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 moral obligation to respond to Richard's (sorry if thats not
your name mate but i have to keep deleting messages or my account will
overflow.) observation about the need for countries to have bands of
trained killers. As if somehow ,this refuted the logic of people's
hobbies having undesirable side effects that people, within a society,
might like to ban as a reflection of the wishes of the majority.

Whether people wanted an army or not has never been an issue in any
society, because the vast majority of people have always seen them as an
unfortunate and expensive thing that was necessary to protect their
interests. (Although they might quibble about the size needed.)

Why is the idea that there are two groups of interests, reflecting
genuinely held beliefs by individual citizens,that are diametricaly
opposed and mutualy exslusive so difficult for to you to grasp ? Why
does the fact that one group would like to put it to the vote whilst
another seems desperate to use any arguement, regardless of how
tangential it is, to avoid the vote.Is it possible you can answer a
simple question in the terms in which it is asked?
So without any more ad absurdum reasoning, would you accept a simple
vote on this one issue being put the American people as a democratic
exercise or not ? If not why not?

People failing to respond to your trained killer tangent might not be
because we are in awe of your reasoning . Just because you throw your
rattle out of the pram does not oblige the rest of us to pick it up and
hand it back to you.

cheers
Ken
Remember its only hypothetical because it is never going to happen here.



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 21:30:54 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"EjzDp.A.CtE.Fh6W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "who else?"
To:
Subject: Enough
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 22:30:20 -0400
Message-ID: <01bd7fa9$680c9ea0$515d1dd1@pc.vaxxine.com>

Hi. I've only been on this mailing list for a month or so and at the
beginning I was wondering if it was worth being on because there were so few
mails. Then the mail started to hit and it was very goof and interesting. I
was very happy that this list was starting to pick up. Now whenever I check
my mail I get frusterated because there is so much rubbish coming in my
mail, ie. guns. Please stop the mail that has absolutely nothing to do with
the The and think before you post. If you want to fight, do it by personal
e-mails. I'm so frusterated!!!
Thanks
Tim
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 21:42:40 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"_Fg9BB.A.2xE.Ku6W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mr Love"
To:
Subject: Re: Enough
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:38:06 +1000
Message-ID: <00c301bd7faa$7df94d20$9f150dcb@vegemite>

i think perhaps they are gun sluts....

bamBANG


- -----Original Message-----
From: who else?
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu

Date: Friday, 15 May 1998 11:39
Subject: Enough


Hi. I've only been on this mailing list for a month or so and at the
beginning I was wondering if it was worth being on because there were so few
mails. Then the mail started to hit and it was very goof and interesting. I
was very happy that this list was starting to pick up. Now whenever I check
my mail I get frusterated because there is so much rubbish coming in my
mail, ie. guns. Please stop the mail that has absolutely nothing to do with
the The and think before you post. If you want to fight, do it by personal
e-mails. I'm so frusterated!!!
Thanks
Tim

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 21:34:44 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"h-qZ6D.A.huE.1k6W1"@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: Thu, 14 May 1998 22:24:02 -0700
Message-Id: <199805150231.WAA28259@toronto.planeteer.com>

Kyle Milligan
toldyaso@planeteer.com

- ----------
> From: Richard Ings
> To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> Subject: Re: the gun debate shall continue!
> Date: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 4:03 PM
>
> >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!
>
Actually, ask any of my friends and you'd be surprised how easy it would be for
me. They're all just counting the days until I'm convicted as such.
Have you seen "The Last Supper". Interesting flick.

As far as laws go, I think you're forgetting the thousands of prison inmates
who didn't act in accordance with the law and that doesn't stem from mere
ignorance of the law (while that is legally no excuse of course)

>
> 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.
>
I didn't notice that point earlier, but since you bring it up, I think it's
quite obvious that the only person who should have the right is James Bond.

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 21:45:40 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"EikzUC.A.H0E.5w6W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Kyle Milligan"
To: "Infected"
Subject: Gun related - Don't read if you're looking for a the The thread
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 22:37:23 -0700
Message-Id: <199805150245.WAA28872@toronto.planeteer.com>

OK, so let's just say that it wasn't impossible to get a gun, but just took a
long time, and that everyone except convicts, minors and morons couldn't get
one, and say this process took, mmmm say 8-10 months to get a gun legally.

Would that be so bad?

And how about if you and/or you're gun was ever involved in the killing or
maiming of any human being or any animal that is protected by law (blah blah
blah) then you LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN FOREVER!

Of course possession of a illegal firearm would have to be a VERY serious crime
with a HEFTY punishment.

Would that sound reasonable?

And if you did own a gun, and you ever used it even in a threatening manner
towards another human being, they lock you up and throw away the key.

If this were the case, and if it was enforced, I wouldn't have so much a
problem with guns.

Kyle Milligan
toldyaso@planeteer.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 21:55:47 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"_ZMhCC.A.O3E.s56W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Kyle Milligan"
To: "who else?"
Cc: "Infected"
Subject: Re: Enough -- (Eight is)
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 22:46:19 -0700
Message-Id: <199805150254.WAA29352@toronto.planeteer.com>

Tim,

It's seems pretty easy to frustrate you. Having been on the list for a short
while I can assure you that the rants and debates are often far more
interesting that blather about one's favourite song/album/artwork. But we're
not fighting, we're all like siblings here.

There is a deep.. well not love.. but OK not respect either.. a common decency
that is sometimes followed and revered in these parts. In makes us... OK OK
it's not a family. But it could be.

But no one's forcing you to read anything Tim. No one's going to slip in a
secret the The message that you just can't live without. So if you're not
interested, hit the delete button. But I suspect you can't and it's killing
you. Does this mean you'll "unsubscribe" soon? You won't know what you're
missing! That'll drive you nuts.

Just having fun.

Kyle Milligan
toldyaso@planeteer.com

- ----------
> From: who else?
> To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> Subject: Enough
> Date: Thursday, May 14, 1998 7:30 PM
>
> Hi. I've only been on this mailing list for a month or so and at the
> beginning I was wondering if it was worth being on because there were so few
> mails. Then the mail started to hit and it was very goof and interesting. I
> was very happy that this list was starting to pick up. Now whenever I check
> my mail I get frusterated because there is so much rubbish coming in my
> mail, ie. guns. Please stop the mail that has absolutely nothing to do with
> the The and think before you post. If you want to fight, do it by personal
> e-mails. I'm so frusterated!!!
> Thanks
> Tim
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 22:02:50 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"NjM41C.A.R5E.x_6W1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Kyle Milligan"
To: "Lea Curry"
Cc: "Infected"
Subject: Re: Gunsluts and Seinfeld
Date: Thu, 14 May 1998 22:52:52 -0700
Message-Id: <199805150300.XAA29667@toronto.planeteer.com>


Hi Lea,

I'm feeling a little bummed because what used to be a good show (not often in
the last two years, mind you) but a solid show had one of the most
disappointing poor endings they could've mustered, and my expectations were low
to begin with. I don't necessarily agree with all that you said, but you hit
the nail on the head a few times there, and you've got a pretty good sense of
humour, too.

The HYPE is unprecedented and everyone's trying to cash in.
It's sickening but predictable.
What a waste.
What a let-down.


Kyle Milligan
toldyaso@planeteer.com

- ----------
> From: Lea Curry
> To: Richard Ings
> Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> Subject: Gunsluts and Seinfeld
> Date: Thursday, May 14, 1998 5:57 PM
>
> 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: Fri, 15 May 1998 02:33:05 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"5fxOfC.A.FWF.k8-W1"@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: Fw: Virus Warning
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 01:28:03 -0700
Message-ID: <355BFC93.B96E3742@inreach.com>

Patrick A. Stewart wrote:
>
> 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
>


Just thought i might mention a theory here (not mine, somebody
elseseses). This darned this really IS a virus in many respects. Tho it
does not damage your computer it does do a few thngs that are the very
definition of a virus.
First: it inspires fear in those that don't comprehend it.
Second: It fosters an attempt to stamp it out.
Third: The most telling tale is that it has a means of replication, ie.
the moronic (that would be me of course) human populace that keeps
spreading it around. It is by far the most effective yet at replication
and infiltration.

Just a few fun thoughts from somebody still healing from the vicious
clawing i recieved from Lea *smiles, winks* .

um, bye and all.....
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 06:40:45 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"5ldo9C.A.2gF.TlCX1"@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: the gun debate shall continue!
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:38:45 BST
Message-Id: <199805151138.MAA18173@athena.clara.net>

On Thu, 14 May 1998 14:49:04 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:

> You don't think banning guns is practical (fair enough) but we need more
> > restrictions on who can get them.
>
> I didnt say that!

Sorry if you're offended by this slight misrepresentation - there are so many
people arguing for restrictions/increased penalties it seems churlish to
nitpick. Am I missing your point? Not really - you want the law strengthened/
more vigorously enforced to prevent potential criminals from becoming actual
criminals. I say that the moment this distinction in law disappears between
potential and actual (and it is being eroded in many arenas - witness "stalking
laws" which imply that a supposed intent to commit a crime is commensurate with
actually committing one, even if he hasn't actually done anything illegal) we
are thrown back into the dark ages.

But you have clarified our real difference of opinion - you do not trust
"the VAST majority of people to CARRY a gun. If this is treating them like
children, thats too bad." I think that people are on the whole responsible, and
I believe that if the law implies they are not then the law is bad. Hence
most laws are based on a presumption of innocence - we are assumed to be
responsible unless it can be proven otherwise.

If you're wondering where I'm coming from on this, I am an old-fashioned
humanist libertarian in the Enlightenment mould. And I am aware that as such
I am swimming against a very strong tide! Fortunately, I'm a good swimmer.

- -----------------------------------------------------
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: Fri, 15 May 1998 07:07:49 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"KGJXr.A.TlF.p-CX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Richard Ings
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: A very simple question
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 13:05:47 BST
Message-Id: <199805151205.NAA19678@athena.clara.net>

> There was some mail earlier wanting to know why we as a list had shied
> from our moral obligation to respond to Richard's (sorry if thats not
> your name mate but i have to keep deleting messages or my account will
> overflow.) observation about the need for countries to have bands of
> trained killers.

I would love to believe people had a moral obligation to respond to me! I can
only dream... I was trying to illustrate a contradiction. Why should we trust
the authorities more than we trust each other? When is a crime not a crime?
I bow to your trite observation that a majority trust the police more than
their neighbour and that few see Hiroshima as a "crime" but an act of war.
But I am exercising the right (that I have not yet voted away) to try and
convince others that we need to reassess our attitude to each other and to the
powers that be, and that we should be opposing attempts to treat us as
children in need of protection from ourselves.

By the way, are you starting a campaign for a vote on the issue? I think you
know you don't really need to...! When you're surfing a wave, why stop and ask
if it's deep and wide enough?

- -----------------------------------------------------
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: Fri, 15 May 1998 08:00:39 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"76tYjC.A.lpF.jvDX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: TD3D
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Extra The The CD singles up for grabs
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 08:56:59 EDT
Message-ID: <7456cbf3.355c3b9d@aol.com>

Hi again -

Purging more duplicate copies from my collection. The first two were bought
new as "spares" and have never been played or out of their cases. These are
the same prices that I paid for these two.

The The - Love is Stronger Than Death ltd. ed. UK CD single (EPIC 659371-2)
- w/ That Sinking Feeling/Mercy Beat/Armageddon days (all 3 live July 1990)
- Mint / Mint NEW $12

The The - Slow Emotion Replay ltd. ed. UK CD single (EPIC 659077-5)
- w/ the excellent "Scenes From Arctic Twilight"
- Mint/Mint NEW $12

Shades of Blue EP - Austrian CD single (655796-2) $8 / best offer
- Jealous of Youth/Another Boy Drowning (live)/Solitude/Dolphis
- Mint pic insert in slimline case / Mint disc
(This one might be sold, but I think the buyer fell through...)

Also. does anyone know a fair price for a nice copy of the Infected songbook?
I'm thinking about parting with mine, but I'm not sure yet...

Postage is extra for the discs (at cost). If you're interested, let me know at
TD3D@aol.com. Thanks.
Terry
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 08:06:47 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"H02ZwD.A.PrF.U1DX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Patrick A. Stewart"
To: Megan le Momo
Cc: Lea Curry , kelly514@Juno.com,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 08:03:32 -0500
Message-Id: <355C3D24.C02@corn.cso.niu.edu>

Megan le Momo wrote:
>
> 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).

First of all, the media slant isn't anti-conservative. If anything, it
is pro-status quo and pro-capitalism (especially big business). Second,
its not the statistics that you shouldn't trust. I work with data and I
work with statistics. What you ought to worry about is the content of
the questions and how they are "framed".

As far as your friend goes-- what type of polls are we talking about.
I've been polled two times-- one about who I thought was a better
running back in the NFL (?) and the other on my glue preferences (?).
Because telephone interviews rely on random number generation (Computer
Aided Telephone Interviews [CATI]), the polling that your ex-boyfriend's
mother might be specifically for a group she belongs to. But if it is a
reputable polling agency (Harris, Gallup, etc), I doubt that there is
some sort of "liberal plot" to skew the numbers to support a President
who is to the right of Richard Nixon in most of his policies.

Patrick

ps-- If you can show me how to doctor statistics to reveal the opposite
of what it means, I would be much obliged. And I would be a tenured
mathematician.
>
> Megan
>
> 'am i writing this because im hammerstein
> ....Or am i hammerstein because I wrote this'
> -marshall barer
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:33:56 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"eMFsLC.A.39F.f5GX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: tloat@vaxxine.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: getting thethe news na dnot the other stuff requests.
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 09:30:47 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E17E9@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>

There is another mailing list that only updates you on thethe news.
Subscribe to that one and get off this one. I haven't got the
instructions but I'm sure someone else will post them for you.

Sorry to hear that we bore you with Rubbish. What do you really want to hear.
The discussions about Song A being really GOOD* and song B(ten generation)
being really BAD* never really last very long and as for news, well there's
very little and lots of other places to find it anyway.

-Adrian

*Capitalization technique courtisy of Lea Curry (shameless Dilbert knocker),
Yes, that hurt Lea.


> Hi. I've only been on this mailing list for a month or so and at the
> beginning I was wondering if it was worth being on because there were so few
> mails. Then the mail started to hit and it was very goof and interesting. I
> was very happy that this list was starting to pick up. Now whenever I check
> my mail I get frusterated because there is so much rubbish coming in my
> mail, ie. guns. Please stop the mail that has absolutely nothing to do with
> the The and think before you post. If you want to fight, do it by personal
> e-mails. I'm so frusterated!!!
> Thanks
> Tim
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:38:55 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"3AZAiB.A.9_F.I-GX1"@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: the gun debate shall continue!
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 09:41:03 -0700
Message-ID: <355C701F.FBA7847D@sirius.com>

Richard Ings wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 May 1998 14:49:04 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:
>
> > You don't think banning guns is practical (fair enough) but we need more
> > > restrictions on who can get them.
> >
> > I didnt say that!
>
> Sorry if you're offended by this slight misrepresentation - there are so many
> people arguing for restrictions/increased penalties it seems churlish to
> nitpick.

No, it is far more than nitpicking. If you dont live in the US than
maybe its really a hard concept. But its against the law to carry a gun
without a permit now and not even the NRA is pushing to loosen that
one. this hasnt been the wild west for about 100 years! So this is
NOTHING new.



Am I missing your point? Not really - you want the law strengthened/
> more vigorously enforced to prevent potential criminals from becoming actual
> criminals.

Sorry, still didnt sink in. I want the PENALTY to be more serious. Not
the law "strengthened", and better enforcement WOULD be nice but even
the cops have made it clear that they dont get paid enough to disarm
people. However when a gun is found on someone during a legal search,
and they do not have a permit to carry it, I want the PENALTY to be more
severe. The largest impact this will have is on repeat offender
criminals.

Law abiding citizens, would not be effected IN THE SLIGHTEST.

Now not even the NRA is moving to overturn the concealment charges and
laws here. So if you are to the right of them, than you are indeed a
special case. At least we have clarified that!



I say that the moment this distinction in law disappears between
> potential and actual (and it is being eroded in many arenas - witness "stalking
> laws" which imply that a supposed intent to commit a crime is commensurate with
> actually committing one, even if he hasn't actually done anything illegal) we
> are thrown back into the dark ages.

That is not the case here. Its already a law. it USED to get well
enforced, but without mandatory sentancing anyone with an expensive
lawyer can tie the courts up SO long, most prosecutors wont bother.
Money buys you justice here. So the well off wont see a day of jail.
Those with records and public defenders might see a day or two in jail,
maybe more. But not enough.

>
> But you have clarified our real difference of opinion - you do not trust
> "the VAST majority of people to CARRY a gun. If this is treating them like
> children, thats too bad."

That is correct. But you should add: "without a permit" in there. I
didnt say I didnt trust them to keep one at home, though.

And this has been the prevailing feeling of our Supreme Court, and is
in our law, and comes from English common law, I am SURE! I dont trust
the vast majority of people to drive a bus or fly a plane without a
permit either. Or practice dentistry or medicine. There are all sorts
of things that require permits. And SHOOTING in public damn well ought
to! (it takes some practice, not to shoot innocent bystanders). Most
people dont know how to shoot straight enough to be carrying a gun in
public. Thats a fact, and sorry if I dont want to get caught in their
cross fire. There also is no REASON for the vast majority of people to
be carrying a gun. We have 911 to call, when you think you need to hire
one. I have a Doberman.

I think that people are on the whole responsible, and
> I believe that if the law implies they are not then the law is bad.

So we should all be able to be vigalantes? The law says that it isnt
LEGAL for me to use armed force, in public, unless I am a peace officer,
etc. And I think thats good, because Peace Officers have a lot of
training. I dont. Maybe you just want the wild west? He with the
biggest arsenal wins?

Hence
> most laws are based on a presumption of innocence - we are assumed to be
> responsible unless it can be proven otherwise.

Not THIS one. It has to do with deadly weapons that require skill.
Its never been legal, and I dont think the vast majority of people want
it to be.
>
> If you're wondering where I'm coming from on this, I am an old-fashioned
> humanist libertarian in the Enlightenment mould. And I am aware that as such
> I am swimming against a very strong tide! Fortunately, I'm a good swimmer.

It seems like lately, a whole lot of people are declaring themselves
to be "Libertarian", and I wonder if they really know what that means.

