"Healthier"..?
>
>Mark
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 21:00:52 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"NaDt6.A.HwB._AlW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Megan le Momo
To: Lea Curry
CC: kelly514@Juno.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 18:56:44 -0700
Message-ID: <355A4F5C.427C@pacbell.net>

Lea Curry wrote:
>
> > And what is really the center of the political field? From what I've
> > gathered it's the conservative right.
>
> HUH? It SOUNDS, (lest I unfairly judge you), that this is your PERSONAL
> center, but do you think it is really THE center?

No, what would make you think this? Your subjective reasoning perhaps.

> So you can not be labelled, but everybody else can... those who agree
> with you have common sense and those who dont? What?

I know people who share different views than I, but they still remain
objective. This may come to different conclusions, but it still sets at
the basic core. I respect that.
I don't respect anyone who follows the sheep mentality, regardless of
wether they are 'on my side' or not.

> So rather than agreeing to disagree, or discussing it honestly, you
> should employ "tactics" to win? hmmmmmm....

Winning a debate means nothing. Having meaningful conversations on the
other hand do serve a valuable purpose.

> I have a question, and its serious. Are you originally from the US?
> I
> sense a confusion here, or a newness to our political state, whatever
> that may be. Just curious.

No, I'm native born, just 'discussing it honestly', as you put it. Am I
supposed to close my eyes and revert to blind emotionalism to have an
'understanding'?

ok.

Megan le Momo

this man is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 21:51:02 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"5XKIiC.A.UzB._vlW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Megan le Momo
CC: kelly514@Juno.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 19:53:08 -0700
Message-ID: <355A5C94.91917E5C@sirius.com>

> > HUH? It SOUNDS, (lest I unfairly judge you), that this is your PERSONAL
> > center, but do you think it is really THE center?
>
> No, what would make you think this? Your subjective reasoning perhaps.
>


It just doesnt seem so to me at all, but I might be misreading you. I
base this on what I see in the massmedia. It seems to me that many
conservatives talk about the "liberal media" (when they are disagreeing
with it), but really isnt THAT the center? If so, than I would say that
the center wants to be liberal, but not too liberal. Clinton strikes me
as being dead center with maybe a nod to the conservatives, (a
republocrat). Yeah, I think Clinton is dead center. The approval
ratings might also point to that. Maybe you consider that to be
conservative and if so, then I would aggree.


> > So you can not be labelled, but everybody else can... those who agree
> > with you have common sense and those who dont? What?
>
> I know people who share different views than I, but they still remain
> objective. This may come to different conclusions, but it still sets at
> the basic core. I respect that.
> I don't respect anyone who follows the sheep mentality, regardless of
> wether they are 'on my side' or not.

Makes sense.
>
> > So rather than agreeing to disagree, or discussing it honestly, you
> > should employ "tactics" to win? hmmmmmm....
>
> Winning a debate means nothing. Having meaningful conversations on the
> other hand do serve a valuable purpose.

I was quoting you there. you were saying that Brians comments
sounded like a good tactic. I was wondering what you meant?
>
> > I have a question, and its serious. Are you originally from the US?
> > I
> > sense a confusion here, or a newness to our political state, whatever
> > that may be. Just curious.
>
> No, I'm native born, just 'discussing it honestly', as you put it. Am I
> supposed to close my eyes and revert to blind emotionalism to have an
> 'understanding'?

Not at all. I just didnt understand your writing.
>
> HUH? It SOUNDS, (lest I unfairly judge you), that this is your PERSONAL
> center, but do you think it is really THE center?

No, what would make you think this? Your subjective reasoning perhaps.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 23:09:38 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"gnr2ZC.A.45B.p5mW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Megan le Momo , Lea Curry
Cc: kelly514@Juno.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 21:12:44 -0700
Message-Id: <19980513211023.0473aa11.in@mail.neversoft.com>



curious that a man with clearly left od centre politics (Matt ZJohnson)
should have so many avidly right wing gun toting listeners don't you think?

Mark

At 06:56 PM 5/13/98 -0700, Megan le Momo wrote:
>Lea Curry wrote:
>>
>> > And what is really the center of the political field? From what I've
>> > gathered it's the conservative right.
>>
>> HUH? It SOUNDS, (lest I unfairly judge you), that this is your PERSONAL
>> center, but do you think it is really THE center?
>
>No, what would make you think this? Your subjective reasoning perhaps.
>
>> So you can not be labelled, but everybody else can... those who agree
>> with you have common sense and those who dont? What?
>
>I know people who share different views than I, but they still remain
>objective. This may come to different conclusions, but it still sets at
>the basic core. I respect that.
>I don't respect anyone who follows the sheep mentality, regardless of
>wether they are 'on my side' or not.
>
>> So rather than agreeing to disagree, or discussing it honestly, you
>> should employ "tactics" to win? hmmmmmm....
>
>Winning a debate means nothing. Having meaningful conversations on the
>other hand do serve a valuable purpose.
>
>> I have a question, and its serious. Are you originally from the US?
>> I
>> sense a confusion here, or a newness to our political state, whatever
>> that may be. Just curious.
>
>No, I'm native born, just 'discussing it honestly', as you put it. Am I
>supposed to close my eyes and revert to blind emotionalism to have an
>'understanding'?
>
>ok.
>
>Megan le Momo
>
>this man is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 23:10:51 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"adLjv.A.u7B.x6mW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Kyle Milligan"
To: "Mark Scott"
Cc: "Infected"
Subject: Re: the gun debate shall continue!
Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 23:43:32 -0700
Message-Id: <199805140410.AAA07528@toronto.planeteer.com>


Sanity. It's welcome. Thank you.

Kyle Milligan
toldyaso@planeteer.com

- ----------
> From: Mark Scott
> To: Richard Ings
> Cc: Infected
> Subject: Re: the gun debate shall continue!
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 11:40 AM
>
>
> Seems to me if you grew up with guns, then to have them taken away would be
> like losing a limb.
> Of course if you're like me and you have lost a child, then you can
> understand losing something that is so much a part of you. The gun nuts
> (that's any of you that think guns are a good thing) think that to lose the
> gun is to lose part of themselves and to lose their freedom.
>
> You'll get over it.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 09:09:49 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"3rj2SD.A.rKC.asvW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "David Osbourne"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Unsubscribe
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 13:04:57 +0100
Message-ID: <86256604.004DD161.00@internet-502.interliant.com>





Unsubscribe
- --
****************************************
This document should only be read by those persons to whom it is addressed
and is not intended to be relied upon by any person without subsequent
written confirmation of its contents. Accordingly, Coopers & Lybrand
disclaim all responsibility and accept no liability (including in
negligence) for the consequences for any person acting, or refraining from
acting, on such information prior to the receipt by those persons of
subsequent written confirmation.