In Jeffersons time, you really were not ALLOWED to pack a gun while
going about your peaceful business either. It was common sense and
there certainly WERE ordinances in Virginia about carrying fire arms,
swords, etc. Look at all the art from the time and after the
Revolution. Did you see people lugging around swords and muskets? Of
course NOT. In most societies with any amount of civilization, when you
are among your own people, you lay down your weapons. Friggen primitive
tribal warriors, lay em down, when they are just kicken it! Professional
soldiers might have carried a dress sword, when in full dress uniform,
but did they wear a sword when they went out to get some milk? Puleeze?

Libertarian does not equal only obeying the laws you LIKE. But its
become fashionable for everybody that has a beef with the federal
government, the IRS, the federal Trade Commission, or any business
regulatory law to declare themselves Libertarian.

What you are implying is not a libertarian concept but one of
anarchism, where you only obey the rules you THINK you need to.
Jefferson and his enlightenment friends didnt ever say any such thing.
They spent their lives writing LAW.

Lea

PS only for anyone that might be further interested, and mainly to
Richard:

I am a Jeffersonian Democrat with revisionist ideas about human
services. (I think SOME of them should be socialized like medical
coverage.) More seriously, I believe , were Jefferson here today, he
would want a safety net. In fact he probably would have USED a safety
net! But of course, most of my fellow Jeffersonians dont agree with me.
This idea is common enough in Europe. I defend this idea as within the
spirit of Jefferson, because he designed this system based on an
agrarian state with few people, not an industrial state. Now I have ZERO
proof that he would have felt that there should be a Federal safety net
so I must say I am revisionist in this respect.

What you can NOT base on Jefferson, is the idea that we only follow
the laws we think treat us like adults, or those we agree with, or those
that are profitable to our business, or even those we THINK are against
common sense. That was NEVER what he had in mind, and why he spent a
great deal of his life writing the CONSTITUTION, and other laws. he
also was INTO having a Federal government, contrary what some people
want to think. He was WAY into it.

Lea



But to think that he favored a Wild West approach to law,or NO Federal
G
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:48:00 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"S9TdcD.A.dDG.rGHX1"@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: A very simple question
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 09:50:05 -0700
Message-ID: <355C723D.C1D7DEA9@sirius.com>

Richard Writes:

> But I am exercising the right (that I have not yet voted away) to try and
> convince others that we need to reassess our attitude to each other and to the
> powers that be, and that we should be opposing attempts to treat us as
> children in need of protection from ourselves.

I forgot to add, that in MANY, MANY ways I agree with you and I
understand your frustration. I am sick to death with being told I cant
eat my meat rare if i want to, and Im sick of all scizzors having to
have rounded edges because somebody MIGHT cut themselves.

I tried to buy a space heater a few years ago and had to take a couple
of models back, because they were so damn SAFE, they only luke warm
air!
But I think this is a result of two things, one, a new generation who
thinks the world has to be made safe for their children, and abdicates
parenting, and more seriously, the most litigious society ever to roam
the planet. Jefferson called Lawyers "Insects of the Law" (even though
he was one), and its this sort of competitive legislating and loop hole
profiteering that he detested ABOUT the law. But he couldnt come up
with a better system. I think that most of these petty laws come about
as the result of lawsuites, etc.

I dont think guns are a petty concern, though, due to the skill
required to use them, and the basic idea of civilized , law abiding
society.

lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:58:46 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"sQdSOC.A.1FG.zQHX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Infected
Subject: Re: Gunsluts and Seinfeld
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 10:01:04 -0700
Message-ID: <355C74D0.E691E684@sirius.com>

Kyle Milligan wrote:
>
> Hi Lea,
>
> I'm feeling a little bummed because what used to be a good show (not often in
> the last two years, mind you) but a solid show had one of the most
> disappointing poor endings they could've mustered, and my expectations were low
> to begin with. I don't necessarily agree with all that you said, but you hit
> the nail on the head a few times there, and you've got a pretty good sense of
> humour, too.

Thanks, I hope I still do!

The ending seemed wierd to me, but I havent followed the show enough to
know if its typical, or how it would be recieved. It WAS kind of off
the wall. I know what you mean. Anything even SLIGHTLY intelligent
seems to be off limits in sit coms, now. Seinfeld reminded me of
Newhart, (who I think I liked more),poisanally. I saw him interviewed
somewhere recently and he was saying that "Im the comedian, but I let
everyone else make the jokes", etc, and he was implying that he invented
this. I was thinking...no, Newhart was doing this for decades
before....Its really rather a british style of humor. People are pretty
literal these days, so deadpan humor can just fly right on over!

Something else will PROBABLY fill the void, but it may take a while.
I was bummed when Northern Exposure died, and was an EXTREME fan of that
one. With all the commercials I prefer hour formats and those are full
of junk, mostly, too. So I know how you feel.

Lea

PS, weren't people nicer to each other when CHEERS was the water cooler
show?
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:06:49 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"4QIq1B.A.RIG.XYHX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: "Euthelene's Madness"
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: any one remember a little band called thethe
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 10:09:04 -0700
Message-ID: <355C76B0.8D58AE04@sirius.com>

Wasnt that the POINT of Quincy's list?

Quincy, maybe you could have the owner of THIS list, Adrienne is it?
(whoever it is is so cool we never know they ARE the owner), put a blurb
about your list on the bottom of the posts. Some lists allow this. I
dont know about the softwear on this one. Quincy's idea was a GREAT one.

It seems reasonable that people who like The The have other interests
in common, and it has been a couple of years with no new material to
discuss. And Matt DOES sing about the WORLD. he does provoke thought,
does he not? Infected changed the way I think about politics, A LOT and
I wouldnt BE on any fan list if the art was not "idea altering". Anyone
ELSE?

Seems like there is room for both, on this big internet.

Lea


Euthelene's Madness wrote:
>
> 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: Fri, 15 May 1998 10:49:28 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"_0Gy_.A.j5F.WOGX1"@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: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 10:47:02 -0700
Message-ID: <19980515.104704.8166.0.kelly514@juno.com>


Patrick writes:
>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).

Patrick I have heard of the study but like any study it has to be
replicated to be seen as accurate. This has yet to happen. As far as the
twin study that the scientists have ignored more recently, but the gay
activists use, is problematic because it lacks objectivity. The original
study where researchers solicited homosexuals
found that 52% had gay identical twins. Solicitation of this kind where
agendas get in the way have been discredited and again replication has
shown it to be very inaccurate. But let us say one day they find a
correlation between the shape of the brain and homosexuality. Next step
is to determine whether it is cause or effect. If they determine cause
then they have to show how it is linked. While all this is going on
thousands of people are leaving the lifestyle through therapeutic means
that are so successful that even the APA, who are pressured to stop such
therapy as recently as last year by gay activists as it was widely
reported in the mainstream media, continue to allow such therapy.

As far as the animal kingdom, heterosexuality is consistently present and
homosexuality in such environments can be related to that of prisoners
where the interaction has to do more with aggression than attraction.
Also physically we were designed to be with the opposite sex and you
don't need a degree in physiology to know that.

Getting back to the twin studies that are already not scientific. Gay
activist use these but what they seem to lack is scientific knowledge. If
identical twins are IDENTICAL then they share the SAME genes. Why is it
then there were only 52% and not 100% of the respondents to have
identical homosexual brothers/sisters?

Did you know that gay activists are rethinking this idea of genetic
connection? Why you ask? I'll tell you. To say it is genetic means that
what homosexuals have is a genetic defect. Here is why: Besides
physiology showing we were made to be with the opposite sex, homosexuals
don't consistently reproduce. Asians consistently produce Asians, Whites
Whites, Blacks Blacks, etc. How many gay activists do you know want to
accept they have a genetic defect?

Let me give you a brief history of the gay movement. In the 60's they
said it was choice and the mentality, as you probably already know, was
"do your own thing". Many tolerated that as long as it didn't hurt others
and homosexuality didn't hurt anyone so it was tolerated to at least a
small degree. In the 70's a problem occurred. Many homosexuals desired to
be tolerated if not accepted by the larger population so they attempted
to normalize their lifestyle. This involved crashing an APA conference in
the mid 70's to demand, through intimidation, homosexuality be taken out
of the DSM (manual for direction in diagnosing mental disorders written
by psychiatrists not psychologists). Despite 69% of doctors in the mental
health field surveyed during that time saying it was still abnormal, the
leaders of the APA (American Psychiatric Assn.) took it out. If you talk
to therapists who deal with reparative therapy they will usually tell you
it should have been taken out as far as the context in describing the
disorder but the problem should have been rewritten to describe the true
issues that homosexuals struggle with which prevents them from living as
a heterosexual. Homosexuals activists to this day have kept sexual
addiction out of the DSM because is too closely resembles their lifestyle
but despite that you have probably heard of sexual addiction described as
a mental disorder.

Now here is why homosexuals activists aren't going to jump on the
"choice" bandwagon anytime soon (personal opinion). Since they make up
approximately 2% of the population (and this has been proven consistently
in in hundreds of surveys) they remain a loud but still represent a small
voice in political influence. If they were to say it is a choice, you
would see the vast majority of homosexuals seeking therapy within a week.
Studies again show, and if you ever asked mainstream homosexuals if they
could live a heterosexual lifestyle they would, homosexuals are unhappy
with the homosexual lifestyle and feel hopeless that change is possible.
Activists say this unhappiness is due to discrimination but that plays a
small factor and for many this factor is insignificant. It has also been
shown in one study that homosexuals make approximately 40% higher income
than heterosexuals as a population. Now don't you find it strange how
they can sometimes get away with correlating their movement to the civil
rights movement. I would have loved to been able to drive around in
affluent neighborhoods without police knowing I was black.

Let me tell you of one case that I remember dealing with in a group
therapy session in the late 80's. I had a 30
year old man in my group who suffered from sexual addiction. He was
raised by two parents. The father was passive and the mother was very
dominating. When he felt a sexual urge his throat would become swollen
and he would have difficulty breathing. He hired a dominatrix (excuse the
spelling) to satisfy his desire. Do you see the correlation between the
prostitute and his mother? The intimacy with his mother was void in his
life so he made a decision to fill that void the way he thought was going
to help him. He was fine with women in a non emotional and non sexual
manner so he appeared normal on the outside. He was 1 of two kids. His
brother chose to deal with his mother in a different way. He desired men.
He had many sexual partners, which isn't unusual for homosexuals, and
sadly, at the age of 32, he died of AIDS. Now this isn't scientific data
but it is a case study that society would look at and say only the sexual
addict has a problem (and many men wouldn't even see him as
problematic).

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: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:56:47 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"_hWILC.A.aQG.KHIX1"@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 answer
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:55:47 MDT
Message-ID: <19980515175547.22176.qmail@hotmail.com>

Well what can i say.I now know that Richard in the best manner of all
the most irritating career politicians is incapable of answering a
simple yes or no question. Believe me amongst the political reptiles,
that puts you very much in the mainstream and decidedly with the
current.Are you the same Richard that was earnestly declaring he had
something bright and original to say a while back? If so i am
disappointed.

It almost gives me some sympathy with Euthelene's latest outburst but
for that i think it would be nice if she or Tim instead of just being
critical (which you could train most lower primates to do)led by
example. I already know how many CDs she has and what was stolen from
her appartment and what her favourite songs are. What stunning insight
and breezy original viewpoint would you like to stun us with? If you
want to accuse people of writing dribble dont be supprised if they would
like to see what you intend to replace it with.If not i guess its just
another 27 days untill the next tantrum.

And now its back to work.
Ken

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 13:15:46 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"HirL9B.A.KTG.7YIX1"@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: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:17:53 -0700
Message-ID: <355C86D1.CCC905A7@sirius.com>

brian:

This was a most fascinating post and im sure a lot of people will want
to respond, so Ill keep this uncharacteristically short:


> Homosexuals activists to this day have kept sexual
> addiction out of the DSM because is too closely resembles their lifestyle
> but despite that you have probably heard of sexual addiction described as
> a mental disorder.

Are you including lesbians in this? I dont see promescuity or sexual
addiction to be much of an issue in that community.


> If they were to say it is a choice, you
> would see the vast majority of homosexuals seeking therapy within a week.

I have literally lived in the gay community for all practical
purposes, (socially) for about 25 years, even though I am not gay. This
IS San Francisco. I disagree strongly.

Im sure some of the other bright and maybe gay people on this list
will want to have a word with you about it though. Thank you for such an
insightful post. I see where you are coming from, now.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 13:23:47 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"mCLrMB.A.8VG.dgIX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: marie@etoys.com
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: getting thethe news na dnot the other stuff requests.
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:21:37 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E17EC@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>

I haven't got the address. If I find it I'll let you know.
The new list is purely for informational stuff such as dates of
releases or shows. It will not be for discusing the music or the
man. Mattt Johnson is very politicatally and sociologically
aware and his lyrics show that. When you start discussing them
the conversation will inevitably expand in to discussions not
theThe related.

If you want news why not try :
http://www.thethe.com.

If you want to talk about the band/man
then you have to accept that people here are full of ideas and will
go on at great length and at great detail. The only way to get a
happy medium is with dumber people with less to say

******* Could someone please send this person the address of
the other mailing list that was set up. I wasn't interested and
throw out the email *********

> please, tell me when you find out about the new list. i
> want to know
> about the the not people babbling all the time! its funny
> how its always
> the same people talking and never listen.... so, please
> inform me about
> the list. thanks! shoot me an email anytime.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 13:58:28 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"0d42gC.A.3aG.wAJX1"@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: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:48:35 -0700
Message-Id: <19980515114631.0cbc788c.in@mail.neversoft.com>

At 10:47 AM 5/15/98 -0700, kelly514@Juno.com wrote:
>How many gay activists do you know want to
>accept they have a genetic defect?

At this point you lost my interest. Most gay activists of my acquaintance -
and I do know several "gay gurus" who bang the drum eight days a week -
would not see it as a "defect", and I am somewhat surprised that you use
such a phrase.

Indeed, many gay friends of mine believe that they are an evolution of
mankind , presumably produced by mother nature to keep the population down,
as it is unlikely that they will reproduce. Some gay people even refer to
heterosexuals as "breeders" which I think is meant to be insulting, but as
the father of a self effacing boy genius, I am more than happy to be a
"breeder".

I find some of your comments about gay people somewhat at odds with one who
claims to counsel them. You freely said that you were attempting to make
some of them behave against their nature, a cruelty against themselves and
anyone they choose to involve in their lives.

Mark
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 13:58:41 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"5kJ-uD.A.YbG.3AJX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: "Lea Curry"
Cc: "Infected"
Subject: Re: Gunsluts and Seinfeld
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:49:44 -0700
Message-Id: <19980515114736.0cbd77bd.in@mail.neversoft.com>



Hello...Newman.


It was one of my favourite TV shows of all time - it's up there with the
Blackadders and Pythons and Young Ones. It stood to one side, away from
all the other cuddly nicey nicey sitcoms on American TV. I love all of that
cynicism and sarcasm and irony.

I admire the ability to write about the mindless minutiae of everyday
existence and make it funny, largely because I think about the same kinds
of things myself. I would much rather laugh about ear hair than debate
about guns, or rage against right wing psychobabble with people who are
inflexible in their thinking.

I never thought of the Seinfeld crowd as yuppies at all, but then the
yuppie definition is kind of different where I come from (the yuppiemobile
of choice in Britain was once the VW GOlf Cabriolet, a vehicle more readily
associated, so I am led to believe, with the gay community in the US).
Having said that I believe JS is going into advertising, so what the hell
do I know?

I lived up by San Francisco (in Marin) for two years before I came back to
LA, and I guess it was probably all the yuppies that were responsible for
my rent being so high. I don't think I've seen as many Lexii and Range
Rovers and Beemers (per capita) even in L.A. which is incredible really.

As for last night's finale, well I have to say it was a poor execution of a
reasonable concept - they finally get their comeuppance for all the crap
they have got away with over the years, ho hum. The preceding montage of
old episodes was considerably funnier.


At 10:52 PM 5/14/98 -0700, Kyle Milligan wrote:

>I'm feeling a little bummed because what used to be a good show ...
>The HYPE is unprecedented and everyone's trying to cash in.
>It's sickening but predictable.
> What a waste.
> What a let-down.

>
>Kyle Milligan



Lea wrote:
>> 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.
>> 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.

>> But about 8 years ago that began to change.

I thought the yuppie thing died out with the turn of the decade - didn't it?
>> 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).

I liked Dilbert too, until one of those Dilbert mountains in Barnes and
Noble collapsed and killed several people standing next to me. If you've
ever worked for a larger company with those kind of people then Dilbert
provides a lot of comforting relief - the very fact that Dilbert is so
popular makes me think that a lot of people are suffering the same kinds of
fools as their bosses all over the world.

>>
>> Now, Look at the hype on TV over this ending. A full blown nuclear war
>> would get about the same.


Yes I must say I don't think I've been out to a TV party at Yankee Doodles
since the Gulf War was on, and I must admit if there was going to be a
strike on L.A. I would probably go do the same. Or hide under a table -
I've seen those old US propoganda movies from the fifties.

>> 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,

I don't think so, the world has changed too much for that, but I don't
think you can hold Jerry responsible. I suspect that it's definitely a case
of art imitating life here, not the other way around.

Hey maybe I'm a yuppie, just with no mobile phone and no suits, not even an
old one at the back of the closet, although I suspect I have a tie in a
suitcase somewhere in case I have to go to a wedding.

Cheers

Mark

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:05:07 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"6yIJ-.A.6hG.LHJX1"@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: let's get tough...
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:56:00 -0400
Message-ID: <001BFBFE.@wbsaunders.com>

I'll throw my tammy in the ring, though somewhat reluctantly...

I dislike guns, and support gun control. However, regarding the
suggestion that there needs to be stricter penalties for breaking gun
control laws... Wasn't it similar thinking that created the travesty
that is the "Three Strikes" laws and manditory sentances for drug
offenders? Now minor offenders are sentanced to ridiculously long
sentances, mixed in with rougher and nastier offenders. This, at a
time where our prison situation is in a crisis already. The war on
drugs continues to meander as ineffectively as ever though. The
"getting tough on crime" stance comes with a whole batch of new
problems, most of which are never dealt with once they arise.

As for the liberal Vs. conservative debate... seems kinda silly, when
everyone has a totally different map in their heads of the modern
political landscape. There have been postings saying the media is
conservative, liberal, fascist, communist, and consumerist. I, for
one, tend to lean towards the consumerist opinion. We continue to add
to the consumerist culture as well, as we spend hours on our
Microsoft-driven (TM) computers, eating a Big Mac (TM) and a Coke
(TM), complaining about how bad the world is, because of THEM. ("It
was those, those, THOSE who made us scared and made us old"). I think
at this point, Matt Johnson would have to say "Let's all get drunk and
get laid. It won't change anything, but if God don't do anything
about it, why should we spend all of our time worrying?"