If you have received this E-mail message in error, please notify us
immediately by telephone. Please also destroy and delete the message from
your computer.

Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification,
distribution and/or publication of this E-mail message is strictly
prohibited.
****************************************


------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 10:38:39 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Tmu4CC.A.jPC.s_wW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: kelly514@Juno.com
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Rush and the company he keeps
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 08:40:55 -0700
Message-ID: <355B1087.7CD55235@sirius.com>

> Actually there is no evidence that crack babies are any different than
> "normal" babies and you insult those who have been born from mothers who
> were crack addicts.

As the God mother of a crack exposed baby who is now 7, I beg to
differ. I have talked to this childs counsellers, medical people, and
so on, for the last 7 years and he isnt alone either. Attention deficit
doesnt QUITE begin to describe it. He was slow to talk, cant focus on
anything for more than a few minutes, used to be seconds, ,and is way
behind where he should be, but he isnt autistic. He's a bright lovable
kid, in fact, but to say that there is no such thing puts you in
complete disagreement with all of the specialists this child has seen.
(Many of them published). They are all public health or associated with
it, and this is what they specialize in, and not because its a
lucrative fad, (like the Satanic Ritual Abuse Insurance scheme) This is
all Medi-cal work!

Through all the specialists he has seen, his dx remains constant.
"crack exposed". I know a foster mom who takes these babies, (she took
my Godson for a period of time when his mom relapsed- and yes I would
have taken him but I did not have a place that was suitable, nor did I
want to place myself in a position where his mother (my friend from days
before she discovered the joy of crack) would request that I bend the
rules too easilly, He needed to be in CPS protected custody for a
time). This foster mom has about 30 years of experience in infant foster
care. She now just takes the drug exposed infants, and has for about
the last 8 years. They are very agitated, and they often cry
constantly, they are hypersensitive to any stimuli and need to be kept
very quiet, etc, because they over-respond. They are CRANKY to an
almost pathalogical degree very often and most foster moms dont want to
deal with this, so they send them to people like THIS woman). They are
slow to develop verbal skills and many seem deaf for quite some time.
For a while they were misdiagnosing this AS deafness, but it isnt a
hearing problem, they know now, its cognitive. They preform the same as
a deaf child in infancy hearing tests, MUCH (not all) of the time.

Now I dont know what your books or experience SAY, sir, but I have
been involved with this pretty intimately.

To this day my seven year old Godson, is often "cognitively" deaf.
This can last for a few seconds up to several minutes. He goes into
almost a spell. He has been to quite a few specialists, each one
confirming this is the result of inutero exposure to cocaine). And
luckilly, his mom was in jail and off the stuff for the last trimester
she carried him- so this was early). Are they not lovable because of
this? Of COURSE not. He's a sweetheart.


> Anyone realize there is a 7 to 10 year waiting list for parents who want
> to adopt babies in this country?

Newborn babies, in perfect health being the key words. There are
PLENTY of children in Foster Care where they will remain for their
childhood life, and foster homes for less than perfect infants are in
very short supply.

And unfortunately, way too may people dont give them up until they are
quite a bit older. The kind of hell these kids go through before they
get to foster care, .... i cant even finish that sentance. Thats why my
lady specializes in this, and she has been full up for quite some time.
So what are you talking about?

> Anyone realize that 1 out of 5 couples have difficulty conceiving?

Anyone hear of these couples spending OUTRAGEOUS sums of money in
fertility treatments before they even consider adopting? And do they
adopt an unwanted inner city kid? of course not. Too bad they wouldnt
even be willing to sponser some of these kids in foster care with all
that money. But unfortunately , "everybody wants a new one", preferably
their own. And it BETTER be "PERFECT"
>
> There is no such thing as an unwanted baby in this country!

Now, I am really trying to be nice. A kinder gentler Lea. But this is
such a hackneyd phrase you should put quotes around it. AND it is
so ridiculously untrue, that I wonder if even you really can mean that?
I think you should come on over to my hood for a while. Well, its true,
they DO want those kids to deal crack across the street, and they are
not babies anymore, some are almost 10. But they were babies not so
long ago, and they havent EVER been WANTED, except for what they could
be used for. As a "pet" for an insecure teenager who wants "somebody
to love them" until they take too much work. For the welfare payment,
and Id be the first to argue that this isnt why people on welfare have
babies, in general. But throw a drug habit in there, and IVE SEEN IT,
SIR!, and to run when they get old enough, or be turned out. I know of
someone very close, who left her young boy with known pedophiles, as
long as they kept buying her crack. They a "baby sitting service", for
a crack house. A baby sitting service with a locked room full of video
equipment. Dont tell me Im making it up, my Godson was left there,
shortly before I opened a case with CPS and had him removed. Nice, eh?

I am WAY WAY too close to this to listen to slogans like that and not
get a little ticked. The mother of this child has gone on to have 2
more. One, when she was temporarilly clean, was adopted through her
fathers church after MONTHS of looking. Do you know how many
"Christian" couples who "desperately wanted a baby" turned this baby
down because it was of mixed race, before they FINALLY found these
parents? Over 30! They were always really interested until they found
THAT out. NOW, this woman is pregnant AGAIN, at 40, and she lives with
a drug dealer. I did manage to walk her through an abortion about 5
years ago, on what would have been a yet another child in her chaotic
life, (shes bent on keeping them, now), and I consider it NOT a murder,
but a good deed.

You may certainly disagree. But dont even try these platitudes here.
If you would like to come up here, Ill be glad to show you the unwanted,
and uncared for babies in THIS neighborhood.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 10:48:14 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"-OMtQC.A.ZTC.pIxW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Patrick A. Stewart"
To: kelly514@juno.com
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Rush and the company he keeps
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 10:47:31 -0500
Message-Id: <355B1213.5C87@corn.cso.niu.edu>

Hi Mark-- few problems with your assertions:
>
> Actually there is no evidence that crack babies are any different than
> "normal" babies and you insult those who have been born from mothers who
> were crack addicts. Even the most deformed babies are wanted and all you
> have to do is call your local adoption agency to confirm this.
>
There is plenty of evidence that individuals are affected in the womb.
For instance, frightening a mother during the intra-uterine period of an
embryo's growth does affect fear and stress responses of the individual
once they are out of the womb. Specifically, it affects the brain
chemistry and hence the emergent personality (see J.A. Gray's "The
Psychology of fear and stress.") and tends to make them more violence
prone. Further, some researchers posit that _a_ reason for violence in
the inner cities is due to the lack of "good" nutrition (especially
during the key early years of development), which may be responsible for
lower threshold levels for violence. Of course, further violence can
probably be chalked up to Ronnie Reagan and his "catsup is a vegetable"
plan. In the interest of learning, I would welcome any evidence to the
contrary, especially physiological data.

Second, it is not an insult to crack babies, just a statement of
potential problems.

Third, in response to the deformed babies-- they may be wanted
(especially as political selling points), but are they being taken.
And, what sort of life are they being relegated to?

> Secondly there is a difference between prolife and anti-abortion. The
> former do not support killing doctors as some of the latter will go
> through any means possible to stop abortions.
There might be a difference in kind. I can be prolife AND prochoice at
the same time. However, unless individuals are willing to put their
money where there mouth is-- be prepared to be judged as a hypocrite.

>
> Anyone realize there is a 7 to 10 year waiting list for parents who want
> to adopt babies in this country?
Is that due to bureaucratic problems, or just demand for children?
Also, do you realize that significantly more abuse and murder occurs to
adopted children from their adoptive parents than to "natural" children
from their parents. (Daly and Wilson "Homicide").

> Anyone realize that 1 out of 5 couples have difficulty conceiving?
Yes, probably due to environmental influences. And artificial
insemination and ova implantation has become a big market for those who
want children that are related to them. However, this is -choice-, not
something thrust upon them.
>
> There is no such thing as an unwanted baby in this country!
Yes-- for instance, myself and my three sisters who are the result of
failed contraceptive devices.

>
> Think about it.
Already have, and I've studied it too-- which is a big difference than
just making assertions.
>
Patrick

> Brian
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> 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
> Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 11:14:58 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"aMkf7B.A.2VC.thxW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: JWH
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Unsubscribe
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 09:14:33 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID:

Did I just break the law? (last paragraph)
If so, how the hell are they going to enforce it?

A thought...
~jwh

On Thu, 14 May 1998, David Osbourne wrote:
> Unsubscribe
> --
> ****************************************
> This document should only be read by those persons to whom it is addressed
> and is not intended to be relied upon by any person without subsequent
> written confirmation of its contents. Accordingly, Coopers & Lybrand
> disclaim all responsibility and accept no liability (including in
> negligence) for the consequences for any person acting, or refraining from
> acting, on such information prior to the receipt by those persons of
> subsequent written confirmation.
>
> If you have received this E-mail message in error, please notify us
> immediately by telephone. Please also destroy and delete the message from
> your computer.
>
> Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification,
> distribution and/or publication of this E-mail message is strictly
> prohibited.
> ****************************************
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 13:20:41 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"JH1KcD.A.gmC.hVzW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Patrick A. Stewart"
To: highwayman
Cc: infected list
Subject: Re: Fw: Virus Warning
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 13:17:33 -0500
Message-Id: <355B353D.1F01@corn.cso.niu.edu>

Ohmygod... its the Good Times Virus yet again!!

Actually, you can not get a virus on your computer unless you download
files. As e-mail is a read only file and as such is not a program that
is being run, you cannot get a virus this way.

But thanks for the scare,

Patrick

highwayman wrote:
>
> Look, I thought this might be impotant to know.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen Lemon
> To: 'Glenn Lemon'
> Date: 14 May 1998 13:29
> Subject: FW: Virus Warning
>
> >> Subject: FW: Virus Warning
> >>
> >> Please read the following
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> From: IT Mick Bright
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 1998 12:11 PM
> >> To: I.T. Business Unit
> >> Subject: FW: Virus Warning
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Subject: Virus Warning
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > << >THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!!!
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >"READ AND THEN FORWARD TO EVERYONE!!!!!!!"
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >If you receive an e-mail titled "WIN A HOLIDAY" DO NOT open it.
> >> It
> >> > will
> >> > >erase everything on your hard drive. Forward this to as many
> >> people
> >> > that
> >> > >you
> >> > >know and as fast as possible.
> >> > >This is a new, very malicious virus and not many people know about
> >> > it.
> >> > >This
> >> > >information was announced yesterday morning from Microsoft; please
> >> > share
> >> > >it
> >> > >with anyone that migh acess the internet. Once again, pass this
> >> > along to
> >> > >EVERYONE!!!!!! in your address book so that this may be stopped.
> >> > >
> >> > >ALSO, do not open or even look at any mail that says "RETURNED OR
> >> > UNABLE
> >> > >TO
> >> > >DELIVER" This virus will attach itself to your computer
> >> components
> >> > and
> >> > >render
> >> > >them useless. Immediately delete any mail items that say this.
> >> AOL
> >> > has
> >> > >said
> >> > >that this is a very dangerous virus and that there is no remedy
> >> for
> >> > it at
> >> > >this
> >> > >time. Please practice cautionary measures and forward this to
> >> all
> >> > your
> >> > >online friends ASAP.
> >>
> >>
> >
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 13:22:21 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"_gpSHB.A.hnC.FXzW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Patrick A. Stewart"
To: highwayman
Cc: infected list
Subject: Re: Gun debate
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 13:19:16 -0500
Message-Id: <355B35A4.6701@corn.cso.niu.edu>

highwayman wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nat Light
> To: 'highwayman'
> Date: 14 May 1998 01:22
> Subject: RE: Gun debate
>
> >I need them. I enjoy hunting and eating game.
> >
>
> I HOPE you are joking.
>
Actually, this seems to be the only valid reason to have guns. At least
he's involved with the cycle of life and eating what he kills. Long
live Ted Nugent!!

Patrick
> >Vonn "Devo"
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: highwayman [SMTP:highwayman@clara.net]
> >Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 2:25 PM
> >To: infected list
> >Subject: Gun debate
> >
> >Banning guns restricts your personal freedom? I don't think so. Has making
> >murder illegal restricted your personal freedom? How can something which
> >can only be used to kill or injure increase your personal freedom?
> >Unless you want the freedom to kill or injure in which case it does.
> >Otherwise the logical thing would, since it is impossible to weed out the
> >potential psychos, make them unavailable to all. That way no mistake can
> >be made. Do you really undervalue life by that much to allow such an
> >accident to happen?
> >All life is sacred. All human beings are sacred. We cannot increase the
> >risk of death by having legalized firearms. By allowing one accidental
> >death or serial killing because of a arrogant refusal to opt to ban
> >firearms, you are guilty of manslaughter, and so is everyone who ever
> >defended legalized firearms.
> >Do the world a favour, do yourself a favour, ban guns. Who would need them
> >anyway?
> >
> > << File: ATT00000.htm >>
> >
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 13:49:44 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"7SaCsD.A.LsC.syzW1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: highwayman@clara.net, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: Virus Warning
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 11:47:34 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E17E2@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>