What did everyone think of "Darkness Falls", the song on the Judge
Dredd soundtrack?
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:00:00 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"FOi9a.A.geG.XCJX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Lea Curry , Infected
Subject: Re: Gunsluts and Seinfeld
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:01:45 -0700
Message-Id: <19980515115937.0cc87966.in@mail.neversoft.com>






At 10:01 AM 5/15/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:

> "Im the comedian, but I let
>everyone else make the jokes", etc, and he was implying that he invented
>this. I was thinking...no, Newhart was doing this for decades
>before....Its really rather a british style of humor. People are pretty
>literal these days, so deadpan humor can just fly right on over!

Indeed, it's a ver PC world and I can understand that between the cynicism
and the irony and the flagrantly un PC jokes how a lot of uptight people
would not get it - I even see elements of this in sitcoms like Friends and
Frasier. Seems too many people need the laugh track and for the *joke* to
be delivered with a big fat smile on the actor's face for them to "get it".

Jerry has always been very upfront about his heroes - there's even a retail
video available where he shows clips of some of his influences. In the
latest Time there's a picture of Kramer in a doorway next to Art Carney in
a doorway, and there's not a whole lot to choose between them.

People have always been nasty to one another as long as I've been working,
which beats being nasty to their backs - or does it..?

Mark
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:21:49 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"ZhBlc.A.pqG.4WJX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Mark Scott
CC: Infected
Subject: Re: Gunsluts and Seinfeld
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:24:03 -0700
Message-ID: <355C9653.3DD2F6DB@sirius.com>

> I thought the yuppie thing died out with the turn of the decade - didn't it?


eeeeeehhhhhh....NOPE. But we do need a new term. (they are not so
young anymore, and "slackers" were just spit on the griddle, (as
slackers usually ARE)...Any nominations? How about AUPies (for aging
urban professionals). Or ...

Those damn gay people stole our old perennial term: "straight". We
should sue to get it BACK.

> I never thought of the Seinfeld crowd as yuppies at all, but then the
> yuppie definition is kind of different where I come from (the yuppiemobile
> of choice in Britain was once the VW GOlf Cabriolet, a vehicle more readily
> associated, so I am led to believe, with the gay community in the US).
> Having said that I believe JS is going into advertising, so what the hell
> do I know?

I dont think it is really, lots of people like it. But it might have
been having a different EFFECT on them...nawww....probably not.



> I don't think so, the world has changed too much for that, but I don't
> think you can hold Jerry responsible. I suspect that it's definitely a case
> of art imitating life here, not the other way around.

I suspect your right! DAMN.
>
> Hey maybe I'm a yuppie, just with no mobile phone and no suits, not even an
> old one at the back of the closet, although I suspect I have a tie in a
> suitcase somewhere in case I have to go to a wedding.

NAhhhhh...... we all have SOMETHING in the closet! I knit! (and its
getting TRENDY...YIKES, there was just an article about the re-emergence
of knitting in the Utne Reader)! NOW WHAT?

I actually like both Dilbert and Seinfeld well enough. I was just
trying to have fun with it.


L.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:42:12 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"m5IbyD.A.ntG.3pJX1"@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: let's get tough...
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:44:16 -0700
Message-ID: <355C9B10.66CDB46B@sirius.com>

> However, regarding the
> suggestion that there needs to be stricter penalties for breaking gun
> control laws... Wasn't it similar thinking that created the travesty
> that is the "Three Strikes" laws and manditory sentances for drug
> offenders? Now minor offenders are sentanced to ridiculously long
> sentances, mixed in with rougher and nastier offenders. This, at a
> time where our prison situation is in a crisis already. The war on
> drugs continues to meander as ineffectively as ever though. The
> "getting tough on crime" stance comes with a whole batch of new
> problems, most of which are never dealt with once they arise.


As reluctant as you are, you make a good point. But I think you have
to really look at what carrying a weapon concealed means. IS it minor?

I strongly favor decriminalization for almost all drug offenses. It
isnt working now. And three strikes, I have my reservations about. But
I wont get into them.

But why should any law abiding person need to carry a gun, without a
permit? (you know, that in most any case, you could get such a permit,
if you had to walk home late, etc, but to get one, you need to have a
legal registered gun, etc.) And who most commonly carries guns, without
them? The idea is NOT to punish the law abiding citizens who wants the
right to OWN a gun.


Concealment permits are more of a local ordinance (I think usually
county). In some places its very easy, and local people can probably
best decide what is safest for their community. (THATS a Libertarian
idea, by the way).

What I think we should take a lot more seriously , is the people who
feel they need to pack a gun for day to day survival. That points at
something not so cool. And we do have this underlying violence that is
pretty out of control here. Are we catering to unstable people here,
too much? Why do we need to be an accomplice to this?

Im with you in not ordinarily caring for mandatory sentances..... but
we are in a unique situation with guns. We cant illegalize them, too
late. I can not imagine a truely law abiding gun owner, that would
think it a political threat to leave the thing at home. And if it GETS
to be one, concealment penalties will be the least of our worries. Under
such a circumstance that you felt you had to leave and your life was in
danger..I would think you would risk it.

Maybe it should be a second offense thing. Surely your life wouldnt be
in danger and you would not have to flee your house with a gun more than
once? You could then get a permit if you planned on a lot of future
drama.

Im not sure WHAT the answer is and only suggest this as something that
needs to be discussed publically. And groups like the NRA should be
leading that discussion, not me. Id respect them more if they would
extend their do called "law abiding responsible gun owner" stance into
something a little more proactive. But they seem to want to dismiss
ANY gun associated problems, and stonewall any public debate. Its
going to take more to win me over.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 14:44:32 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"noqGf.A.awG.KsJX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Lea Curry
Cc: Infected
Subject: Re: Gunsluts and Seinfeld
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 12:45:47 -0700
Message-Id: <19980515124349.0cf0f0b6.in@mail.neversoft.com>

At 12:24 PM 5/15/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:
>> I thought the yuppie thing died out with the turn of the decade - didn't
it?
>
>
> eeeeeehhhhhh....NOPE. But we do need a new term. (they are not so
>young anymore, and "slackers" were just spit on the griddle, (as
>slackers usually ARE)...Any nominations? How about AUPies (for aging
>urban professionals).

I'm just wondering..I was always led to believe (from way back at
university in 1982), well before the phrase ever took off in the media,
that YUPPY was an almost acronym for Young Upwardly mobile Professional. It
was neither perjorative nor honoristic at that time.

So is it understood to be short for Young Urban Professional?
I would like to know.

> I actually like both Dilbert and Seinfeld well enough. I was just
>trying to have fun with it.

But you did it in a straight faced and ironic manner so I didn't get it...

Cheers

Mark


------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 15:30:15 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"jjs2W.A.69G.BXKX1"@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: Fri, 15 May 1998 15:00:22 -0500
Message-Id: <355C9ED6.4A22@corn.cso.niu.edu>

Brian,
I agree with you as to the replication aspect of science-- especially
concerning LeVay's work (small N, and disputed experimental and control
group). However, the critique does not make for irrefutable proof that
you are right and the data is wrong. Also, the data concerning the
twin studies has been replicated twice and show that 50-65% of
homosexual twins have twins that are also homosexual (this based on
monozygomatic twins). While a self-selected sample, it does give pause
to the suggestion that homosexuality is a "lifestyle decision" solely.
If it were, there would be zero correlation between having a twin that
was homosexual and being one. In other words, there would be only a,
giving gay rights proponents a nod, and being statistically
conservative, only a 10% chance of being homosexual( or as you argue,
and giving my argument stronger support, 2%). Based on the sample size,
it would be hard to argue for chance, which is your argument.

I will agree that there is a great deal of difficulty in defining what
is cause and effect concerning this issue, especially concerning brain
sciences and genetic causation (as well as the great majority of
others-- matter of fact, pretty much all causality can be disputed to an
extent). However, my point is that interaction of genes with
environment leads to predilection towards homosexuality (as probably is
the case with your brothers in therapy). It does not mean
predetermination, though.

What is probably closer to the point is that sexuality is distributed
along a normal bell curve, with very few homosexuals, very few highly
feminine or masculine individuals and the great majority preferring
heterosexual opportunity, but capable (and sometimes, in the right
social atmosphere, willing) of bisexual activity.

As far as your argument for homosexuality in the animal kingdom being
more representative of prisoner's situations, you obviously have never
seen bonobo chimpanzees in action (now there's some real fun-- these
peaceful [relatively speaking, of course] chimps communicate through
sex-- whether it be hetero or homo.

It also doesn't speak to homosexuals following patterns of sexual
activity stereotypic of there gender/sex. Males, due to limited
investment of parental activities, prefer one night stands with females
(and like the visual aspects of looking at them)-- and as a result, so
do homosexuals prefer short-term anonymous encounters (i.e. bathhouses,
etc). This has led to the proliferation of AIDS in that community.

On the other hand, women prefer long term relationships before having
sex (these are tendencies, not absolutes). Such is the case with
lesbians. (Which leads to my favorite argument concerning AIDS and
conservatives who claim that it is God's revenge of gays: If this is
the case, then the group least affected should be God's chosen people
[logically]: this is, of course, lesbians.)

Finally, your argument for homosexuality being an aberation and
abnormal. If this is so, then it should have been genetically selected
out a long time ago. After all, it doesn't help pass genes along. Of
course, an alternative argument is that of the "helping hands theory" in
which the homosexual in a family was able to help raise the children of
his/her household by not having to invest in finding a mate and
reproducing her/himself. Thus the genes of the homosexual was passed
along as adaptive (of course, this is the ultimate family values
argument!!).

As to the DSM argument, I've gone through DSMIV-- and if you are alive,
you've got a problem according to this book. Even, Jesus, Mohammed and
Buddha would have problems, and need psychiatric help (before, of
course, being shot down by the CIA!!). If you are a psychiatrist, you
have to make a living. As to psychiatrists considering homosexuality
abberant, since when are humans infallible and not prone to political
interpretation of information. That we are debating this point would
make a case not to argue from authority. That and the recent "repressed
memories" imbroglio. And, I would like to see what the follow-ups are
like on these "therapies" that you suggest are working so well.

Finally, as to the argument that if you have money or are a small group
you don't need civil rights. I'm sorry-- BUT THAT IS A LOAD OF CRAP.
There is a direct correlation. Until everyone gets treated with
fairness regardless of age, sex, ethnic background, skin color, sexual
preference and so many other aspects that we as humans are capable of
discriminating on, we all have a lot of work to do. And that means
action, not claiming that you are a bigger victim than the person next
to you.

But then, those are my opinions.

Patrick

kelly514@juno.com wrote:
>
> Patrick writes:
> >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).
>
> Patrick I have heard of the study but like any study it has to be
> replicated to be seen as accurate. This has yet to happen. As far as the
> twin study that the scientists have ignored more recently, but the gay
> activists use, is problematic because it lacks objectivity. The original
> study where researchers solicited homosexuals
> found that 52% had gay identical twins. Solicitation of this kind where
> agendas get in the way have been discredited and again replication has
> shown it to be very inaccurate. But let us say one day they find a
> correlation between the shape of the brain and homosexuality. Next step
> is to determine whether it is cause or effect. If they determine cause
> then they have to show how it is linked. While all this is going on
> thousands of people are leaving the lifestyle through therapeutic means
> that are so successful that even the APA, who are pressured to stop such
> therapy as recently as last year by gay activists as it was widely
> reported in the mainstream media, continue to allow such therapy.>
> As far as the animal kingdom, heterosexuality is consistently present and
> homosexuality in such environments can be related to that of prisoners
> where the interaction has to do more with aggression than attraction.
> Also physically we were designed to be with the opposite sex and you
> don't need a degree in physiology to know that.
>
> Getting back to the twin studies that are already not scientific. Gay
> activist use these but what they seem to lack is scientific knowledge. If
> identical twins are IDENTICAL then they share the SAME genes. Why is it
> then there were only 52% and not 100% of the respondents to have
> identical homosexual brothers/sisters?
>
> Did you know that gay activists are rethinking this idea of genetic
> connection? Why you ask? I'll tell you. To say it is genetic means that
> what homosexuals have is a genetic defect. Here is why: Besides
> physiology showing we were made to be with the opposite sex, homosexuals
> don't consistently reproduce. Asians consistently produce Asians, Whites
> Whites, Blacks Blacks, etc. How many gay activists do you know want to
> accept they have a genetic defect?
>
> Let me give you a brief history of the gay movement. In the 60's they
> said it was choice and the mentality, as you probably already know, was
> "do your own thing". Many tolerated that as long as it didn't hurt others
> and homosexuality didn't hurt anyone so it was tolerated to at least a
> small degree. In the 70's a problem occurred. Many homosexuals desired to
> be tolerated if not accepted by the larger population so they attempted
> to normalize their lifestyle. This involved crashing an APA conference in
> the mid 70's to demand, through intimidation, homosexuality be taken out
> of the DSM (manual for direction in diagnosing mental disorders written
> by psychiatrists not psychologists). Despite 69% of doctors in the mental
> health field surveyed during that time saying it was still abnormal, the
> leaders of the APA (American Psychiatric Assn.) took it out. If you talk
> to therapists who deal with reparative therapy they will usually tell you
> it should have been taken out as far as the context in describing the
> disorder but the problem should have been rewritten to describe the true
> issues that homosexuals struggle with which prevents them from living as
> a heterosexual. Homosexuals activists to this day have kept sexual
> addiction out of the DSM because is too closely resembles their lifestyle
> but despite that you have probably heard of sexual addiction described as
> a mental disorder.
>
> Now here is why homosexuals activists aren't going to jump on the
> "choice" bandwagon anytime soon (personal opinion). Since they make up
> approximately 2% of the population (and this has been proven consistently
> in in hundreds of surveys) they remain a loud but still represent a small
> voice in political influence. If they were to say it is a choice, you
> would see the vast majority of homosexuals seeking therapy within a week.
> Studies again show, and if you ever asked mainstream homosexuals if they
> could live a heterosexual lifestyle they would, homosexuals are unhappy
> with the homosexual lifestyle and feel hopeless that change is possible.
> Activists say this unhappiness is due to discrimination but that plays a
> small factor and for many this factor is insignificant. It has also been
> shown in one study that homosexuals make approximately 40% higher income
> than heterosexuals as a population. Now don't you find it strange how
> they can sometimes get away with correlating their movement to the civil
> rights movement. I would have loved to been able to drive around in
> affluent neighborhoods without police knowing I was black.
>
> Let me tell you of one case that I remember dealing with in a group
> therapy session in the late 80's. I had a 30
> year old man in my group who suffered from sexual addiction. He was
> raised by two parents. The father was passive and the mother was very
> dominating. When he felt a sexual urge his throat would become swollen
> and he would have difficulty breathing. He hired a dominatrix (excuse the
> spelling) to satisfy his desire. Do you see the correlation between the
> prostitute and his mother? The intimacy with his mother was void in his
> life so he made a decision to fill that void the way he thought was going
> to help him. He was fine with women in a non emotional and non sexual
> manner so he appeared normal on the outside. He was 1 of two kids. His
> brother chose to deal with his mother in a different way. He desired men.
> He had many sexual partners, which isn't unusual for homosexuals, and
> sadly, at the age of 32, he died of AIDS. Now this isn't scientific data
> but it is a case study that society would look at and say only the sexual
> addict has a problem (and many men wouldn't even see him as
> problematic).
>
> 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: Fri, 15 May 1998 15:01:25 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"OxWt0C.A.czG._7JX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Stefan Wills"
To: "'Lea Curry'" ,
"Mark Gaertner"
Cc:
Subject: RE: let's get tough...
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 16:00:43 -0400
Message-ID: <000801bd803c$260ea910$b90c948e@mjollnir>

I suppose that we could treat this like drunk driving offences: Once
convicted of committing a serious crime then lose the right to carry guns
for a period of time depending on the seriousness of their offense and
whether guns were used when the offense was committed. Here they are quite
strict about punishing people with suspended drivers licenses if they are
found driving a car during the suspension period. It seems reasonable to
treat guns in a similar manner.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Lea Curry [mailto:lea@sirius.com]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 3:44 PM
To: Mark Gaertner
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: let's get tough...


> However, regarding the
> suggestion that there needs to be stricter penalties for breaking gun
> control laws... Wasn't it similar thinking that created the travesty
> that is the "Three Strikes" laws and manditory sentances for drug
> offenders? Now minor offenders are sentanced to ridiculously long
> sentances, mixed in with rougher and nastier offenders. This, at a
> time where our prison situation is in a crisis already. The war on
> drugs continues to meander as ineffectively as ever though. The
> "getting tough on crime" stance comes with a whole batch of new
> problems, most of which are never dealt with once they arise.


As reluctant as you are, you make a good point. But I think you have
to really look at what carrying a weapon concealed means. IS it minor?

I strongly favor decriminalization for almost all drug offenses. It
isnt working now. And three strikes, I have my reservations about. But
I wont get into them.

But why should any law abiding person need to carry a gun, without a
permit? (you know, that in most any case, you could get such a permit,
if you had to walk home late, etc, but to get one, you need to have a
legal registered gun, etc.) And who most commonly carries guns, without
them? The idea is NOT to punish the law abiding citizens who wants the
right to OWN a gun.


Concealment permits are more of a local ordinance (I think usually
county). In some places its very easy, and local people can probably
best decide what is safest for their community. (THATS a Libertarian
idea, by the way).

What I think we should take a lot more seriously , is the people who
feel they need to pack a gun for day to day survival. That points at
something not so cool. And we do have this underlying violence that is
pretty out of control here. Are we catering to unstable people here,
too much? Why do we need to be an accomplice to this?

Im with you in not ordinarily caring for mandatory sentances..... but
we are in a unique situation with guns. We cant illegalize them, too
late. I can not imagine a truely law abiding gun owner, that would
think it a political threat to leave the thing at home. And if it GETS
to be one, concealment penalties will be the least of our worries. Under
such a circumstance that you felt you had to leave and your life was in
danger..I would think you would risk it.

Maybe it should be a second offense thing. Surely your life wouldnt be
in danger and you would not have to flee your house with a gun more than
once? You could then get a permit if you planned on a lot of future
drama.

Im not sure WHAT the answer is and only suggest this as something that
needs to be discussed publically. And groups like the NRA should be
leading that discussion, not me. Id respect them more if they would
extend their do called "law abiding responsible gun owner" stance into
something a little more proactive. But they seem to want to dismiss
ANY gun associated problems, and stonewall any public debate. Its
going to take more to win me over.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 15:05:09 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"WY0hQD.A.I3G.X_JX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Mark Scott
CC: Infected
Subject: Re: Gunsluts and Seinfeld
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 13:07:13 -0700
Message-ID: <355CA071.9930DA65@sirius.com>

>
> So is it understood to be short for Young Urban Professional?
> I would like to know.