No it won't. Just don't run any attachments. Text messages just aren't very effective viruses.
- -ADrian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: highwayman [SMTP:highwayman@clara.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 10:41 AM
> To: infected list
> Subject: Fw: Virus Warning
>
> Look, I thought this might be impotant to know.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Glen Lemon
> To: 'Glenn Lemon'
> Date: 14 May 1998 13:29
> Subject: FW: Virus Warning
>
>
> >> Subject: FW: Virus Warning
> >>
> >> Please read the following
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> From: IT Mick Bright
> >> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 1998 12:11 PM
> >> To: I.T. Business Unit
> >> Subject: FW: Virus Warning
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Subject: Virus Warning
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > << >THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!!!
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >"READ AND THEN FORWARD TO EVERYONE!!!!!!!"
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >If you receive an e-mail titled "WIN A HOLIDAY" DO NOT open it.
> >> It
> >> > will
> >> > >erase everything on your hard drive. Forward this to as many
> >> people
> >> > that
> >> > >you
> >> > >know and as fast as possible.
> >> > >This is a new, very malicious virus and not many people know about
> >> > it.
> >> > >This
> >> > >information was announced yesterday morning from Microsoft; please
> >> > share
> >> > >it
> >> > >with anyone that migh acess the internet. Once again, pass this
> >> > along to
> >> > >EVERYONE!!!!!! in your address book so that this may be stopped.
> >> > >
> >> > >ALSO, do not open or even look at any mail that says "RETURNED OR
> >> > UNABLE
> >> > >TO
> >> > >DELIVER" This virus will attach itself to your computer
> >> components
> >> > and
> >> > >render
> >> > >them useless. Immediately delete any mail items that say this.
> >> AOL
> >> > has
> >> > >said
> >> > >that this is a very dangerous virus and that there is no remedy
> >> for
> >> > it at
> >> > >this
> >> > >time. Please practice cautionary measures and forward this to
> >> all
> >> > your
> >> > >online friends ASAP.
> >>
> >>
> >
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:00:05 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"ogPL_.A.7wD.At1W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Stefan Wills"
To: "'Richard Ings'"
Cc:
Subject: RE: the gun debate shall continue!
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:59:24 -0400
Message-ID: <000501bd7f7b$2e0fe320$b90c948e@mjollnir>

In Canada there is a strong push to restrict or ban handguns. The end
result seems to be that people who have a desire to abide by the law are
going to have a tougher time complying while the people that have no wish or
desire to be restricted by our laws seem to have no difficulty picking up
guns illegally and will not to be inconvenienced or restricted by these
laws. I'm not sure as to what practical purpose a law restricting guns
would actually have in this case beyond possibly alienating those that do
wish to remain law abiding. Here the issue seems largely divided up into
two camps: people that live in large cities who largely would like firearms
to be banned or severely restricted and poeple that live outside of large
urban centres who generally feel that having a gun is a normal part of life
(for hunting i suppose). I am not a firearm owner and neither am I a gun
advocate. This issue does not seem to have many people in the middle
ground.

Just my own thoughts...I would think that making penalties/consequences for
use of firearms in a crime much more severe would probably be more useful
than banning firearms or restricting them. Punish the crimes commited.
Having a gun should not equate one with being a criminal.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Richard Ings [mailto:bridge@starmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 1998 5:14 PM
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Cc: Richard Ings
Subject: Re: the gun debate shall continue!


Four words: cake and eat it

You don't think banning guns is practical (fair enough) but we need more
restrictions on who can get them. I hope your not wantonly missing my point
- - that the implication is the same: we cannot trust anyone who wants to own
a gun. Remove the words "who wants to own a gun" from the last sentence and
I think we have a fair description of the view most people have of each
other today. What is the one of the most popular TV series at the moment?
The X-files. And its motto: Trust no-one....

At 11:19 13/05/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:

> I never voiced a desire to ban guns. We all agree that isnt
>practical. So allthe grandstanding about "democracy" really is moot. I
>suggested a very severe penalty, (years in prison) for carrying one
>concealed without a permit. Two different THINGS.
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:26:03 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"9AQ0WC.A.BeD.pM1W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Richard Ings
To:
Cc: Richard Ings
Subject: Re: the gun debate shall continue!
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 21:14:14
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980514211414.3ee7579a@mail.clara.net>

Four words: cake and eat it

You don't think banning guns is practical (fair enough) but we need more
restrictions on who can get them. I hope your not wantonly missing my point
- - that the implication is the same: we cannot trust anyone who wants to own
a gun. Remove the words "who wants to own a gun" from the last sentence and
I think we have a fair description of the view most people have of each
other today. What is the one of the most popular TV series at the moment?
The X-files. And its motto: Trust no-one....

At 11:19 13/05/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:

> I never voiced a desire to ban guns. We all agree that isnt
>practical. So allthe grandstanding about "democracy" really is moot. I
>suggested a very severe penalty, (years in prison) for carrying one
>concealed without a permit. Two different THINGS.
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 15:04:24 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"zi93x.A.d1G.x-JX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Richard Ings
To: "highwayman"
Cc: "infected list"
Subject: Re: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 21:48:47
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980514214847.2fa7f79a@mail.clara.net>

not wrong - my point was that Voltaire believed in progress, and Pangloss
was the character who said nothing could be any better than this "the best
of all possible worlds". Today everyone says this, but not because they
believe everything is fine - instead because attempts at change will
probably make things worse.

At 18:36 13/05/98 +0100, highwayman wrote:
>>>
>Voltaire wrote Candide to disprove that idea. The essense is basically all
>is not for the best.
>
>If we believed blindly that all was for the best etc, then nobody would
>bother to try and change things because all is for the best in the best of
>all possible worlds.
>

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression"
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:46:52 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Xm3-xB.A.C4D.3Y2W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Richard Ings
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu, Richard Ings
Subject: Re: the gun debate shall continue!
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 14:49:04 -0700
Message-ID: <355B66D0.F092619@sirius.com>

You don't think banning guns is practical (fair enough) but we need more
> restrictions on who can get them.

I didnt say that!


Hummm... I think you are missing MY point.

I am saying: toughen the penalties for CARRYING (concealed) the gun.
It is ILLEGAL to carry a firearm concealed on your body, without a
special permit. You can carry it in the trunk of your car, or strap it
to your belt if it shows, (ordinances vary on this I do believe), or
keep it at home. I have not mentioned placing any restrictions on WHO
can get them. I have not mentioned creating ANY new laws, just
enforcing the ones we have now.

This may not make sense to a Canadian because I dont have any idea if
you have a law regarding PACKING a gun, vs Owning a gun, but we do.



TRUST: NO, I DO NOT trust the VAST majority of people to CARRY a gun.
If this is treating them like children, thats too bad. Its a good law.
Just as I do not want them to be vigilanties they have no business
breaking these laws because they feel THEY are more law abiding then a
criminal. bullshit. If they break it they ARE a criminal, too!