I dont really know, but I used that as short hand, I think you are
right though.

To me, its become code for wanna be upwardly mobile, but sometimes not,
consumer driven , trend following, competeing, shallow, self obsessed
bubble heads that chase whatever carrot is currently being dangled, and
actually think those silly names splashed all over clothese these days
MEANS something.

(I gave a room mates girlfriends a stack of Lapidary Journals to look
at because she says she likes jewelry. These are very expensive (a
gift) and are full of the best jewelry going, lots of museum quality
stuff, etc. She turns up her nose after a precursory glance and says"
(in a whine) i dont like this stuff....I mean where do they sell
THIS... Like at Macy's or Nordstroms? Ive never heard these names"

Thats a real good example of what I mean. It doesnt matter if you
have a cell phone, etc.


>
> > I actually like both Dilbert and Seinfeld well enough. I was just
> >trying to have fun with it.
>
> But you did it in a straight faced and ironic manner so I didn't get it...
>

Ah HA! BUSTED!

L.
> Cheers
>
> Mark
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 17:49:49 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"5Px7_C.A.I.xZMX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: lea@sirius.com, kelly514@Juno.com
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: Extremists can always be weeded out
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 15:47:53 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E17EF@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>

I've been having some e-mail complaints so I'll throw in some
returns here and ther to hopefully make this readable

I know a couple of gay people who would seriously consider that therapy..
but just for an easy life. I think if you offered therapy which enabled
the Straight OR Homosexual to start digging both sexes then you'd be
on to something. Effectively it would increase the available . Excellent !
As a straight bloke with 'limited' availablity of dates in my youth I often
thought it would be kind of cool to have a best mate* you could have a
good shag with after a game of squash. I since discovered that your best
mate can be a person of the opposite sex so I've no need to worry about it
now.

The more I think about it the more incredible this is. I know quite a few
hetro blokes who have a best friend and both of them are hopeless with
women. If you could give em therapy so they were attracted to each other
in a 'new way' they could be a lot happier.

(*Mate in the English term ..close friend.)
- -Adrian

> > If they were to say it is a choice, you
> > would see the vast majority of homosexuals seeking
> > therapy within a week.
>
> I have literally lived in the gay community for all
> practical
> purposes, (socially) for about 25 years, even though I am
> not gay. This
> IS San Francisco. I disagree strongly.
>
> Im sure some of the other bright and maybe gay people on
> this list
> will want to have a word with you about it though. Thank
> you for such an
> insightful post. I see where you are coming from, now.
>
> Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 17:49:13 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"jEI-xD.A.LTH.RZMX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: Enough -- (Eight is)
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 18:50:42 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD8032.5D3F6DC0.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

I am going to randomly slip in that secret the The message, Tim. Stay on
the list. Read the messages, feel the frustration. It could be this week
or maybe next month, but that secret message shall be inserted.

Devo

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kyle Milligan [SMTP:toldyaso@planeteer.com]
Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 1:46 AM
To: who else?
Cc: Infected
Subject: Re: Enough -- (Eight is)

Tim,

It's seems pretty easy to frustrate you. Having been on the list for a
short
while I can assure you that the rants and debates are often far more
interesting that blather about one's favourite song/album/artwork. But
we're
not fighting, we're all like siblings here.

There is a deep.. well not love.. but OK not respect either.. a common
decency
that is sometimes followed and revered in these parts. In makes us... OK OK
it's not a family. But it could be.

But no one's forcing you to read anything Tim. No one's going to slip in a
secret the The message that you just can't live without. So if you're not
interested, hit the delete button. But I suspect you can't and it's killing
you. Does this mean you'll "unsubscribe" soon? You won't know what you're
missing! That'll drive you nuts.

Just having fun.

Kyle Milligan
toldyaso@planeteer.com

- ----------
> From: who else?
> To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> Subject: Enough
> Date: Thursday, May 14, 1998 7:30 PM
>
> Hi. I've only been on this mailing list for a month or so and at the
> beginning I was wondering if it was worth being on because there were so
few
> mails. Then the mail started to hit and it was very goof and interesting.
I
> was very happy that this list was starting to pick up. Now whenever I
check
> my mail I get frusterated because there is so much rubbish coming in my
> mail, ie. guns. Please stop the mail that has absolutely nothing to do
with
> the The and think before you post. If you want to fight, do it by
personal
> e-mails. I'm so frusterated!!!
> Thanks
> Tim
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 18:05:23 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"j858fD.A.tD.doMX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
CC: marie@etoys.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re:ENOUGH
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 16:07:36 -0700
Message-ID: <355CCAB8.942A955F@sirius.com>

Tim whines:

> Now whenever I
> check
> > my mail I get frusterated because there is so much rubbish coming in my
> > mail, ie. guns. Please stop the mail that has absolutely nothing to do
> with
> > the The and think before you post. If you want to fight, do it by
> personal
> > e-mails. I'm so frusterated!!!
> > Thanks
> > Tim
> >
>


To which somebody profoundly said:


> Mattt Johnson is very politicatally and sociologically
> aware and his lyrics show that. When you start discussing them
> the conversation will inevitably expand in to discussions not
> theThe related.

I assumed this list would be that way when I initially signed on, and
Im really enjoying all the diverse ideas, and the people expressing
them. (I may violently disagree, but I really like hearing them!)
Quincy made this more possible. Thank YOU Quincy!

For those who are complaining, If you want a thread about the The, why
dont you start one? I dont hear you contributing anything but
complaints. If you want silence between pertinant theThe news, then the
theTHE news list is for you! There's something for everyone.

Whining because you are not being spoon fed what you want, when you want
it, isnt very adult. This isnt a TV channel.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 19:45:33 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"p1GiO.A.IH.UGOX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: ziggy nix
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: another un-thethe-related mess
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 21:03:46 -0400
Message-ID: <355CE5F2.D94309E8@wilmington.net>

just felt i should plug a strange festival that's happening
in my own little town of Wilmington. it's called WEfest and
it proves to be a great time, come come to the beach for a
week and see 40+ bands for $15.00 from May 21-27. what
better way to spend a beer soaked memorial day weekend...
anyway, check out the website, it gotz lotz of info...

http://www.smellygig.com/wefest/main.html

enjoy!! and if ya decide to come down we'll find crash space
for ya (it's the south, we're supposed to be friendly).

ciao,
ziggy nix
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 22:35:09 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"7Zp_gB.A.Bg.UlQX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Kyle Milligan"
To: "Lea Curry"
Cc: "Infected"
Subject: Re: Gunsluts and Seinfeld
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 23:26:50 -0700
Message-Id: <199805160334.XAA19249@toronto.planeteer.com>

>
> Something else will PROBABLY fill the void, but it may take a while.
> I was bummed when Northern Exposure died, and was an EXTREME fan of that
> one. With all the commercials I prefer hour formats and those are full
> of junk, mostly, too. So I know how you feel.

Northern Exposure was such a gem. What an example of superlative TV
entertainment. Intelligent, off the wall and thought provoking (and damn funny
at times too.) The characters were so engrossing.
>
> Lea
>
> PS, weren't people nicer to each other when CHEERS was the water cooler
> show?
>

I don't know about that one, can't really recall. But it's been my policy for
about 6 years now that people in general suck. I don't think you can blame
Seinfeld for that one, but go ahead, who's going to stop you.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 22:43:23 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Qvk41.A.-i.EtQX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Kyle Milligan"
To: "Nat Light"
Cc: "Infected"
Subject: Re: Devo, you are evil
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 23:35:09 -0700
Message-Id: <199805160342.XAA19546@toronto.planeteer.com>

Devo, you are so evil.

I find that so appealing.


Kyle Milligan
toldyaso@planeteer.com

- ----------
> From: Nat Light
> To: INFECTED (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Enough -- (Eight is)
> Date: Friday, May 15, 1998 3:50 PM
>
> I am going to randomly slip in that secret the The message, Tim. Stay on
> the list. Read the messages, feel the frustration. It could be this week
> or maybe next month, but that secret message shall be inserted.
>
> Devo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kyle Milligan [SMTP:toldyaso@planeteer.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 1:46 AM
> To: who else?
> Cc: Infected
> Subject: Re: Enough -- (Eight is)
>
> Tim,
>
> It's seems pretty easy to frustrate you. Having been on the list for a
> short
> while I can assure you that the rants and debates are often far more
> interesting that blather about one's favourite song/album/artwork. But
> we're
> not fighting, we're all like siblings here.
>
> There is a deep.. well not love.. but OK not respect either.. a common
> decency
> that is sometimes followed and revered in these parts. In makes us... OK OK
> it's not a family. But it could be.
>
> But no one's forcing you to read anything Tim. No one's going to slip in a
> secret the The message that you just can't live without. So if you're not
> interested, hit the delete button. But I suspect you can't and it's killing
> you. Does this mean you'll "unsubscribe" soon? You won't know what you're
> missing! That'll drive you nuts.
>
> Just having fun.
>
> Kyle Milligan
> toldyaso@planeteer.com
>
> ----------
> > From: who else?
> > To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> > Subject: Enough
> > Date: Thursday, May 14, 1998 7:30 PM
> >
> > Hi. I've only been on this mailing list for a month or so and at the
> > beginning I was wondering if it was worth being on because there were so
> few
> > mails. Then the mail started to hit and it was very goof and interesting.
> I
> > was very happy that this list was starting to pick up. Now whenever I
> check
> > my mail I get frusterated because there is so much rubbish coming in my
> > mail, ie. guns. Please stop the mail that has absolutely nothing to do
> with
> > the The and think before you post. If you want to fight, do it by
> personal
> > e-mails. I'm so frusterated!!!
> > Thanks
> > Tim
> >
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 22:47:57 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"GRmPF.A.Ol.XxQX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Kyle Milligan"
To: "Nat Light"
Cc: "Infected"
Subject: Re: Gun related - Moron test
Date: Fri, 15 May 1998 23:39:41 -0700
Message-Id: <199805160347.XAA19670@toronto.planeteer.com>

Re: Moron test

Clearly the first test of low intelligence would be to simply beckon:
"Hey moron!"
Anyone who responds clearly cannot have a gun.
Of course a mandatory hearing test will have to follow on those who pass the
first test.

Kyle Milligan
toldyaso@planeteer.com

- ----------
> From: Nat Light
> To: 'toldyaso@planeteer.com'
> Subject: RE: Gun related - Don't read if you're looking for a the The thread
> Date: Friday, May 15, 1998 3:47 PM
>
> I have no problem with that concept. Looks good on paper too.
>
> What form of test will be used to determine if the potential buyer is a
moron?
>
> Devo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kyle Milligan [SMTP:toldyaso@planeteer.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 1:37 AM
> To: Infected
> Subject: Gun related - Don't read if you're looking for a the The thread
>
> OK, so let's just say that it wasn't impossible to get a gun, but just took a
> long time, and that everyone except convicts, minors and morons couldn't get
> one, and say this process took, mmmm say 8-10 months to get a gun legally.
>
> Would that be so bad?
>
> And how about if you and/or you're gun was ever involved in the killing or
> maiming of any human being or any animal that is protected by law (blah blah
> blah) then you LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO HAVE A GUN FOREVER!
>
> Of course possession of a illegal firearm would have to be a VERY serious
crime
> with a HEFTY punishment.
>
> Would that sound reasonable?
>
> And if you did own a gun, and you ever used it even in a threatening manner
> towards another human being, they lock you up and throw away the key.
>
> If this were the case, and if it was enforced, I wouldn't have so much a
> problem with guns.
>
> Kyle Milligan
> toldyaso@planeteer.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 15:00:46 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"29e31C.A.pHB.LBfX1"@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: the gun debate shall continue!
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 20:55:01
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980516205501.0cb758a0@mail.clara.net>



At 09:41 15/05/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:
>Richard Ings wrote:
>>

I'll repeat my point of view in question form: who do you trust more? The
police or the people? The founders/revolutionaries of the American
government believed the people had a right to bear arms to protect
themselves from the state. The law is still based on this premise. We have
rights *against* the state, won in a fight with them (universal suffrage is
a good example of this). In the current period, the state is slowly
undermining assumptions upon which democracy (not simply gun ownership) is
based: instead of needing rights against the state, we need rights against
each other (not to be harassed/abused/offended/shot...). In many different
ways we are told today that we need protection *by* the state, no longer
*from* it.

I do not believe handling a gun is as hard as studying medicine or driving
a car. A licence is the state's way of controlling a weapon that could be
used against them. Remember, they never leave returning conscripts with
their weapons! Your personal obsession with the regulation of the firearm
would make a nice petition but in your own small corner, you are simply
reflecting a broader paranoia about a highly fetishised weapon which
represents for many a potent symbol of social breakdown.

This is my point about why this debate has become so highly-charged: we
feel we can no longer trust each other. Let's pose the question another
way...why *shouldn't* we carry guns? The police do.

> It seems like lately, a whole lot of people are declaring themselves
>to be "Libertarian", and I wonder if they really know what that means.
>

I'd love to meet them, I feel so isolated in my humanism nowadays...

Oh, and I'm not an anarchist, although your caricaturing of what anarchism
is does your 'politically literate' kudos little good. I think I'm closer
to anarchism than I am to your "Jeffersonianism"
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 15:01:03 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Bfdau.A.TIB.UBfX1"@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: A very simple answer
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 20:55:27
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980516205527.0cb752fa@mail.clara.net>

Yawn - I think I've provided too many bright and original thoughts already,
I can't always be a genius can I? Unfortunately, I can't say disappointing
you is going to keep me awake, but don't take that personally.

Sorry I couldn't just answer 'yes' or 'no'. Little did I know that you were
laying a highly sophisticated trap for me. I'll know better next time! (The
answer is 'no', by the way, you work it out from there)


At 11:55 15/05/98 MDT, Ken Maclean wrote:
>Well what can i say.I now know that Richard in the best manner of all
>the most irritating career politicians is incapable of answering a
>simple yes or no question.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 16:13:53 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"gPipQ.A.1QB.8FgX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "'toldyaso@planeteer.com'"
Cc: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: Devo, you are evil
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 17:15:43 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD80EE.42B87AC0.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

Yes, I know !

While laughing hysterically and tilting my head back only to show that wild eyed look,

Devo

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kyle Milligan [SMTP:toldyaso@planeteer.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 2:35 AM
To: Nat Light
Cc: Infected
Subject: Re: Devo, you are evil

Devo, you are so evil.

I find that so appealing.


Kyle Milligan
toldyaso@planeteer.com

- ----------
> From: Nat Light
> To: INFECTED (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Enough -- (Eight is)
> Date: Friday, May 15, 1998 3:50 PM
>
> I am going to randomly slip in that secret the The message, Tim. Stay on
> the list. Read the messages, feel the frustration. It could be this week
> or maybe next month, but that secret message shall be inserted.
>
> Devo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kyle Milligan [SMTP:toldyaso@planeteer.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 1:46 AM
> To: who else?
> Cc: Infected
> Subject: Re: Enough -- (Eight is)
>
> Tim,
>
> It's seems pretty easy to frustrate you. Having been on the list for a
> short
> while I can assure you that the rants and debates are often far more
> interesting that blather about one's favourite song/album/artwork. But
> we're
> not fighting, we're all like siblings here.
>
> There is a deep.. well not love.. but OK not respect either.. a common
> decency
> that is sometimes followed and revered in these parts. In makes us... OK OK
> it's not a family. But it could be.
>
> But no one's forcing you to read anything Tim. No one's going to slip in a
> secret the The message that you just can't live without. So if you're not
> interested, hit the delete button. But I suspect you can't and it's killing
> you. Does this mean you'll "unsubscribe" soon? You won't know what you're
> missing! That'll drive you nuts.
>
> Just having fun.
>
> Kyle Milligan
> toldyaso@planeteer.com
>
> ----------
> > From: who else?
> > To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
> > Subject: Enough
> > Date: Thursday, May 14, 1998 7:30 PM
> >
> > Hi. I've only been on this mailing list for a month or so and at the
> > beginning I was wondering if it was worth being on because there were so
> few
> > mails. Then the mail started to hit and it was very goof and interesting.
> I
> > was very happy that this list was starting to pick up. Now whenever I
> check
> > my mail I get frusterated because there is so much rubbish coming in my
> > mail, ie. guns. Please stop the mail that has absolutely nothing to do
> with
> > the The and think before you post. If you want to fight, do it by
> personal
> > e-mails. I'm so frusterated!!!
> > Thanks
> > Tim
> >
>

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 16:14:36 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"_TUqXC.A.hSB.gGgX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "'who else?'"
Cc: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: Enough -- (Eight is)
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 17:16:26 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD80EE.5C4A8000.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

That's what I am here for young man.

Devo

- -----Original Message-----
From: who else? [SMTP:tloat@vaxxine.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 1:02 AM
To: Nat Light
Subject: Re: Enough -- (Eight is)



>I am going to randomly slip in that secret the The message, Tim. Stay on
>the list. Read the messages, feel the frustration. It could be this week
>or maybe next month, but that secret message shall be inserted.
>
>Devo
>
Thanks. I don't think I should have said anything. I've recieved a lot of
hate mail over that. I only wanted to cut down some of the unneccesary mail,
that's all. Well, I hope you do send me that mail.
Tim

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 22:09:30 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"XNk8q.A.2gB.VTlX1"@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: the gun debate shall continue!
Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 20:11:42 -0700
Message-ID: <355E556E.30260541@sirius.com>

Richard Ings wrote:
>
> At 09:41 15/05/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:
> >Richard Ings wrote:
> >>
>
> I'll repeat my point of view in question form: who do you trust more? The
> police or the people?

Sir, when it comes to firing a gun in public, the police, hands down. I
see how people drive, and how upset they get when the person ahead of
them isn't driving 70 in the slow lane. I ride city busses.


And if most people shoot like they drive, again, the police.
The founders/revolutionaries of the American
> government believed the people had a right to bear arms to protect
> themselves from the state. The law is still based on this premise.

Thats how you and your cronies see it, but many scholars of the law see
the "right to have a regulated militia", as quite a different thing.
That isnt a shut book. And I think there is so much fear on your side
of the fence about ever putting these issues to a vote because you KNOW
that. You cant even answer a straight question! Do YOU really trust the
people? Funny, you sure dont want "the people" to decide this issue.

We have
> rights *against* the state, won in a fight with them (universal suffrage is
> a good example of this).

With guns? Was that what the civil war was about? History says it was
about economics and a state's right to seperate from the union, and they
lost. Guns and all, the party challenging the Federal Government lost.