The law is already in place and has always been in place, so I am not
suggesting any new restrictions, as you seem to imply.


Finally, STIFFENING the penalty for illegally packing would land a lot
of people in jail that are repeat offenders, (ie THUGS) who now get off
on technicalities. Now I would love the NRA or anyone else who feels
very strongly that the right to own a gun is holy, to tell me why a
tightening of the penalty for PACKING, ILLEGALLY isnt OK. Surely they
do not advocate not obeying EXSISTING gun laws. Or do they?

Right now there is a wink wink, nod nod, over this LAW. ENOUGH. We
will not be sucsessful in banning handguns. But we CAN demand tougher
penalties and that so called responsible handgun owners obey the current
LAW. If they ARE, then why should they MIND toughening the penalty for
breaking exsisting laws.

They are EITHER law abiding or NOT. You cant claim to be both!

Lea




Richard Ings wrote:
>
> Four words: cake and eat it
>
> You don't think banning guns is practical (fair enough) but we need more
> restrictions on who can get them. I hope your not wantonly missing my point
> - that the implication is the same: we cannot trust anyone who wants to own
> a gun. Remove the words "who wants to own a gun" from the last sentence and
> I think we have a fair description of the view most people have of each
> other today. What is the one of the most popular TV series at the moment?
> The X-files. And its motto: Trust no-one....
>
> At 11:19 13/05/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:
>
> > I never voiced a desire to ban guns. We all agree that isnt
> >practical. So allthe grandstanding about "democracy" really is moot. I
> >suggested a very severe penalty, (years in prison) for carrying one
> >concealed without a permit. Two different THINGS.
> >
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 17:04:50 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"VM0d3C.A.36D.up2W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Megan le Momo
To: Lea Curry
CC: kelly514@Juno.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:04:15 -0700
Message-ID: <355B6A5F.613F@pacbell.net>

Lea Curry wrote:
> It just doesnt seem so to me at all, but I might be misreading you. I
> base this on what I see in the massmedia. It seems to me that many
> conservatives talk about the "liberal media" (when they are
> disagreeing
> with it),

Compare the negative press on liberals to conservatives. Dennis Prager
did a net search once on fascist and found that it was almost always
used with republicans, and prorgressive, compassionate liberals.

Take a look at Paula Jones vs Anita Hill, Clinton vs Nixon...etc, etc.

The real problem here is the people in this country are far to
susceptible to sloaganeering.

A good example is the average person who only hears the surface
information off of the media. It's rare that they know what's really
going on. If you ask them a question about a political situation the
odds are for them quoting the liberal line.
Tested and proven.

I was quite skeptical of both sides when I was younger, I was never too
inclined to trusting anyone's word, knowing how shaky this tends to be!
But I really looked into what both sides had to say.
The conservative side really listed off the facts, said what was wrong
with the situation, where, why, and how it went wrong.
The liberal side of it was off-base personal attacks, mud-slinging, and
words not only put into others mouths. Most interesting thing was that
they often accused 'others' of exactly what they were guilty of.

I was really fascinated by this, and I really couldn't believe that
people have no realization of what is going on. But then I began
observing, and I saw that people rarely look beyond the surface and
accept what is spoon fed to them.

> but really isnt THAT the center? If so, than I would say that
> the center wants to be liberal, but not too liberal. Clinton strikes me
> as being dead center with maybe a nod to the conservatives, (a
> republocrat). Yeah, I think Clinton is dead center. The approval
> ratings might also point to that. Maybe you consider that to be
> conservative and if so, then I would aggree.

During his campaign he was, but after he got elected he returned to his
more liberal side. Clinton is not even close.
Look at the political views.
There is no laws whatsoever.
Nothing but laws.
And the inbetween.

No laws whatsoever = libertarianism
No limits to laws = communism

Extreme right & Extreme left.

Liberalism is basically a safer version of communism. If you want to
argue, look at where all the former communists check the ballot every
year.

Where does conservatism fall?

> I was quoting you there. you were saying that Brians comments
> sounded like a good tactic. I was wondering what you meant?

Ah, ok, then I misunderstood you as well!
Megan

i can resist anything except temptation -wilde
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 17:09:36 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"JNZnCB.A.18D.Lu2W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Megan le Momo
To: Lea Curry
CC: kelly514@Juno.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:08:54 -0700
Message-ID: <355B6B76.FE5@pacbell.net>

Lea Curry wrote:
> It just doesnt seem so to me at all, but I might be misreading you. I
> base this on what I see in the massmedia. It seems to me that many
> conservatives talk about the "liberal media" (when they are disagreeing
> with it), but really isnt THAT the center? If so, than I would say that
> the center wants to be liberal, but not too liberal. Clinton strikes me
> as being dead center with maybe a nod to the conservatives, (a
> republocrat). Yeah, I think Clinton is dead center. The approval
> ratings might also point to that. Maybe you consider that to be
> conservative and if so, then I would aggree.

Missed this.
I think the approval ratings point more to the media slant.
As well as the fact that you can never trust statistics. Statistics,
survey, and polls can easily be doctored up to shown the opposite of
what it is meant to. I have a friend that was polled once, and gave a
conservative based response. Was polled only once.
My ex-boyfriend's mother is a long-standing democrat and is polled every
6 month period (or whatever it is).

Megan



'am i writing this because im hammerstein
....Or am i hammerstein because I wrote this'
- -marshall barer
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 17:14:42 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"4WnaCD.A.9_D.6y2W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: FW: the gun debate shall continue!
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:12:50 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E17E4@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>




> Lea
>
> I 'm not partaking in this side of the debate 'cos I don't know the facts. This packing vs Carrying business. Are these statements true.
>
> If I carried a gun in my suitcase, it would be legal.
> If I carried a gun in my holster on my person it would be illegal.
>
> so,,,
> Is it legal to walk around with it in your hand ? If not how would you ever manage to use it. I can't see it being much use defensively if you have to unlock your suitcase and rummage around in your underwear before using it. The assailant would have shot you or fallen asleep. Is that the point ?
>
> Confused
>
> -Adrian
>
>
> You don't think banning guns is practical (fair enough) but we need more
> > restrictions on who can get them.
>
> I didnt say that!
>
>
> Hummm... I think you are missing MY point.
>
> I am saying: toughen the penalties for CARRYING (concealed) the gun.
> It is ILLEGAL to carry a firearm concealed on your body, without a
> special permit. You can carry it in the trunk of your car, or strap it
> to your belt if it shows, (ordinances vary on this I do believe), or
> keep it at home. I have not mentioned placing any restrictions on WHO
> can get them. I have not mentioned creating ANY new laws, just
> enforcing the ones we have now.
>
> This may not make sense to a Canadian because I dont have any idea if
> you have a law regarding PACKING a gun, vs Owning a gun, but we do.
>
>
>
> TRUST: NO, I DO NOT trust the VAST majority of people to CARRY a gun.
> If this is treating them like children, thats too bad. Its a good law.
> Just as I do not want them to be vigilanties they have no business
> breaking these laws because they feel THEY are more law abiding then a
> criminal. bullshit. If they break it they ARE a criminal, too!
>
> The law is already in place and has always been in place, so I am not
> suggesting any new restrictions, as you seem to imply.
>
>
> Finally, STIFFENING the penalty for illegally packing would land a lot
> of people in jail that are repeat offenders, (ie THUGS) who now get off
> on technicalities. Now I would love the NRA or anyone else who feels
> very strongly that the right to own a gun is holy, to tell me why a
> tightening of the penalty for PACKING, ILLEGALLY isnt OK. Surely they
> do not advocate not obeying EXSISTING gun laws. Or do they?
>
> Right now there is a wink wink, nod nod, over this LAW. ENOUGH. We
> will not be sucsessful in banning handguns. But we CAN demand tougher
> penalties and that so called responsible handgun owners obey the current
> LAW. If they ARE, then why should they MIND toughening the penalty for
> breaking exsisting laws.
>
> They are EITHER law abiding or NOT. You cant claim to be both!
>
> Lea
>
>
>
>
> Richard Ings wrote:
> >
> > Four words: cake and eat it
> >
> > You don't think banning guns is practical (fair enough) but we need more
> > restrictions on who can get them. I hope your not wantonly missing my point
> > - that the implication is the same: we cannot trust anyone who wants to own
> > a gun. Remove the words "who wants to own a gun" from the last sentence and
> > I think we have a fair description of the view most people have of each
> > other today. What is the one of the most popular TV series at the moment?
> > The X-files. And its motto: Trust no-one....
> >
> > At 11:19 13/05/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:
> >
> > > I never voiced a desire to ban guns. We all agree that isnt
> > >practical. So allthe grandstanding about "democracy" really is moot. I
> > >suggested a very severe penalty, (years in prison) for carrying one
> > >concealed without a permit. Two different THINGS.
> > >
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 17:18:05 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"nlmbkB.A.GCE.I22W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Megan le Momo
To: Mark Scott
CC: Lea Curry , kelly514@Juno.com,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:17:15 -0700
Message-ID: <355B6D6B.1871@pacbell.net>

Mark Scott wrote:
>
> curious that a man with clearly left od centre politics (Matt ZJohnson)
> should have so many avidly right wing gun toting listeners don't you think?

Excuse me, but the slinging of mud is reserved for when one runs out of
facts.

Thanks for putting words into my mouth, proving my a common point of
mine. 1.I do not tote a gun, nor own one, haven't even ever touched the
beast!
2. Not even right wing. Libertarianism is probably more like it,
excluding my post of before that would put it right of center.

Curious that a genius like Matt Johnson has so many listeners that
devote their consciousness to the sheep mentality.

toodles
&
desperately seeking coffee,
Megan

life is far too serious a thing to be taken seriously -wilde
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 17:24:24 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"ckyYqD.A.7EE.872W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Megan le Momo
To: highwayman
CC: infected list ,
Richard Ings
Subject: Re: Profound(?) Questions
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:23:36 -0700
Message-ID: <355B6EE8.3B6C@pacbell.net>

highwayman wrote:
> If we believed blindly that all was for the best etc, then nobody would
> bother to try and change things because all is for the best in the best of
> all possible worlds.

agreed.

And perhaps the best is for you to change the best to something else.

may fruit run free
megan
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 11:59:32 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"adbYc.A.nHC.e1FZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Megan le Momo
Cc: Lea Curry , kelly514@Juno.com,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:01:07 -0700
Message-Id: <19980514155858.087d1290.in@mail.neversoft.com>


"LORD BLACKADDER: Try to have an original thought Baldrick, thinking is so
important.

What do you think, Baldrick?

BALDRICK: I think thinking is so important my lord..."

Personally I just have my own opinions and if something rubs me up the
wrong way - usually by being just plain wrong - I tend to voice them.

And...did I mention your name in that post..? I think not...I think you
recognised yourself and decided to lash out - you know you can get help for
that. I believe there's a psychiatrist who contributes to these audacious
pages - you should contact him.

I doubt that Matt has many sheep like listeners, it would be at odds with
his place in music really. I suspect that most of the audience are
individualists - obviously of wildly varying kinds - the point of my post
was to elicit a more general response from some of the less liberal people
in the Matt universe, specifically about what it is that appeals to them
about his music. Most right wingers I have met would probably boil over and
have a brain embolism at Mr Johnson's lyrics.

So, nicely missed point there Megan, well done, it wasn't really about you.

Mark


At 03:17 PM 5/14/98 -0700, Megan le Momo wrote:
>Mark Scott wrote:
>>
>> curious that a man with clearly left od centre politics (Matt ZJohnson)
>> should have so many avidly right wing gun toting listeners don't you think?

>Thanks for putting words into my mouth, proving my a common point of
>mine. 1.I do not tote a gun, nor own one, haven't even ever touched the
>beast!
>2. Not even right wing. Libertarianism is probably more like it,
>excluding my post of before that would put it right of center.
>
>Curious that a genius like Matt Johnson has so many listeners that
>devote their consciousness to the sheep mentality.
>
>toodles
>&
>desperately seeking coffee,
>Megan
>
>life is far too serious a thing to be taken seriously -wilde
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 18:05:32 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"rpsL7B.A.1JE.oi3W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Megan le Momo
To: Mark Scott
CC: Lea Curry , kelly514@Juno.com,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:04:37 -0700
Message-ID: <355B7885.5B68@pacbell.net>

Mark Scott wrote:
> So, nicely missed point there Megan, well done, it wasn't really about
> you.

Ah, well, responding to my post, which was at the bottom of yours --
which in my internet world means that's what you're responding to --
hence the reason as to why it has been left their.

Where's your netiquette Mr.Man!
Megan le
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 18:09:36 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Nt-SVD.A.wLE.Zm3W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: [Fwd: Extremists can always be weeded out]
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:11:50 -0700
Message-ID: <355B7A36.19428E87@sirius.com>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------D155F4E3B2A6D78A0AC95703
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


- --------------D155F4E3B2A6D78A0AC95703
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: (from lea@localhost)
by mail3.sirius.com (8.8.7/Sirius-8.8.7-97.08.12) id PAA18923
for lea@sirius.com.filt; Thu, 14 May 1998 15:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: mail3.sirius.com: lea set sender to lea@sirius.com using -f
Received: from sirius.com (ppp-asfm02--076.sirius.net [205.134.240.76])
by mail3.sirius.com (8.8.7/Sirius-8.8.7-97.08.12) with ESMTP id PAA18910;
Thu, 14 May 1998 15:16:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <355B6DDF.B95B42C@sirius.com>
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 15:19:11 -0700
From: Lea Curry
Organization: not
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (Win95; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Megan le Momo
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
References: <19980513.085024.3462.0.kelly514@juno.com> <3559F031.6F9@pacbell.net> <3559FC4C.CC1436EC@sirius.com> <355A4F5C.427C@pacbell.net> <355A5C94.91917E5C@sirius.com> <355B6A5F.613F@pacbell.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

If you ask even the MOST conservative conservatives they will tell you
that Clinton has become FAR more conservative since taking office. They
like to gloat over this and it generally pisses off the democrats. he
has NOT become more liberal. I dont know WHERE you are getting this.