>In the current period, the state is slowly
> undermining assumptions upon which democracy (not simply gun ownership) is
> based: instead of needing rights against the state, we need rights against
> each other (not to be harassed/abused/offended/shot...). In many different
> ways we are told today that we need protection *by* the state, no longer
> *from* it.


This system wasn't founded on the paranoid assumption that the state
is always out to get you. We WON the revolution, remember? You are
projecting an aura of ill intent there that our forefathers didnt see as
a perpetual threat. Free speech and representation was meant to allow
us to BE the state. They were not hedging their bets, much as it is
pleasant to think that. The wars of the future will be economic,
provided some primitive tribe doesnt blow us to kingdom come, and I
think personal nuclear devices are not going to be too common, nor will
your guns help.

You add nothing but chaos to the threatening scenario, you paint! You
carrying guns give me ZERO protection from the state. Are YOU going to
put food in my mouth? Are YOU going to unfreeze what little assets I
may have if the state decides they want to control me? Are you going to
come on down and shoot the IRS if they decide to garnish my check? I
dont think so.

Somehow, you think that if you and all your buddies are armed I will
be safer from the state? That is ludicrous! It would just be bloodier
and more chaotic. If I were that worried I would put my money into
counterintelligence, not guns. The model you assume, when you imagine
that guns are some kind of protection from the government is about 150
years gone!
>
> I do not believe handling a gun is as hard as studying medicine or driving
> a car.

Do you think that the vast majority of people who bought a handgun in
the last 5 years have ever bothered to learn to shoot straight? Would
you trust the average Joe to shoot an apple off your head at twenty
paces?

A licence is the state's way of controlling a weapon that could be
> used against them.

That is utter paranoia. They certainly wouldn't issue licenses as
easilly as they do if this was a concern, nor would they allow cheap
imported pop guns in here by the shipload. No, that isnt quite rational
by most people's standards, but hey, thats just MY flakey opinion.

> Remember, they never leave returning conscripts with
> their weapons! Your personal obsession with the regulation of the firearm
> would make a nice petition but in your own small corner, you are simply
> reflecting a broader paranoia about a highly fetishised weapon which
> represents for many a potent symbol of social breakdown.

I am not obsessed with this issue, I kept repeating the question
because you couldnt answer it honestly, and still maintain the illusion
that you are one of those "law abiding gun owners, the NRA always
purports to defend.

One more time: I have not asked for anymnore regulation. You keep
rephrasing it that way, but it hasnt changed! You can not see for your
own straw man here!


> This is my point about why this debate has become so highly-charged: we
> feel we can no longer trust each other.

Thats true. I dont trust you to even own a gun, much less carry one,
concealed. You show a certain paranoia that doesnt strike me as
rational and I dont want to get caught in your crossfire. Sorry, but
from your own words that seems to be the case.


Let's pose the question another
> way...why *shouldn't* we carry guns? The police do.


Because that would result in CHAOS ! (expletive deleted)

We hire the police to do a job. Police are not appointed by the
government. We elect chiefs of police, or those who appoint them. We
have boards of supervisors, and all sorts of regulatory agencies to act
on our behalf. It isnt perfect, but neither are the soldiers we hire to
defend us. But its how the entire civilized world operates and so far,
it works pretty well. Is reform needed? Of Course. But I feel much
safer with an organized police department, hired by my town, (that can
shoot straight and has SOME training in handeling people and volatile
situations), than a bunch of mavericks toting guns, their heads filled
with paranoid mush,and black helicopters, selectively enforcing the
laws, that THEY think are important. That isnt civilization.

You might be just fine. But how about the yahoos that would be
shooting up abortion clinics? Who would stop them? YOU? How about the
people who hate drunk drivers, Id shoot a couple of them, if I had the
chance. Extrapolate it out and everyday will be "high noon at the UK
corral"!

Now if you can not understand how this would create utter chaos and
ridiculous amounts of bloodshed, I feel sorry for you. It's a bad idea.




> > It seems like lately, a whole lot of people are declaring themselves
> >to be "Libertarian", and I wonder if they really know what that means.
> >

> I'd love to meet them, I feel so isolated in my humanism nowadays...
>
> Oh, and I'm not an anarchist, although your caricaturing of what anarchism
> is does your 'politically literate' kudos little good. I think I'm closer
> to anarchism than I am to your "Jeffersonianism"


I agree with you.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 05:24:34 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"bCB7tC.A.HrB.MrrX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Richard Ings
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: voting away our rights
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 10:36:33
Message-Id: <3.0.1.16.19980517103633.54ef6a3e@mail.clara.net>

Apparently this voting thing comes up over and over again, so here's my
response.

As a democrat (sic) I am not opposed to referenda in principle. But in this
case I would be - the impulse behind the calls for a referendum are/would
be the attempt to restrict freedom. Why should I support a vote to give the
government the power to restrict my freedom? This would be the most
backward "use" of democracy I can think of. If I already have a freedom,
why should I support a vote to potentially take it away?

My opposition stems from my point about the trust issue - the desire to
"put it to the vote" does not spring out of nowhere but out of suspicion of
other people and the desire to see the state "do something" about the
potential "madman next door". To support a referendum would be to give
credence to this paranoia about our fellow human beings and continue to
invest the state with the authority to deal with the problem.

In any case, as I said before, you *know* you don't need a referendum! The
tide is already going your way. Do you see Clinton or Blair shouting for
more freedom of speech, freedom to own guns, freedom in general? No, it's
restrict this, ban that to make the world a safer place.

At 20:11 16/05/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:
>
>With guns? Was that what the civil war was about? History says it was
>about economics and a state's right to seperate from the union, and they
>lost. Guns and all, the party challenging the Federal Government lost.

Just as an aside - what the Yankees fought with good arguments against the
Feds guns?

I'm no Oliver Stone, but if you believe the state represents your
interests, or has you in mind when it pours money into its military to go
and fight the yellow man, or that the FBI is really just spending its time
chasing UFOs, I think you've got another thing coming, honey. But better to
be paranoid about the powers-that-be (full circle back to Matt Johnson -
wow!) than ordinary people.


"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression"
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 08:13:13 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"1Xp5RD.A.8tB.RJuX1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: the gun debate shall continue!
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 09:15:10 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD8174.4AFB1400.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

>>With guns? Was that what the civil war was about? History says it was
>>about economics and a state's right to seperate from the union, and they
>>lost. Guns and all, the party challenging the Federal Government lost.

Yea, but we gave 'em one hell of a run!

Devo


- -----Original Message-----
From: Lea Curry [SMTP:lea@sirius.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 11:12 PM
To: Richard Ings
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: the gun debate shall continue!

Richard Ings wrote:
>
> At 09:41 15/05/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:
> >Richard Ings wrote:
> >>
>
> I'll repeat my point of view in question form: who do you trust more? The
> police or the people?

Sir, when it comes to firing a gun in public, the police, hands down. I
see how people drive, and how upset they get when the person ahead of
them isn't driving 70 in the slow lane. I ride city busses.


And if most people shoot like they drive, again, the police.
The founders/revolutionaries of the American
> government believed the people had a right to bear arms to protect
> themselves from the state. The law is still based on this premise.

Thats how you and your cronies see it, but many scholars of the law see
the "right to have a regulated militia", as quite a different thing.
That isnt a shut book. And I think there is so much fear on your side
of the fence about ever putting these issues to a vote because you KNOW
that. You cant even answer a straight question! Do YOU really trust the
people? Funny, you sure dont want "the people" to decide this issue.

We have
> rights *against* the state, won in a fight with them (universal suffrage is
> a good example of this).

With guns? Was that what the civil war was about? History says it was
about economics and a state's right to seperate from the union, and they
lost. Guns and all, the party challenging the Federal Government lost.


>In the current period, the state is slowly
> undermining assumptions upon which democracy (not simply gun ownership) is
> based: instead of needing rights against the state, we need rights against
> each other (not to be harassed/abused/offended/shot...). In many different
> ways we are told today that we need protection *by* the state, no longer
> *from* it.


This system wasn't founded on the paranoid assumption that the state
is always out to get you. We WON the revolution, remember? You are
projecting an aura of ill intent there that our forefathers didnt see as
a perpetual threat. Free speech and representation was meant to allow
us to BE the state. They were not hedging their bets, much as it is
pleasant to think that. The wars of the future will be economic,
provided some primitive tribe doesnt blow us to kingdom come, and I
think personal nuclear devices are not going to be too common, nor will
your guns help.

You add nothing but chaos to the threatening scenario, you paint! You
carrying guns give me ZERO protection from the state. Are YOU going to
put food in my mouth? Are YOU going to unfreeze what little assets I
may have if the state decides they want to control me? Are you going to
come on down and shoot the IRS if they decide to garnish my check? I
dont think so.

Somehow, you think that if you and all your buddies are armed I will
be safer from the state? That is ludicrous! It would just be bloodier
and more chaotic. If I were that worried I would put my money into
counterintelligence, not guns. The model you assume, when you imagine
that guns are some kind of protection from the government is about 150
years gone!
>
> I do not believe handling a gun is as hard as studying medicine or driving
> a car.

Do you think that the vast majority of people who bought a handgun in
the last 5 years have ever bothered to learn to shoot straight? Would
you trust the average Joe to shoot an apple off your head at twenty
paces?

A licence is the state's way of controlling a weapon that could be
> used against them.

That is utter paranoia. They certainly wouldn't issue licenses as
easilly as they do if this was a concern, nor would they allow cheap
imported pop guns in here by the shipload. No, that isnt quite rational
by most people's standards, but hey, thats just MY flakey opinion.

> Remember, they never leave returning conscripts with
> their weapons! Your personal obsession with the regulation of the firearm
> would make a nice petition but in your own small corner, you are simply
> reflecting a broader paranoia about a highly fetishised weapon which
> represents for many a potent symbol of social breakdown.

I am not obsessed with this issue, I kept repeating the question
because you couldnt answer it honestly, and still maintain the illusion
that you are one of those "law abiding gun owners, the NRA always
purports to defend.

One more time: I have not asked for anymnore regulation. You keep
rephrasing it that way, but it hasnt changed! You can not see for your
own straw man here!


> This is my point about why this debate has become so highly-charged: we
> feel we can no longer trust each other.

Thats true. I dont trust you to even own a gun, much less carry one,
concealed. You show a certain paranoia that doesnt strike me as
rational and I dont want to get caught in your crossfire. Sorry, but
from your own words that seems to be the case.


Let's pose the question another
> way...why *shouldn't* we carry guns? The police do.


Because that would result in CHAOS ! (expletive deleted)

We hire the police to do a job. Police are not appointed by the
government. We elect chiefs of police, or those who appoint them. We
have boards of supervisors, and all sorts of regulatory agencies to act
on our behalf. It isnt perfect, but neither are the soldiers we hire to
defend us. But its how the entire civilized world operates and so far,
it works pretty well. Is reform needed? Of Course. But I feel much
safer with an organized police department, hired by my town, (that can
shoot straight and has SOME training in handeling people and volatile
situations), than a bunch of mavericks toting guns, their heads filled
with paranoid mush,and black helicopters, selectively enforcing the
laws, that THEY think are important. That isnt civilization.

You might be just fine. But how about the yahoos that would be
shooting up abortion clinics? Who would stop them? YOU? How about the
people who hate drunk drivers, Id shoot a couple of them, if I had the
chance. Extrapolate it out and everyday will be "high noon at the UK
corral"!

Now if you can not understand how this would create utter chaos and
ridiculous amounts of bloodshed, I feel sorry for you. It's a bad idea.




> > It seems like lately, a whole lot of people are declaring themselves
> >to be "Libertarian", and I wonder if they really know what that means.
> >

> I'd love to meet them, I feel so isolated in my humanism nowadays...
>
> Oh, and I'm not an anarchist, although your caricaturing of what anarchism
> is does your 'politically literate' kudos little good. I think I'm closer
> to anarchism than I am to your "Jeffersonianism"


I agree with you.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 13:54:24 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"J_Yax.A.P3B.LJzX1"@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: voting away our rights
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 11:56:28 -0700
Message-ID: <355F32DC.79DCA7CC@sirius.com>

Richard Ings wrote:
>
> Apparently this voting thing comes up over and over again, so here's my
> response.
>
> As a democrat (sic) I am not opposed to referenda in principle. But in this
> case I would be - the impulse behind the calls for a referendum are/would
> be the attempt to restrict freedom. Why should I support a vote to give the
> government the power to restrict my freedom? This would be the most
> backward "use" of democracy I can think of.

Richard, is toughening the penalty of an existing law, restricting a
freedom. See, for you, I think it is, because you do not intend to obey
that law. But for those that claim to be law abiding and responsible,
my question is a no brainer. Of COURSE they wouldnt care if the penalty
for carrying a gun illegally was stiffened, becasue they obey gun laws
as they exist now. Its an acid test question, Richard. If such a
mythical law came up for general vote and the NRA campaigned against it
they would become even more discredited then they are now. I doubt the
mainstream pro gun people WOULD be against it. It shouldnet effect
themone way or the other and it would put a great deal of pressure on
street level crime.

I look at all these thugs between here and my grocery store and
probably 70 % of them have warrants. most are petty. But the fact that
if they DO get picked up, (and knowing the minute they ARE ID'd for any
reason, they ARE going in ) keps a few of the smarter ones from
packing. I think if it WSNT for this simple law, that there would be
far more violence, (involving innocent bystanders) than there is now.

People do and have gotten caught in the crossfire in my neighborhood.
And I have had to call 911 about a hundred times in the last 20 years.
So its kind of hard for me to villify the cops completely. I cant call
YOU when there is an asshole throwing beer bottles at my windows.

If I already have a freedom,
> why should I support a vote to potentially take it away?

You dont already HAVE that freedom. Thats my WHOLE point! You just
can not see that I am not advocating gun control. Im sure everybody
else gets the concept though so I give up trying to get you to see this.
>
> My opposition stems from my point about the trust issue - the desire to
> "put it to the vote" does not spring out of nowhere but out of suspicion of
> other people and the desire to see the state "do something" about the
> potential "madman next door". To support a referendum would be to give
> credence to this paranoia about our fellow human beings and continue to
> invest the state with the authority to deal with the problem.

Well, you havent said anything here that makes me inclined to trust
you more than the government.
>
> In any case, as I said before, you *know* you don't need a referendum! The
> tide is already going your way. Do you see Clinton or Blair shouting for
> more freedom of speech, freedom to own guns, freedom in general? No, it's
> restrict this, ban that to make the world a safer place.

Clinton and Blair are both really liberal, in this regard, and havent
been very involved in Law and order issues compared to their
predecessors.

I think we might have a communication problem due to an age
difference. I have to assume , when reading your posts that you are
college age. And I admit, I used to be a lot more worried about the
government being the bad guy THEN than I am now. I have learned in my
extra 20 years that the goverment is so disorganized , that they couldnt
dominate our freedom, or remove much of it, if they wanted to.

ADM, and the other multiconglomerates are changing the world and our
lifestyles far more than the government could ever hope to. The "global
ecomomy" will most likely have far more impact on things that matter to
me, than the government. But that is a viewpoint of a 41 year old, not
a twenty something year old. It may or may not be more accurate. But
its different.

Lea
>
> At 20:11 16/05/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:
> >
> >With guns? Was that what the civil war was about? History says it was
> >about economics and a state's right to seperate from the union, and they
> >lost. Guns and all, the party challenging the Federal Government lost.
>
> Just as an aside - what the Yankees fought with good arguments against the
> Feds guns?
>
> I'm no Oliver Stone, but if you believe the state represents your
> interests, or has you in mind when it pours money into its military to go
> and fight the yellow man, or that the FBI is really just spending its time
> chasing UFOs, I think you've got another thing coming, honey. But better to
> be paranoid about the powers-that-be (full circle back to Matt Johnson -
> wow!) than ordinary people.
>
> "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
> oppression"
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 14:13:12 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Rf-yfB.A.-5B.xazX1"@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: PS
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 12:15:22 -0700
Message-ID: <355F374A.5F7504B2@sirius.com>

Richard asks:


A little History that is probably boring to most people so delete if
so.
Richard asks?

> > Just as an aside - what the Yankees fought with good arguments against the
> > Feds guns?
> ]



This question isnt in a grammatic form I can understand very well,
but the Yankees WERE the Feds. Does that help? The Confederates were
trying to seperate from the USA. The Yankees 9also known as the UNION,
or The NORTH or The FEDERALS) said NO, and sent General Sherman to
illustrate the point. (you can still see the path he burned through
Georgia if you fly over it). The Yankees won. It started when the
Confederates formed militias and took up arms against the government and
there were a lot of people killed, (slowly and painfully). Nothing was
gained. The whole deal was a loose/loose proposition.

But it wasnt GUNS that they were fighting over, or the right to keep
them. Far as I know that was never an issue because everybody had a
rifle, legally, in those days, and the varous states had rag tag
militias, but they were probably a little more legal and recognized,
than those of today.

The Confederates were badly outgunned, and were never able to trade
enough to friendly European Countries to finance much of an army. (that
is what they had planned to do, because cotton and tobacco were both
very valuable commodities).

And in fact; the NORTH, trying to restrict the trade of the south was
a huge factor in their desire to seperate in the first place. More than
Slavery was, for sure. During the war, Union (yankee) blockades were
successful in stalling exports to Europe and arms deliveries,from
Europe, just enough, to get the advantage. And although slavery was a
popular issue as far as war propaganda was concerned, in the north,
Lincoln was willing to let slavery stay legal if the South would
surrender, up to the very END.

Slavery aside, (and it would have ended anyway) the South was the more
utopian, and Idealistic of the two. Jefferson Davis was a fascinating
man, and he was a lot brighter than most of his adversaries, and
PROBABLY more in tune with the founding fathers. But Lincoln saved the
UNION, and in the long run, that's believed to be for the best, by most
people North and South, today.