> During his campaign he was, but after he got elected he returned to his
> more liberal side. Clinton is not even close.
> Look at the political views.
> There is no laws whatsoever.

WHAT???? What do you mean by this?

As far as facts and sloganeering, wasnt it you that thought Rush
Limbaugh made sense? (maybe I have you confused with somebody else).

> I was quite skeptical of both sides when I was younger, I was never too
> inclined to trusting anyone's word, knowing how shaky this tends to be!
> But I really looked into what both sides had to say.
> The conservative side really listed off the facts, said what was wrong
> with the situation, where, why, and how it went wrong.
> The liberal side of it was off-base personal attacks, mud-slinging, and
> words not only put into others mouths.


Rush is the biggest example of what you decry ever to exist. If you do
not think he uses personal attacks and mud slinging, then I dont think
you are....... for real.




> Nothing but laws.
> And the inbetween.

WHAT?
>
> No laws whatsoever = libertarianism
> No limits to laws = communism

WHAT?
>
> Extreme right & Extreme left.
>
> Liberalism is basically a safer version of communism.

Is your mommy home? Im sorry, but again, you make nonsensical
statements.

If you want to
> argue, look at where all the former communists check the ballot every
> year.

I cant argue such a broad statement. It doesnt make any sense.
Communists might eat Wonder bread, too, it doesnt make Wonder bread
communist.
>
> Where does conservatism fall?

WHAT?

How old are you? Im not sure where you are getting what you call
facts, but this is pretty far fetched. I am having a hard time taking
you seriously. And I really wonder what you hear Matt Johnson saying, or
what attracts you to him.

Whew!

Lea



- --------------D155F4E3B2A6D78A0AC95703--
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 18:44:30 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"ssoiT.A.1RE.GH4W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Megan le Momo , Lea Curry
Cc: kelly514@Juno.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 16:35:45 -0700
Message-Id: <19980514163335.089cc4fd.in@mail.neversoft.com>



Forget my last very forgiving post in response to Megan - I hadn't read
this right wing bilge before I replied. This kind of rhetoric makes me
physically ill.


At 03:04 PM 5/14/98 -0700, Megan le Momo wrote: (in responce to Lea)

>Compare the negative press on liberals to conservatives. Dennis Prager
>did a net search once on fascist and found that it was almost always
>used with republicans, and prorgressive, compassionate liberals.

That's because politics with a basis in the rights of society as a whole
are progressive, whereas politics that focus on the greed and furtherment
of rich individuals at the expense of the general population are not
progressive - these people openly use the term "conservative" as a non
perjorative!
The media in this country is openly right of centre, how could you possibly
think otherwise?

>The real problem here is the people in this country are far to
>susceptible to sloaganeering.

I rest my case.

If you ask them a question about a political situation the
>odds are for them quoting the liberal line.

OK I don't rest my case - Is this supposed to be a bad thing, even if it
were actually true?

>The conservative side really listed off the facts, said what was wrong
>with the situation, where, why, and how it went wrong.

In my experience the reverse has always been true - the right wing reacts
and lashes out, the liberals and the left (these are two totally different
sections BTW) come up with solutions and answers, they address the issues
with consideration and thoughtfulness. The Tories in Britain had one answer
for everything they considered a problem - destroy it.

>During his campaign he was, but after he got elected he returned to his
>more liberal side.

Well amen to that - it's about time you lot got a National Health System
and caught up with the civilised world.

>No laws whatsoever = libertarianism
>No limits to laws = communism

Just plain wrong - I'm sure Marx and Engels didn't fill up several volumes
writing "no limits to laws " in a very large typeface page after page. And
actually there are no limits to laws in any country from what I can gather,
this one included. Sorry to burst ya bubble.

>Liberalism is basically a safer version of communism.

This is the view of an extremely right wing individual who needs guidance.

Just trying to remember the last time Paddy Ashdown mentioned anything
about the workers controlling the means of production...no...no...doesn't
readily spring to mind. Nor indeed has he mentioned that there shall be no
limits to laws to my recollection.

>Where does conservatism fall?

Several light years to the left of Megan one suspects...

Cheers

Mark

PS I'm megan free, I will no longer receive right wing propaganda in my
mail, it gets sent straight to the trash - hoorah!!!
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 19:01:06 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"YjBPpC.A.2UE.tW4W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Megan le Momo
To: Mark Scott
CC: Lea Curry , kelly514@Juno.com,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 17:00:29 -0700
Message-ID: <355B859D.7506@pacbell.net>

Mark Scott wrote:
> Forget my last very forgiving post in response to Megan - I hadn't read
> this right wing bilge before I replied. This kind of rhetoric makes me
> physically ill.

It's always a comfort to know you are what you hate

Best wishes,
Megan le Momo
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 19:15:43 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"y-PldD.A.vXE.ak4W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Mark Scott
CC: Megan le Momo , kelly514@Juno.com,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 17:17:55 -0700
Message-ID: <355B89B3.5D85AE52@sirius.com>

> >Liberalism is basically a safer version of communism.
>
> This is the view of an extremely right wing individual who needs guidance.
>


You know, I sent a long reply just to this person by accident and got a
reply back, but I give up.

I think this is the view of a rather uninformed college person. Now
call me a mudslinger, I dont care. But there are so many illogical
statements and nonsesical misinterpretations of words, like "liberal",
"communist", etc, that this only makes sense to THEM.

For one that criticizes the media as being slanted and then leans on
Dennis Praeger, what can I say? The bigger curiosity is what they hear
in Matts music that we dont. Thats whats got me intrigued a bit.

But I hereby resign on this thread, as far as trying to have a
REASONABLE argument. I dont think it is possible, and if so, I dont
want to put out the energy.

If the media is all that slanted, then I doubt you can trust what
ANYBODY says. If you think the conservatives are telling the truth and
the liberals are lying in the media, it isnt THE MEDIA thats slanted!
LOL! you either rely on it or you DONT. If you DO, then the
information you TAKE from it must be held to the same standard that the
information I take from it is. And I think Megan gets her information
fromthe media, same as I do.

Without this assumption, the conversation is pointless. I asked Megan
how old she was, because I do hold people who have been around longer to
a higher standard. But even college students need to be capable of some
logic, for their to be meaningful debate.

Go ahead and call me a mudslinger Megan. I dont care at this point.

There are so many contradictions here, that Im going to go read
somebody elses e mails for a while. How about them.....Gun Sluts?

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 19:30:47 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"sqGCrB.A.IaE.iy4W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Lea Curry , infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Extremists can always be weeded out]
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 17:27:08 -0700
Message-Id: <19980514172457.08cbcfe1.in@mail.neversoft.com>


Hey it works, her posts went straight to trashcan and auto delete! cooool

Yes you are right, she's a Limbaugh Ditto Head, I forgot about that.


At 04:11 PM 5/14/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:

>Rush is the biggest example of what you decry ever to exist. If you do
>not think he uses personal attacks and mud slinging, then I dont think
>you are....... for real.

>> Liberalism is basically a safer version of communism.
>
>Is your mommy home? Im sorry, but again, you make nonsensical
>statements.

> I really wonder what you hear Matt Johnson saying, or

>what attracts you to him.

Precisely Lea, that's what I want to know - I'm sure that the irony is
being taken at face value, the tongue in cheek as broad speaking - or maybe
these people just like the nice tunes...


Mark (Ditto Head free for one day)
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 19:42:05 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"cnGswB.A.dcE.p84W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Ken Maclean"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: I went to NY to see the statue of a safer form of communism.
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 18:40:14 MDT
Message-ID: <19980515004014.29171.qmail@hotmail.com>

Liberalism is basically a safer version of communism.

This statement really shows the inadequacy of political labels when used
by people with axes to grind.

Say communist in France and they think you mean the equivalent of old
labour in Britain. Say the same word in Poland and look for anger or
guilty looks depending on who you are talking to.Talk to Arthur
scargill and george Orwell( you will need a spiritualist) about
socialism and expect radicaly different interpretations of the same
nomenclature.

I think it might be best for all concerned if Megan defines her terms a
little more clearly rather than using blanket generalizations that
leave me wondering if she is going to label me as a social democrat or
as a national socialist convinced they are the same thing.Personaly i
would rather know which MJ album art she likes or her favourite song and
why.

I am what i hate huh?
I can't decide if that makes me a sweeping banal cliche used by someone
who professes to hate sloganeering or a Brussel Sprout (even with
gravy).

les bissous partout
Ken x

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 19:57:57 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"b1huWC.A.2eE.HK5W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Richard Ings
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Gunsluts and Seinfeld
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 17:57:46 -0700
Message-ID: <355B930A.93F81AD6@sirius.com>

The following is satire. It isnt important, it isnt about the THE, and
its by ME, so if you hate me dont bother to read it. if you hate
Seinfeld, you might like it though.

L.


ya KNOW, infected readers, this ending of Seinfeld might be a REALLY
GOOD THING (tm).

San Francisco has always, or HAD always been known as a kind of "kick
back" place. We took our time, and most people who came here were not
very possessed with money. It wasnt a fast, brusk, materialistic
place, and it was loved for its casualness. I guess it was kind of a
"CHEERS" place.

But about 8 years ago that began to change. Suddenly these VERY
uptight people started coming here, and they LIKED being in a hurry, and
they LIKED being rude. They liked dressing up and they loved ATTITUDE,
and status and designer names, and anything trendy no matter how
fleeting. The more it cost: THE BETTER! The more empty headed the
conversation: the better. "YADA YADA YADA". In FACT they were acting a
lot like New Yorkers (who are just FINE in New York), and a lot of us
who have been here for a while have been scratching our collective
heads....."Where are these people coming from and why are they acting
like this is New York"? San Francisco has traditionally not appealed to
preppy types, and its WAY too provencial and slow for REAL new Yorkers.
For suburbanites in general, It was too queer. Too full of "fruits
and nuts". Too SUBVERSIVE. TOO LIBERAL. (I bet Megan STILL thinks its
a nest of commies). These new arrivals even PRIDE themselves on being
superficial, and empty headed. Its like "cool" to work out and be as
anti intellectual as possible. Its like COOL to drive a BMW. And some
of us have been wondering "whats up with this?"



Now I have never been a big Seinfeld watcher. It just isnt all that
funny to me. But its occured to me, that these so called "yuppies" ARE.


They all LOVE Seinfeld, (and Dilbert).

Now, Look at the hype on TV over this ending. A full blown nuclear war
would get about the same. Can you say HYPE? So it MUST be a real big
deal to a lot of people.

So .....MAYBE , all these new people who seem to be flocking here, are
not really that new at all. MAYBE they are just imitating Seinfeld,
and now that it is gone, we can go BACK to being the West Coast? Could
it BE?

Now I dont mean any offense to New Yorkers and if you are REALLY a New
Yorker, that isnt even POSSIBLE! (never would you be offended by a west
coast whimp!). If you really ARE a New Yorker you probably even think
Seinfeld is hilarious. But what we have here, is a very BAD New York
ACT, performed by Los Angelenos or something. They are like hillbillys
trying to put on airs. And, I think Seinfeld just MIGHT have had
something to do with this.

Anybody agree? Will yuppies disappear into a cultural "POOF!" now that
Jerry is gone? Will people start behaving like smart, nice people,
instead of neurotic, bubble headed jerks, who are ALWAYS in a hurry?
Could it BE ? Maybe Seinfeld is like the devil or something.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 20:12:52 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"DNsyxB.A.UhE.9X5W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Euthelene's Madness"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: any one remember a little band called thethe
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 20:08:46 -0500
Message-ID: <355B959E.8D85DD53@ix.netcom.com>

i know thethe got lost between the crack babies and gun freaks / advocates. i
really think you folks should get a room or an IRC or your own list. enough is
enough, you clog my box with unwanted dribble and i get no thethe news or even
related threads. your actions and words speak for themselves.

so i will rely on quincey's intelligence and good will.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 20:18:41 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"-OfNh.A.gkE.Yf5W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Megan le Momo
CC: Mark Scott , kelly514@Juno.com,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 18:20:27 -0700
Message-ID: <355B985B.F619D95@sirius.com>

Megan le Momo wrote:
>
> It's always a comfort to know you are what you hate
>
> Best wishes,
> Megan le Momo


Now MEGAN: Stop that SLOGANEERING, will you?

L.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 20:33:42 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"DWcdmB.A.GnE.pr5W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Ken Maclean"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: A very simple question
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 19:30:37 MDT
Message-ID: <19980515013038.26192.qmail@hotmail.com>

There was some mail earlier wanting to know why we as a list had shied
from our mo