Had the south won, we would have two different countries. HOW they
would be different is fun for history buffs to speculate.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 19:33:38 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"RkM2XD.A.lFD.MH4X1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Ken Maclean"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Quiz shows.? They're just sophisticated traps by the CIA.
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 18:32:41 MDT
Message-ID: <19980518003241.26634.qmail@hotmail.com>

I resigned from the gun debate a while back and i am now ready to do the
same with the democracy debate because i have learned what i wanted to
know. Whenever i see a politician repeatedly refusing to answer a
question it strikes me that he's either terminaly stupid or more likely
he doesnt want to answer it because it will give too clear a picture of
what he really thinks and the kind of person he really is. Richard,
whilst originally very reluctant to answer a simple question has, to his
credit, decided to come out and give us his message and very revealing
it is too. Nat, although a little sensitive about what he perceived to
be flames, has argued honestly and consistently about what he believes
from the start and we have agreed to differ . Richard's stuff has always
seemed to me to be an attempt to muddy a very clear body of water
(opinion of course.)and the reason i asked a very simple question is
because i wanted to know wwhether that was just because he was a bit on
the muddled side or because he felt his views deserved more credence
than those of lesser mortals i.e. the voting puplic which of course
includes every other thinking individual who doesnt share his opinion.(
but they are not as clever as me and cant be trusted to come up with
my... sorry, the right answer! etc etc) Well now i know


> As a democrat (sic) I am not opposed to referenda in principle. But in
this
> case I would be - the impulse behind the calls for a referendum
are/would
> be the attempt to restrict freedom. Why should I support a vote to
give the
> government the power to restrict my freedom?

You would if you gave a shit about what anybody else thought.

A true democrat is instinctively concerned with the best method of
maximising everybody's freedom not just his own. Many a dictator
considers ways to maximise his own freedom with scant regard,or more
often ,to the detriment of everybody else's freedom. But he or she is
usually convinced of their innate superiority and rationalizes it that
way.

This would be the most
> backward "use" of democracy I can think of.

That says more about the limitations of your imagination than the
validity of your argument. What about the people who don't agree with
your view of this ? Do they have no rights ? You see, you can only fear
this kind of thing if you fear that you will lose and be forced to live
with someone elses viewpoint. An anathema to you i'm sure but without
doubt one of the trappings of democracy.If your lot won, i would be
dismayed but accept it because who am i to tell everybody else what
their opinions will be.I can campaign and try and persuade them but i am
not such an arrogant fucker as to tell them that their opinion is not
worth considering. What kind of democrat is it that says "i'll only put
it too the vote if i can be sure i will get my way ?"

Saddam Hussein,Stalin Kruschev,brezhnev etc etc called elections every
so often but only when they were sure that there was no opposition and
the secret police had assured the result for them. No wonder you were so
retiscent to answer as it is clear just who your philosophy keeps
company with.


If I already have a freedom,
> why should I support a vote to potentially take it away?

to show yourself capable of conjugating verbs with "we" rather than just
"i". I have been trying desperately to avoid the word selfish but how
else can you describe someone who understands that his perceived freedom
is impingimng on the freedom of a lot of other people's but will resist
any attempt to put it to a vote? If this was a corporation or religious
group doing it i sure you would be frothing at the mouth.
If the "corner i am coming from" is so small what do you have to lose by
letting people vote on it ?


> "put it to the vote" does not spring out of nowhere but out of
suspicion of
> other people

Who is showing more trust in people; someone who wishes to prevent them
voting on it because they cannot be relied on to accept their opinions
or someone who feels that everybody should have a chance to express
their opinion?

A "when it suits me democrat" is an oxymoron and in my opinion, anyone
who doesnt see that is the same, only without the oxy.



>
> "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy
from
> oppression"
Fine words matey boy but the question arises, is the inclusion of them
at the end of an e-mail from someone who would deny his perceived
oppressor the vote, a case of the devil quoting scriptures for his own
ends or just someone who doesnt understand them ?

Thats the end of my involvement in this thread so the last word between
us on this goes to you. Does anyone have a the the song that reminds
them of a previous partner and if so why ?

To those sick of all this, SORRY but like i said its over from now.
Love
Ken.




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 22:29:51 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"xxZIuB.A.KRD.as6X1"@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: Quiz shows.? They're just sophisticated traps by the CIA.
Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 20:32:02 -0700
Message-ID: <355FABB2.3A2DCC60@sirius.com>

> Fine words matey boy but the question arises, is the inclusion of them
> at the end of an e-mail from someone who would deny his perceived
> oppressor the vote, a case of the devil quoting scriptures for his own
> ends or just someone who doesnt understand them ?
>
> Thats the end of my involvement in this thread so the last word between
> us on this goes to you.


An excellant Idea, Ken and I will join you. Im sure everyone has had
more than enough.

Just like you, I kept Asking Richard (and Megan and Brian as well)the
same questions, and thinking maybe they didnt write English too well,
or were unfamiliar with US law, or maybe just a little thick .

But what I now see is somebody who maquerades as a democrat, as a
responsible gun owner, as a law abiding middle of the road citizen, and
one who claims to be neutral , reasonable and non extremist, but who
- -really- just wants his way no matter what, and makes up reality to
suit his point. Its also a sign that a preconcieved agenda has been
adopted wholesale.



I respect all sorts of people that I dont politically agree with
including Thatcher, Bush and Buckley. I dont respect people who care
less about intellectual honesty, and consistancy than "winning" like
Rush Limbaugh. He spends ever so much time insisting he is neutral,
That the media is slanted, and that everyone who disagrees is an
extremist. As a last resort he disguises his hate mongering as harmless
humor. His world view is inconsistant, his arguments are mediocre, and
way too many people view his tripe as a worthy debate on the issues. His
"logic" thrives on ambiguity.

When someone is secure in their own beliefs and has a well developed
world view, they dont need to employ these tactics, and they dont
continually rely on the bracing of the status quo. A constant pleading
of neutrality is a sign of intellectual desperation, and the hallmark of
a bully. We have seen some very good examples of that here. But maybe
with a few years time and some life experience that will change.

Somgs that remind you of previous partners....


I think the song that has the words in it:

"I know you from a previous Incarnation" (sorry I can't remember the
name). reminds me of a relationship with a man who was gay. It was one
of those : "if you love somebody, set them free" deals, that are always
so much fun. But there is still SOMETHING between us, that is a soul
thing. Neither of us know what it is exactly, but I think we both know
it is. Everytime he gets on a plane to go anywhere (he travels a few
times a year) I have a dream about him. Oh, and I think the idea he
would prefer to be straight if there was a sure and easy cure, would be
as insulting as suggesting that a black person would rather be white.

Some probably would. But its a sign of self loathing, and not of good
mental health. (In MY opinion, of course)


Thats that.

Lea

PS these discussions were fun and I really respect most of what I heard,
even if I didnt agree with it. There are lots of very bright people in
this group and it was fun to find that out.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 07:02:21 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"-IRQgC.A._cD.4MCY1"@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: voting away our rights
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:01:51 BST
Message-Id: <199805181201.NAA01151@athena.clara.net>

On Sun, 17 May 1998 11:56:28 -0700, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu wrote:


> Richard, is toughening the penalty of an existing law, restricting a
> freedom.

Punctuation aside, the original question was whether I would support a
referendum to ban guns.The answer was no. Let's try another question - a
referendum to ban fascists and racists from publishing their hateful material.
Many argue that this causes deaths as they incite violence against minorities.
Would you support a referendum on this? I wouldn't. Why? Because to do so would be to (potentially)
hand over the right to determine what we can or can't read to the state.
I would be against it because I do not trust the state to act in the interest
of the people. At the theoretical level it would be a vote to restrict a freedom,
in this case of speech. I cannot support a vote which has an explicitly
anti-democratic content in a democratic form.

That a referendum may happen doesn't prevent me from making a reasonable case
against it, or arguing for a 'no' vote in a scenario where it does - whether the
referendum happens is out of my hands insofar as the state is not under any
pressure from below to organise it and will do so if it feels fit. But what
makes you or anyone else so sure that you are on the side of the angels in
deciding that what we need is a referendum? Are you out campaigning for one
in the tradition of democracy? Or are you using democracy as an excuse to ask
the authorities to bring on a stage army of voters to support your cause
because you know most people would support it? Own up!

>
> You dont already HAVE that freedom. Thats my WHOLE point! You just
> can not see that I am not advocating gun control. Im sure everybody
> else gets the concept though so I give up trying to get you to see this.

There is a qualified freedom to own guns, as there is a qualified freedom to
speak freely. This hypothetical vote would be on removing this freedom alto-
gether. Your personal bugbear I have tried to address several times, but,
like a hamster on a wheel, you keep coming back to the same point (which I
cannot argue with because its irrational) that you are terrorised by
shadowy thugs who throw bottles at your window. An interesting analogy for these
panicked times - the lone woman beseiged in her own house by the forces of
darkness. I'd say you should get out more, but you're probably too scared.

> Well, you havent said anything here that makes me inclined to trust
> you more than the government.

Perhaps you can't see for the tear gas and the dollar signs in your eyes?

>
> Clinton and Blair are both really liberal, in this regard, and havent
> been very involved in Law and order issues compared to their
> predecessors.

(Drops his bacon sandwich in amazement at this statement) What is the gun
debate about if not a law-and-order issue??!

>
> I think we might have a communication problem due to an age
> difference. I have to assume , when reading your posts that you are
> college age.

You must be getting forgetful in your dotage. I said before I was 27.
Unfortunately for me, you will always be older and wiser, something I'll
have to live with. If I get a libertarian friend over 41 to post will that
help?



- -----------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 18 May 1998 08:06:14 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"PX5F.A.TiD.xIDY1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Richard Ings
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Quiz shows.? They're just sophisticated traps by the CIA.
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 14:05:48 BST
Message-Id: <199805181305.OAA05225@athena.clara.net>

On Sun, 17 May 1998 18:32:41 MDT, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu wrote:


> > Why should I support a vote to
> give the
> > government the power to restrict my freedom?
>
> You would if you gave a shit about what anybody else thought.

As I have just said to Lea, what makes you think you have right on your side?
Where are the millions demanding a referendum? What makes you think you are
speaking for the people? I have never claimed to speak for anyone but myself.
Of course I believe I'm right - it would be a lot of wasted energy if I didn't -
but this is what you call a debate (one of those things democracy is all
about). The sanctimony you attribute to me is a cowardly way of admitting
that you have no answer to my points, so you just launch the clarion call
"let the people decide". Decide what exactly? To answer a question *you*, Ken,
in your wisdom, believe they should. The Soviet Communists gave you a right to
vote on "do you want this man as a leader or not". Simple yes or no.
Well, Ken, what's your answer?
Don't forget, it's yes or no...

> I can campaign and try and persuade them but i am
> not such an arrogant fucker as to tell them that their opinion is not
> worth considering. What kind of democrat is it that says "i'll only put
> it too the vote if i can be sure i will get my way ?"

I think you're possibly putting words into my mouth there. But if it is
arrogant to believe you might be right and are ready to debate it, then you
got me! I haven't presumed to believe there are people wanting a vote on this.
I think you may well be the kind of democrat who wants a vote on guns for this
reason.

> Saddam Hussein,Stalin Kruschev,brezhnev etc etc called elections every
> so often but only when they were sure that there was no opposition and
> the secret police had assured the result for them. No wonder you were so
> retiscent to answer as it is clear just who your philosophy keeps
> company with.

Phew! The company I keep, what *am* I like, eh? Fortunately, our trustworthy
leaders would never do anything like threaten, invade the country of or
destroy the lives of the people of nations it disagreed with. Nor deny them
the people basic means of subsistence. Or veto industrialisation programmes
of benefit to the people. Or use chemical or nuclear weapons against them.
Because they love the people!

>
> Who is showing more trust in people; someone who wishes to prevent them
> voting on it because they cannot be relied on to accept their opinions
> or someone who feels that everybody should have a chance to express
> their opinion?
>
> A "when it suits me democrat" is an oxymoron and in my opinion, anyone
> who doesnt see that is the same, only without the oxy.

We already have elections, we have people elected to represent the people.
If they are felt not to be representative they can be voted out. A vote to
restrict or outlaw a current freedom is not the same. Have you forgotten
about the people who might wish to keep that freedom in your rush to get rid
of it? What if we change our minds? Will you be organising the campaign to
let the people decide again, in your noble, not-just-when-it-suits me, way?

Or is this a smokescreen because, for once, you feel people may agree with you
and you can watch them march to the polling booths in support of your great
idea? You and I both know you are not talking about some abstract right to
vote on everything but a specific right to vote on this issue because you
want to see guns banned.

> >
> > "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy
> from
> > oppression"
> Fine words matey boy but the question arises, is the inclusion of them
> at the end of an e-mail from someone who would deny his perceived
> oppressor the vote, a case of the devil quoting scriptures for his own
> ends or just someone who doesnt understand them ?
>

I *think* it means that the fact that you disagree with someone might not
mean you should deny their freedom. For you, freedom must be constrained for
fear that we may be over-run by the gun-wielding maniacs we are all secretly
longing to become. Do you not think that, if this is the view you have of people,
then it might be better if they did not have the vote, let alone a gun?

> Thats the end of my involvement in this thread so the last word between
> us on this goes to you.

And, lo, Ken did decree the debate to be over


- -----------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 18 May 1998 08:17:32 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"rir2FB.A.qkD.XTDY1"@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: Quiz shows.? They're just sophisticated traps by the CIA.
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 14:17:05 BST
Message-Id: <199805181317.OAA05975@athena.clara.net>

On Sun, 17 May 1998 20:32:02 -0700, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu wrote:

>
> Just like you, I kept Asking Richard (and Megan and Brian as well)the
> same questions, and thinking maybe they didnt write English too well,
> or were unfamiliar with US law, or maybe just a little thick .

Thanks for condescending to continue arguing your case

>
> But what I now see is somebody who maquerades as a democrat, as a
> responsible gun owner, as a law abiding middle of the road citizen, and
> one who claims to be neutral , reasonable and non extremist, but who
> -really- just wants his way no matter what, and makes up reality to
> suit his point. Its also a sign that a preconcieved agenda has been
> adopted wholesale.

The truth is out! Someone who believes people can be trusted with their
freedom to own guns is masquerading as a democrat. The true democrats are
those who believe that too many people want to break the law, so we must
curtail everyone's liberty...and decide unilaterally that we need a
referendum to do it!

> I dont respect people who care
> less about intellectual honesty, and consistancy than "winning" like
> Rush Limbaugh. He spends ever so much time insisting he is neutral,
> That the media is slanted, and that everyone who disagrees is an
> extremist. As a last resort he disguises his hate mongering as harmless
> humor. His world view is inconsistant, his arguments are mediocre, and
> way too many people view his tripe as a worthy debate on the issues. His
> "logic" thrives on ambiguity.

Sorry, I didn't realise you'd been debating Limbaugh all this time! (By the
way, my name, however unusual and suspicious, is not a pseudonym). But can we
really trust the people who view Rush's tripe as worthy of debate? What, the
same people voting in your referendum?

> A constant pleading
> of neutrality is a sign of intellectual desperation, and the hallmark of
> a bully. We have seen some very good examples of that here. But maybe
> with a few years time and some life experience that will change.

Hey, let's hope so - if we want those here to "grow up" into sad, bullied
victims. Count me out, though!



- -----------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:04:24 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"-TcpZC.A.XqD.1vFY1"@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: Truth!! Beauty!! Liberty!!
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 09:50:59 -0400
Message-ID: <001C221B.@wbsaunders.com>

I'm kinda sick of debates over concepts that people don't really have
the same concept of. We talk about truth and liberty and freedom, but
it seems no two people have similar thoughts on just what those ideas
mean. I don't claim to know much about it either, and perhaps because
I'm insecure in my opinions and views, I don't care to bludgeon others
with them. Unrestricted liberty leads to anarchism, which leads to
eventual restriction of SOMEONE's liberty, usually the weaker person.
We may argue all day about how trustworthy people are to carry guns or
vote responsibly or smoke pot, whatever, but I think most people would
agree that there is a lacking of compassion in most people. I know
it's lacking in me (probably due to too much Seinfeld :) ). I think
it also leads to road rage, etc.

"Compassion has to be the greatest family values" -- Billy Bragg
(yeah, he's a socialist, so what?). And admittedly, compassion is
often a good way to get beaten when your back is turned. But can we
live this way? They say a liberal is a conservative who hasn't been
mugged yet. I'm trying to be more understanding, more compassionate,
but I also have a cynical view of people. "By the laws of this human
jungle, only the heartless will survive." It's exactly because it's a
human jungle that there can't be unrestricted liberty. Am I making
sense? I'm honestly not sure.

Nietzsche wrote "there are no facts, only interpretations". This, I
think, is a fact. (Note the irony, nudge, nudge, wink wink.) So we're
all saying the truth. It's just different for each of us. Call me a
sophist. Ugh. I'd better go, I'm starting to annoy even myself now.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:25:44 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"DmwLrC.A.tsD.0DGY1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: JWH
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Smoking
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 09:25:20 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID:

I don't want a debate, just a quick run down on who does and who does not
support the new Tobacco Bill. Pls. email me off of the list with your
opinion, a simple yea or nea will suffice- I'll not be responsible for
starting another exaggerated trend...
~jwh
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:54:18 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"VHAew.A.ZxD.jeGY1"@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: voting away our rights
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 09:56:00 -0700
Message-ID: <35606820.B55E2102@sirius.com>

>
> > Richard, is toughening the penalty of an existing law, restricting a
> > freedom.
>
> Punctuation aside, the original question was whether I would support a
> referendum to ban guns.The answer was no. Let's try another question -


that wasnt my original question and you still havent and cant answer
it.

thats why I have given up, in part. I dont CARE what you answer to it
anymore.

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:16:04 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"tyscKD.A.Z0D.BzGY1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Ken Maclean"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: reared on a diet of prejudice and misinformation
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:15:09 MDT
Message-ID: <19980518171509.11086.qmail@hotmail.com>

> Thats the end of my involvement in this thread so the last word
between
> us on this goes to you.

And, lo, Ken did decree the debate to be over


Only for me, you or anyone else can carry on as long as you like.I
really dont expect you to care how tedious this might be for anybody
else.(actually scratch that its a bit hypocritical on my part.) My
views of "people" are usually prefaced with the word "some" because
human cloning is not yet widespread and yes many people do feel they
need protecting from other peoples concept of liberty.It is tricky to
understand isnt it ? I'll bet you never shared your toys either.

As for your direct question i would vote no as a way of expressing my
contempt for someone who is only democratic when it suits them but in a
police state i am pretty sure i would regret it.

Now you will just have to carry on without me and i think i will just
hum a little tune instead.One of my faves as it goes.

The words sit ill upon your tongue
when you tell me justice is being done
And freedom lives in the barrel
of a warm gun.

Still,i'm sure you appreciate the catchy tune.

Anybody else with stories to tell about love and the the?

Ken

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 13:44:21 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"EDMzk.A.v6D.xFIY1"@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: voting away our rights
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:45:44 -0700
Message-Id: <19980518114423.1c2e3304.in@mail.neversoft.com>

> I do not trust the state to act in the interest
>of the people.

Why is there so much fear of "the state" in this country? Can anyone tell
me? I just don't get it. Don't get me wrong I don't have the exact polar
opposite attitude towards the state, but I believe it should be there to
serve us and to support us, even though I know it falls miserably short of
that, back home in Britain too.

Seems there are two forces at odds with one another and the bizarre thing
is that those two forces largely consist of the same individuals.

On the one hand there are those whose fear of the state is a quite tangible
motivating force behind almost every action they make.

Then there are those people who, at the drop of a hat, will go fight in any
little "war" the government sees fit to start. In a fit of patriotic
fervour, "Gad bless America" etc., said group of people rush off to sign up
to go fight for the USA.

The second group of people consists a high proportion of the first group of
people - why is that? Is it assumed that any war the US government fights
must be against a state even more tyrannical? Does this patriotism
temporarily set aside the loathing of government?

I really don't know.

Answers please.

Mark

> I do not trust the state to act in the interest
>of the people.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 14:15:46 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"FwT0gD.A.DQE.MjIY1"@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
Subject: Re: Truth!! Beauty!! Liberty!!
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 12:08:07 -0700
Message-Id: <19980518120646.1c42b1bb.in@mail.neversoft.com>

At 09:50 AM 5/18/98 -0400, Mark Gaertner wrote:
> I'm kinda sick of debates over concepts that people don't really have
> the same concept of. We talk about truth and liberty and freedom, but
> it seems no two people have similar thoughts on just what those ideas
> mean.

More and more I see that people equate freedom and rights as being one
and the same thing, and the more this concept takes hold, the less I hear
about freedom , respect and responsibility. For years I have somehow had
the misfortune to have incredibly selfish noisy neighbours. You know, the
kind of people who never sleep and play music incredibly loudly at any hour
of the day or night, or shout all the time or stand outside their front
doors swearing and shouting and...well you know the kind of thing.

Any attempt to persuade them to temper this unbounded selfishness is met
with "it's a free country, no one tells me what to do, I know my rights".
Never "oh, you're right, I have a responsibilty to act with respect for my
fellow human beings - I'll stop being such an intolerable scumbag posthaste
and act with some decency". It doesn't happen does it? You never hear them
in the movies saying "oh God I just realised that this is like a really
incredibly stupid place to have a conversation - we should probably have
gone to the park or maybe stayed at home and done it. Oh and while I'm at
it maybe I should quit elbowing this woman next to me and stop kicking the
back of the seat in front of me and maybe you should stopp dangling your
legs over the shoulders of the guy in front of you. Wow, is this what it
means to respect other people's freedom? I have seen the light!!!"

Freedom - a balance of rights, respect and responsibility.

(probably due to too much Seinfeld :) )

No such thing is there?

. I think
> it also leads to road rage, etc.

I suspect that road rage is a result of really crap drivers getting in the
way of one another.

>
> "Compassion has to be the greatest family values" -- Billy Bragg
> (yeah, he's a socialist, so what?)

So that's a good thing, the world is skewed so far to the right these days
we need some balance.

They say a liberal is a conservative who hasn't been
> mugged yet.

...I thought it was the other way around actually.

> Nietzsche wrote "there are no facts, only interpretations".

So Nietzche wrote a lot of bollocks did he?

Cheers

Mark
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 20:59:31 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"K3lOqB.A.42E.vdOY1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: voting away our rights
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 22:00:54 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD82A8.6E7DD9A0.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

>>Punctuation aside, the original question was whether I would support a
>>referendum to ban guns.The answer was no. Let's try another question - a
>>referendum to ban fascists and racists from publishing their hateful material.
>>Many argue that this causes deaths as they incite violence against minorities.
>>Would you support a referendum on this? I wouldn't. Why? Because to do so would be to (potentially)
>>hand over the right to determine what we can or can't read to the state.
>>I would be against it because I do not trust the state to act in the interest
>>of the people. At the theoretical level it would be a vote to restrict a freedom,
>>in this case of speech. I cannot support a vote which has an explicitly
>>anti-democratic content in a democratic form.

Extremely well worded and received.

Devo


- -----Original Message-----
From: Richard Ings [SMTP:bridge@clara.net]
Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 9:02 AM
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: voting away our rights

On Sun, 17 May 1998 11:56:28 -0700, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu wrote:


> Richard, is toughening the penalty of an existing law, restricting a
> freedom.

Punctuation aside, the original question was whether I would support a
referendum to ban guns.The answer was no. Let's try another question - a
referendum to ban fascists and racists from publishing their hateful material.
Many argue that this causes deaths as they incite violence against minorities.
Would you support a referendum on this? I wouldn't. Why? Because to do so would be to (potentially)
hand over the right to determine what we can or can't read to the state.
I would be against it because I do not trust the state to act in the interest
of the people. At the theoretical level it would be a vote to restrict a freedom,
in this case of speech. I cannot support a vote which has an explicitly
anti-democratic content in a democratic form.

That a referendum may happen doesn't prevent me from making a reasonable case
against it, or arguing for a 'no' vote in a scenario where it does - whether the
referendum happens is out of my hands insofar as the state is not under any
pressure from below to organise it and will do so if it feels fit. But what
makes you or anyone else so sure that you are on the side of the angels in
deciding that what we need is a referendum? Are you out campaigning for one
in the tradition of democracy? Or are you using democracy as an excuse to ask
the authorities to bring on a stage army of voters to support your cause
because you know most people would support it? Own up!

>
> You dont already HAVE that freedom. Thats my WHOLE point! You just
> can not see that I am not advocating gun control. Im sure everybody
> else gets the concept though so I give up trying to get you to see this.

There is a qualified freedom to own guns, as there is a qualified freedom to
speak freely. This hypothetical vote would be on removing this freedom alto-
gether. Your personal bugbear I have tried to address several times, but,
like a hamster on a wheel, you keep coming back to the same point (which I
cannot argue with because its irrational) that you are terrorised by
shadowy thugs who throw bottles at your window. An interesting analogy for these
panicked times - the lone woman beseiged in her own house by the forces of
darkness. I'd say you should get out more, but you're probably too scared.

> Well, you havent said anything here that makes me inclined to trust
> you more than the government.

Perhaps you can't see for the tear gas and the dollar signs in your eyes?

>
> Clinton and Blair are both really liberal, in this regard, and havent
> been very involved in Law and order issues compared to their
> predecessors.

(Drops his bacon sandwich in amazement at this statement) What is the gun
debate about if not a law-and-order issue??!

>
> I think we might have a communication problem due to an age
> difference. I have to assume , when reading your posts that you are
> college age.

You must be getting forgetful in your dotage. I said before I was 27.
Unfortunately for me, you will always be older and wiser, something I'll
have to live with. If I get a libertarian friend over 41 to post will that
help?



- -----------------------------------------------------
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: Tue, 19 May 1998 05:37:05 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"blw38B.A.RPF.8CWY1"@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: Tue, 19 May 1998 10:32:03 +0100
Message-ID: <86256609.003ABA60.00@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: Tue, 19 May 1998 14:06:10 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"_uRosB.A.93F.FgdY1"@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: Tue, 19 May 1998 17:02:29 +0100
Message-ID: <86256609.00690448.00@Internet-504.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: Tue, 19 May 1998 11:04:15 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"s_S9S.A.2bF.t1aY1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: JWH
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: there I go breaking the law again...
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 09:03:53 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID:

> 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: Tue, 19 May 1998 11:52:37 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"IZNKQC.A.ZiF.8ibY1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: JWH
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: the The tracks needed...
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 09:52:08 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID:

Hello all, I hope that those of you done with school (or at least wrapping
up) had a productive year. Those of you who work, you're doing a good job
and someone appreciates you I'm sure. Those of you who sit on the couch
and complain about the hand you've been dealt- well, I can't say that on
the list, but I hope you get my drift via this electronic message in a
bottle. Anyway, to the point...

As anyone's burgeoning the The collection grows, they come to a point
where they can list the tracks that they does not own, but are looking
for, on a piece of paper. Here's mine. Any help you could give would be
greatly appreciated, I would ultimately be looking for tracks on CD, but
good quality tape vinyl would be fine. MP3 is also just peachy. I hope
to assemble a compendium of music by the The this summer- archive it all
on CD. What can I say, it's the summer, I'm bored and it seems like a
noble cause. Quincy has a lot of stuff in Real Audio format on his site
and his java radio kicks ass- I'd just like to compile everything for
myself though... Without further ado, here's my list:

1) Contoversial Subject
2) Black & White
3) Dumb as Death's Head
4) Sleeping Juice
5) Born in the New S.A.
6) Flesh & Bones
7) Fruit of the Heart (I thought that I had this, I was wrong)
8) Lip Tripping
9) What Stanley Saw
10) Whatever is on Gun Sluts (no chance, I know)
11) Whatever is on Matt's Demo Tape (no chance, I know)
12) Whatever is on the New Album (soon, I know)

Ideally, I am looking for these albums:

1) Sweet Bird of Truth EP
2) Heartland EP
3) Dumb as Death's Head EP
4) Controversial Subject EP

That's it. Any help you could give would be appreciated and remembered.
I would be willing to trade tracks and entertain interesting trades as
well as purchase them, but I hope to be able to collect most of these
through your good hearts and appreciation of the The's music. Thanks for
your time on reading this seethingly long email. I hope to hear from some
of you soon...
~jwh
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 17:15:22 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"7Ut2dB.A.LMG.lRgY1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: ajromero@yahoo.com
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: unsubscribe
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 15:12:08 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E17F5@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>


As you didn't pay any attention to the subscribe/unsubscribe info, you may want to look here
http://www.thethe.com The mailing list and the lite-mailing list which is restricted to news. i.e. nothing much (1 Album every 5 years. What the hell do you expect.), are explained here.

We're all terribly disappointed that you find political, religious and socialogical issues irrelevant to the THE. You may want to listen to his lyrics sometime. You may realise your opinion is CRAP.

On Tuesday, May 19, 1998 12:10 PM, AmyJean Romero [SMTP:ajromero@yahoo.com] wrote:
> I am disapppointed with the email. It was irrelevent.
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 20:52:58 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"KHpOfB.A.YXG.mdjY1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
CC: ajromero@yahoo.com, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: unsubscribe
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 18:53:52 -0700
Message-ID: <356237B0.CD0E1079@sirius.com>

Thanks for saying that,

For years I think a lot of us have sat through the repeated newbie
"favorite band and favorite song threads", again and again, and Ive
never felt a need to complain about it or censor it. I just delete.
They dont know that the people who have been here for a while have heard
it all, over and over. But it was kind of fun to have a slightly deeper
discussion for a change. What, this happens once a year for a couple of
weeks before people fly into a panic that it isnt shallow enough?

I guess we are missing the beat, and shouldnt be so caught up in
thinking about what the lyrics are about. Shame on us.

Lea



astubbs@BayNetworks.COM wrote:
>
> As you didn't pay any attention to the subscribe/unsubscribe info, you may want to look here
> http://www.thethe.com The mailing list and the lite-mailing list which is restricted to news. i.e. nothing much (1 Album every 5 years. What the hell do you expect.), are explained here.
>
> We're all terribly disappointed that you find political, religious and socialogical issues irrelevant to the THE. You may want to listen to his lyrics sometime. You may realise your opinion is CRAP.
>
> On Tuesday, May 19, 1998 12:10 PM, AmyJean Romero [SMTP:ajromero@yahoo.com] wrote:
> > I am disapppointed with the email. It was irrelevent.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________
> > DO YOU YAHOO!?
> > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 10:27:48 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"be-dqD.A.qE.dZvY1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Michael Bird"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Unsubscribing...
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 08:26:45 PDT
Message-ID: <19980520152645.7867.qmail@hotmail.com>

> We're all terribly disappointed that you find political, religious and
socialogical issues irrelevant to the THE. You may want to
listen to his lyrics sometime. You may realise your opinion is CRAP.

>Maybe it isn't political discussions. Maybe it is the level of
arrogance and soap box grandstanding. Even Matt had the humility to
admit he didn't have all the answers. This group is ignoring the
messages and worshipping the creeds. And I'm ill for all the
cockfighting going on in here. Thusly...

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 13:15:35 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"1zk5mD.A.xX.z2xY1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Ken Maclean"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: passion , perspective and the single moth
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 12:14:07 MDT
Message-ID: <19980520181407.15549.qmail@hotmail.com>

Soap box grandstanding or something you feel passionate about ? I guess
it all depends on how much you care about something. None of us here are
trying to get elected and i'm sure we all realize the futility of
scrapping on a mailing list that nobody else knows about, but we cant
help it, because some of these things reflect our frustrations with the
way society is currently organized.

The compromise perhaps,is to say your piece and then leave it alone. If
you have already said it, don't repeat it, because if someone else fails
to get/accept it, it will not change with repetition.We can always
bludgeon each other with our respective views off list. This of course
,is just a suggestion to try and keep everyone sweet.Something else that
would help with that, is to try and resist the pedantic temptation of
having a pop at other people's grammar,spelling and punctuation.

But remember Mothy, repressing passion never fills a dance card.

Yours strapped into a rocking chair with a blanket hauled over my knees.
Ken.



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 14:49:37 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"o9h0OB.A.zg.8OzY1"@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,
"Ken Maclean"
Subject: Re: passion , perspective and the single moth
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 14:56:30 -0400
Message-ID: <001C9787.@wbsaunders.com>

- --IMA.Boundary.002196598
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part

I, being the lazy sloth I am, prefer soapbox grandsitting. I agree
with you, though, Ken. Just kinda goes to show that no matter how
small or obscure the group, there will always be dissatisfaction
somewhere.

I signed on the list right in the middle of the explosion, so now i'm
kinda spoiled. I appreciate the lively debate, even to the point of
looking past some people's long-winded replies or rants. Intelligent
(or even faux-intelligent) conversation is often lacking in most forms
of communication. Ennui seems to be quite prevalent over much of the
internet (so many of the chat rooms are "So, what's up? Anybody wanna
chat? Where are you?... technology used to its fullest potential...).

So, who believes "The only true freedom is freedom from the heart's
desire... True happiness this way lies?" What is the nature of
happiness?

In response to the request for songs with relationships, I'm sorry to
say that I always related to "August and September" far too much, and
it later became true in my life. Was our love too strong to die, or
were we just too weak to kill it? This, after a five year
relationship that should have lasted two. The first time we broke up,
I, being the manipulative bastard that I am, sent her a tape that was
a mix of break-up songs ("I Dont Mind If You Forget Me"-- Morrissey,
"I'll Sail This Ship Alone" and "A Little Time"--Beautiful South,
"August and September", "Medicine"-- The Sundays, "Wish You Were
Her"-- Billy Bragg, stuff like that.) It worked. It probably
shouldn't have, though.

So, was this past month's activity a fluke? Are we as passive as the
rest of the internet? Anybody wanna chat?

MG


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: passion , perspective and the single moth
Author: "Ken Maclean" at ~internet
Date: 5/20/98 12:14 PM


Soap box grandstanding or something you feel passionate about ? I guess
it all depends on how much you care about something. None of us here are
trying to get elected and i'm sure we all realize the futility of
scrapping on a mailing list that nobody else knows about, but we cant
help it, because some of these things reflect our frustrations with the
way society is currently organized.

The compromise perhaps,is to say your piece and then leave it alone. If
you have already said it, don't repeat it, because if someone else fails
to get/accept it, it will not change with repetition.We can always
bludgeon each other with our respective views off list. This of course
,is just a suggestion to try and keep everyone sweet.Something else that
would help with that, is to try and resist the pedantic temptation of
having a pop at other people's grammar,spelling and punctuation.

But remember Mothy, repressing passion never fills a dance card.

Yours strapped into a rocking chair with a blanket hauled over my knees.
Ken.



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

- --IMA.Boundary.002196598
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 001C94B1; Wed, 20 May 98 14:16:55
- -0400
Received: (from list@localhost) by purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu (8.8.5/8.8.3) id
NAA01550; Wed, 20 May 1998 13:15:24 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 13:15:24 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <19980520181407.15549.qmail@hotmail.com>
X-Originating-IP: [140.226.55.186]
From: "Ken Maclean"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: passion , perspective and the single moth
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 12:14:07 MDT
Resent-Message-ID: <"1zk5mD.A.xX.z2xY1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/816
X-Loop: infected@lists.uchicago.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: infected-request@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
- --IMA.Boundary.002196598--
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 15:01:29 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"jk_-L.A.Dm.FazY1"@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: passion , perspective and the single moth
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 13:03:46 -0700
Message-ID: <35633722.6311167F@sirius.com>

Ken writes:

> None of us here are
> trying to get elected and i'm sure we all realize the futility of
> scrapping on a mailing list that nobody else knows about, but we cant
> help it, because some of these things reflect our frustrations with the
> way society is currently organized.
>


I add: And as much as I may passionately disagree with someone, I
still respect someone that IS passionate about ideas and cares to think
about what matters, more than I repect someone who just doesn't care.
Apathy is easy to find, everywhere you look. That is why I like The
THE. Why do other people like them? Is that thread on topic enough?
Is it the beat, the thoughts about relationships, the political ideas?

I like the THE because their music communicates more than the latest
pop beat, and teen love angst. It isnt about fashion. It's smart music
from someone who "cares about whats going on in the world, even if he
doesnt know what's going on in himself"

> he compromise perhaps,is to say your piece and then leave it alone.
If
> you have already said it, don't repeat it, because if someone else fails


I apologise for that. It isnt that I am so sure I am right, but that I
am thinking I must have explained it poorly, when what seems to be a
simple question keeps getting restated and avoided. I figure my English
is lacking, or somebody else's is. So sorry. You can all be assured
that I have used up my passion quota for a good long time, (and the
online auction is just about over, thats made it necessary to sit on the
computer when there are better things to do.)

Lea
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 16:51:44 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"BZdy_.A.Tz.XB1Y1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: JWH
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: to the or not to The
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 14:51:14 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID:

the The, above all else embodies emotions that we are unable to express
because we do not even consider their existence until they are spelled out
for us in song.

Matt Johnson most likely is not after great wealth and personal fame- he
seems to enjoy performing and the non-release of Gun Sluts only proves
that it is unreleased. Perhaps after such long break, Matt is unsure of
himself. If this next album is released and does well, I will look
forward even more to the deeply introspective, personal
examination/expression to follow.

the The's popularity should be for their intense musical ability as well
as for Matt's ability to show us who we truly are in a way that we
ourselves never would have been able to alone. Regardless of
political/social/economic commentary/propoganda that the The might
produce, (I enjoyed Mind Bomb musically, but found it more a departure
from Matt's style than Hanky Panky and was glad when Dusk was released).

That is my take of the The's music- how I would describe it to a new fan.
As for August & September- it is the favorite the The song of so many
people, yet it doesn't come nearly as close to my soul as Lung Shadows.
Essentially they're the same song, August & September being the 'lite'
version.

~jwh out.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 17:18:59 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Cd2EkC.A.g3.7a1Y1"@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: to the or not to The
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 15:17:40 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E1806@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>



> My immediate reaction is BOLLOCKS. I'll listen to the lyrics (i mean lyric) again tonight before I commit to that critique.
>
>
>
> > As for August & September- it is the favorite the The song
> > of so many
> > people, yet it doesn't come nearly as close to my soul as
> > Lung Shadows.
> > Essentially they're the same song, August & September
> > being the 'lite'
> > version.
> >
> > ~jwh out.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 16:45:22 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"iB8x3.A.Tw.d70Y1"@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
Subject: chatrooms
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 14:45:16 -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

>>Ennui seems to be quite prevalent over much of the=20
internet (so many of the chat rooms are "So, what's up? Anybody wanna=
=20
chat? Where are you?=2E=2E=2E technology used to its fullest potentia=
l=2E=2E=2E)=2E

I agree 100%=2E Chatrooms have so much potential as places of getting to k=
now
others (ideally) real, inner selves without all the fears and judgments tha=
t
happen sometimes in face to face conversations=2E I've had maybe three goo=
d
conversations in chatrooms in three years of using them off and on=2E Can=20=
anyone
recommend good chatrooms where music like The The isn't responded to with b=
lank
cyber-stares and silence; where conversations run deeper than the color of
underwear?

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: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:16:43 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"LFO_NB.A.D-.FR2Y1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: FW: passion , perspective and the single moth
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 19:19:01 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD8424.25BEEB00.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

>>Just kinda goes to show that no matter how
small or obscure the group, there will always be dissatisfaction
somewhere.


"There's just no pleasing some people."
"That's just what Jesus said."


Yep,

Devo
- -----Original Message-----
From: Mark Gaertner [SMTP:Mark_Gaertner@wbsaunders.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 1998 2:57 PM
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu; Ken Maclean
Subject: Re: passion , perspective and the single moth

I, being the lazy sloth I am, prefer soapbox grandsitting. I agree
with you, though, Ken. Just kinda goes to show that no matter how
small or obscure the group, there will always be dissatisfaction
somewhere.

I signed on the list right in the middle of the explosion, so now i'm
kinda spoiled. I appreciate the lively debate, even to the point of
looking past some people's long-winded replies or rants. Intelligent
(or even faux-intelligent) conversation is often lacking in most forms
of communication. Ennui seems to be quite prevalent over much of the
internet (so many of the chat rooms are "So, what's up? Anybody wanna
chat? Where are you?... technology used to its fullest potential...).

So, who believes "The only true freedom is freedom from the heart's
desire... True happiness this way lies?" What is the nature of
happiness?

In response to the request for songs with relationships, I'm sorry to
say that I always related to "August and September" far too much, and
it later became true in my life. Was our love too strong to die, or
were we just too weak to kill it? This, after a five year
relationship that should have lasted two. The first time we broke up,
I, being the manipulative bastard that I am, sent her a tape that was
a mix of break-up songs ("I Dont Mind If You Forget Me"-- Morrissey,
"I'll Sail This Ship Alone" and "A Little Time"--Beautiful South,
"August and September", "Medicine"-- The Sundays, "Wish You Were
Her"-- Billy Bragg, stuff like that.) It worked. It probably
shouldn't have, though.

So, was this past month's activity a fluke? Are we as passive as the
rest of the internet? Anybody wanna chat?

MG


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: passion , perspective and the single moth
Author: "Ken Maclean" at ~internet
Date: 5/20/98 12:14 PM


Soap box grandstanding or something you feel passionate about ? I guess
it all depends on how much you care about something. None of us here are
trying to get elected and i'm sure we all realize the futility of
scrapping on a mailing list that nobody else knows about, but we cant
help it, because some of these things reflect our frustrations with the
way society is currently organized.

The compromise perhaps,is to say your piece and then leave it alone. If
you have already said it, don't repeat it, because if someone else fails
to get/accept it, it will not change with repetition.We can always
bludgeon each other with our respective views off list. This of course
,is just a suggestion to try and keep everyone sweet.Something else that
would help with that, is to try and resist the pedantic temptation of
having a pop at other people's grammar,spelling and punctuation.

But remember Mothy, repressing passion never fills a dance card.

Yours strapped into a rocking chair with a blanket hauled over my knees.
Ken.



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
<< File: RFC822 message headers.txt >>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:27:09 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"b1U6WC.A.7HB.3a2Y1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: Mark@neversoft.com, astubbs@BayNetworks.COM,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: FW: to the or not to The
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 16:25:46 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E180A@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>

No of course not, I wouldn't presume.
I meant it was bollocks that they were the same song and
that one was the lite version of the other.
It might also be noted that any product that has a 'lite'
is normally crap. e.g. Bud, Miller, Coors. Therefor, I
would hate to refer to any of Matts songs as 'lite'.

So it was bollocks on a couple of different levels with
a sub-text off bollocks.

- -Adrian
p.s. As I said, this is my first reaction. After careful review,
I might find merit in this seemingly bollocky statement.

On Wednesday, May 20, 1998 4:06 PM, Mark Scott [SMTP:Mark@neversoft.com] wrote:
>
> What? It's bollocks that it's his favourite song?
>
>
>
> At 03:17 PM 5/20/98 -0700, astubbs@BayNetworks.COM wrote:
> >
> >
> >> My immediate reaction is BOLLOCKS. I'll listen to the
> >> lyrics (i mean
> lyric) again tonight before I commit to that critique.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > As for August & September- it is the favorite the The
> >> > song
> >> > of so many
> >> > people, yet it doesn't come nearly as close to my
> >> > soul as
> >> > Lung Shadows.
> >> > Essentially they're the same song, August &
> >> > September
> >> > being the 'lite'
> >> > version.
> >> >
> >> > ~jwh out.
> >
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 18:36:41 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"4lOuh.A.UKB.0j2Y1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: Why do other people like the The?
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 19:39:00 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD8426.F05A10E0.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

>>Apathy is easy to find, everywhere you look. That is why I like The
>>THE. Why do other people like them? Is that thread on topic enough?
>>Is it the beat, the thoughts about relationships, the political ideas?

On the less important side, I like the The because 98% of the people I know
and meet don't know who the hell the The is. It is as if I have this great
secret and I will let them listen if I think they are worthy. There are
some people you see right away that are not going to appreciate the music
and lyrics. What i really hate is when I get that... "Theee Theee, what
the hell is that?". Standard answer : You would not even begin to
comprehend what this artist has put into music and words, so go back to
your top 40 crap and pretend this moment never existed in your tiny little
mind.

Reminds me of a story from last summer. I was in the parking lot of a
grocery store, placing a case of cold ones in the trunk. A young teenage
bag boy collecting shopping carts notices my the The tag, my wife had made
for me, on the front of my auto. He says, "Is that a band?". I respond
with yes indeed it is. He responds with, "I never heard of them. Are they
some kind of rap band? I like rap." I came within a gnat's ass of jumping
out of the auto and beating him senseless for such blasphemous
ejaculations. I refrained, thinking to myself he is young now, but with
hope he will mature and realize the error in his ways.

Sittin' on the front porch,

Devo
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 22:29:53 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"jK6oIB.A.GpB.c-5Y1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: Why do you like the The? Because it tastes good and is low in fat
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 23:32:03 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD8447.7EDD03C0.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

First... You have missed the point once again, but as usual I have come to
expect that from you.

Second.... When I get "Theee Theee", it is from someone attempting a
pronunciation of the The from a poster, or cd, or album, or auto tag, etc.
that I own. It is not from their own knowledge of the existence of the
The.

>>Make up your mind

I knew what I was talking about to begin with. You obviously
misinterpreted it.

>>It's really pathetic to put some much stock in how you feel about
something
>>based on whether or not other people (will or will not) like it or have
heard it before.

I never said that or meant that. You are making assumptions and putting
words in my mouth. My comments merely made it obvious that I like the The
because they are not as popular as the mainstream bands in existance today.
The band is somewhat obscure and less recognized by the majority of music
lovers.

Sorry, I didn't realize you would attempt to reconstruct a simple statement
into something completely negative. I will try to simply my comments in
the future just for you.

Simply,

Devo
- -----Original Message-----
From: Kyle Milligan [SMTP:toldyaso@planeteer.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 1:06 AM
To: Nat Light
Cc: Infected
Subject: Re: Why do you like the The? Because it tastes good and is low in
fat

Kyle Milligan
toldyaso@planeteer.com

>
> On the less important side, I like the The because 98% of the people I
know
> and meet don't know who the hell the The is. It is as if I have this
great
> secret and I will let them listen if I think they are worthy.

You like it when people don't know "the The".

> What i really hate is when I get that... "Theee Theee, what
> the hell is that?".

You hate it when people don't know "the The".

Make up your mind.

P.S.

It's really pathetic to put some much stock in how you feel about something
based on whether or not other people (will or will not) like it or have
heard
it before. Of course we've been down this road before, and I won't go down
it
again beyond this sentiment, but consider the possibility that if "the The"
didn't sell enough records you wouldn't have any to listen to and proclaim
it
as your "favourite band that hardly anyone's heard of".

- -----------------------


------------------------------
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 21:14:34 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"h4lHeC.A.yiB.034Y1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Kyle Milligan"
To: "Nat Light"
Cc: "Infected"
Subject: Re: Why do you like the The? Because it tastes good and is low in fat
Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 22:06:07 -0700
Message-Id: <199805210213.WAA20823@toronto.planeteer.com>

Kyle Milligan
toldyaso@planeteer.com

>
> On the less important side, I like the The because 98% of the people I know
> and meet don't know who the hell the The is. It is as if I have this great
> secret and I will let them listen if I think they are worthy.

You like it when people don't know "the The".

> What i really hate is when I get that... "Theee Theee, what
> the hell is that?".

You hate it when people don't know "the The".

Make up your mind.

P.S.

It's really pathetic to put some much stock in how you feel about something
based on whether or not other people (will or will not) like it or have heard
it before. Of course we've been down this road before, and I won't go down it
again beyond this sentiment, but consider the possibility that if "the The"
didn't sell enough records you wouldn't have any to listen to and proclaim it
as your "favourite band that hardly anyone's heard of".

- -----------------------


------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 07:09:34 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Yuk-e.A.76B.plBZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: Why do you like the The? Because it tastes good and is low in fat
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 08:11:51 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD8490.1C66D420.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

Damn, I was trying to do the same.

We'll call it a draw then.

Devo

- -----Original Message-----
From: Kyle Milligan [SMTP:toldyaso@planeteer.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 3:37 AM
To: Nat Light
Subject: Re: Why do you like the The? Because it tastes good and is low in fat

Lighten up, and thanks for the declaration of the obvious, too. That was a
little bit disappointing. I thought you'd have something of more interest to
say. Don't take it too seriously, I was simply provoking you.

Kyle Milligan
toldyaso@planeteer.com

- ----------
> From: Nat Light
> To: INFECTED (E-mail)
> Subject: RE: Why do you like the The? Because it tastes good and is low in
fat
> Date: Wednesday, May 20, 1998 8:32 PM
>
> First... You have missed the point once again, but as usual I have come to
> expect that from you.

I resent that, if you can't be nice I'll have to insult you back. I've
demonstrated remarkable restraint in the past, so a little consideration
please. Accept the possibility that you might have misinterpreted me.

No, I don't think I missed your.. uh.. point, as you put it.

I suppose I shouldn't declare an opinion after reading something. I was out of
line.

>
> Second.... When I get "Theee Theee", it is from someone attempting a
> pronunciation of the The from a poster, or cd, or album, or auto tag, etc.
> that I own. It is not from their own knowledge of the existence of the
> The.

Well, duh. But as long as you feel the need to bring it up, why should that
bother you? Who cares?
>
> >Make up your mind
>
> I knew what I was talking about to begin with. You obviously
> misinterpreted it.

No, I think you missed my point. You don't know how absurd your comments sound.

You like simple, how's this?

"What I like is how people don't know the band, but I hate that they can't
pronounce it properly."

I know, I know, there I go putting words in your mouth.


> >>It's really pathetic to put some much stock in how you feel about
> something
> >>based on whether or not other people (will or will not) like it or have
> heard it before.
>
I didn't put words in your mouth.

> I never said that or meant that. You are making assumptions and putting
> words in my mouth. My comments merely made it obvious that I like the The
> because they are not as popular as the mainstream bands in existance today.
> The band is somewhat obscure and less recognized by the majority of music
> lovers.
>
> Sorry, I didn't realize you would attempt to reconstruct a simple statement
> into something completely negative. I will try to simply my comments in
> the future just for you.

Don't be sorry, and don't take it so personally. Especially for something like
that.

Be simple, complex or unintelligible, I don't care which.

>
> Simply,
>
> Devo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kyle Milligan [SMTP:toldyaso@planeteer.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 1:06 AM
> To: Nat Light
> Cc: Infected
> Subject: Re: Why do you like the The? Because it tastes good and is low in
> fat
>
> Kyle Milligan
> toldyaso@planeteer.com
>
> >
> > On the less important side, I like the The because 98% of the people I
> know
> > and meet don't know who the hell the The is. It is as if I have this
> great
> > secret and I will let them listen if I think they are worthy.
>
> You like it when people don't know "the The".
>
> > What i really hate is when I get that... "Theee Theee, what
> > the hell is that?".
>
> You hate it when people don't know "the The".
>
> Make up your mind.
>
> P.S.
>
> It's really pathetic to put some much stock in how you feel about something
> based on whether or not other people (will or will not) like it or have
> heard
> it before. Of course we've been down this road before, and I won't go down
> it
> again beyond this sentiment, but consider the possibility that if "the The"
> didn't sell enough records you wouldn't have any to listen to and proclaim
> it
> as your "favourite band that hardly anyone's heard of".
>
> -----------------------
>
>
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 12:29:09 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"wzY2SD.A.bMC.RRGZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: Re: Why do you like the The? Because it tastes good and is low in fat
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 10:31:27 -0700
Message-ID: <356464EF.AA44EC59@sirius.com>

Guess I will have to interupt this huge discussion of The The with an OT
subject. There is so much news on the THE that we wouldnt want to be
blind to breaking news stories, would we?




Thursday May 21 1998 BRITISH NEWS: BRITAIN
_________________________________________________________________
The downhill race after Double Gloucesters is not safe, say police.
Damian Whitworth reports

Cheese tradition rolls to an end

THEY have been perfecting the art of spinning cheeses at great
speed down the side of Cooper's Hill for a few years now. According
to some in the Cotswolds, it was the Romans who first set the
Double Gloucesters rolling at Witcombe, near Gloucester.

But this year the Whitsun tradition will not happen. The
authorities says it is just too dangerous.

The police and health and safety inspectors have a point. Last year
35 people were injured, seven of them spectators hit by runners who
lost control while chasing the cheeses down the incline.

But the racers themselves assert their rights to pursue any cheese
they wish and are furious at the intervention of the "nanny state".

As many as 30 people would normally take part in each race,
hurtling after wheel-shaped 7lb Double Gloucesters. The cheeses are
sent bounding down the 1-in-2 gradient. Although catching the
cheese is impossible, the winner is the person who first reaches
the foot of the hill.

The organisers say they have come under such pressure from the
police and health and safety authorities over the dangers and
because of fears of litigation from injured parties, that they have
had no choice but to cancel the event.

"It's terribly sad," said Tony Peasley, who has been a big cheese,
so to speak, in the races for some 43 years. "Admittedly, people
get injured every year - there are sprains and dislocations and the
occasional broken arm or leg. But no one has ever been killed or
suffered any lasting injury or disability as a result of racing
down the hill.

"It's taken place for hundreds of years without stopping, even in
the war years when a wooden cheese was used because of rationing.
But now it seems we live in a nanny state society where people
aren't allowed to do anything risky or have fun, and the
authorities intervene to protect people from themselves."
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 12:51:05 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"BkcgqB.A.fUC.zlGZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Lea Curry ,
"INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: Re: Why do you like the The? Because it tastes good and is low
in fat
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 10:54:38 -0700
Message-Id: <19980521105209.2b73a760.in@mail.neversoft.com>


See - even in Britain the government is taking over.

It's a conspiracy I tell ya!

When they interfere with cheese practise, then you know you're about to see
that big old balloon hitting the clouds.

Commie pinko fascist liberal nazi socialist libertarian ditto head
sandanista punks!

Mark S



At 10:31 AM 5/21/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:
"It's taken place for hundreds of years without stopping, even in
> the war years when a wooden cheese was used because of rationing.
> But now it seems we live in a nanny state society where people
> aren't allowed to do anything risky or have fun, and the
> authorities intervene to protect people from themselves."
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 15:36:37 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"FvibhC.A.h5C.EBJZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: JWH
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: to the or not to The, the The sequel, a continuation of a theme that , should have died long ago- go ahead, hit 'd', I dare you...
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:36:16 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID:

I listened to the song again, four times in a row and I still don't like
it as much as Lung Shadows.
While both songs are retrospectives, mournful and generally macabre
(arguable)- Lung Shadows says the same thing that August & September does,
just much simpler- and thus more effectively. How many times does Matt
sing, "Was our love too strong to die..." compared to Lung Shadows' "come
closer to me"? I haven't done the math, someone else can, my point is that
saying something a few times- in a way that makes it difficult to hear,
makes a person FOCUS more on what's being said that simple, blind
repetition. Both songs mourn the loss or a love (?) that was perhaps great
or never meant to be (unknown) and both are taken from an 'after the fact'
screwed up emotional standpoint.
If they aren't about the same thing (the thing that is what I consider the
only reason for enjoying the The's LYRICS at all, being as I would enjoy
quite a bit of the music regardless), then what are they about.
This could be a matter of interpritation, but most people think Lung
Shadows is an instrumental and that Mind Bomb (the The's activist stint),
was the greatest thing the band ever did. I really like a few tracks on
Mind Bomb, a few I hate, consider copouts and distant from what I consider
the The to be.
I have tried to show two things here:
1) I like the The's music because it is deeply introspective and is up
there in my books as one of the best examples of personal expression.
(Thusly, I dislike tracks that stray from what I consider to be the soul
of the The- while still admiring them musicallly)
2) Both songs (August & September, Lung Shadows) are about the same thing-
a self-torturing soul mourning a loss of something that could have been,
on/off in addtion to a powerful emotional experience. Lung Shadows takes
a more moody, engineered approach, forcing the listener to focus on what
is being said and thus making for a more intense, thought-provoking
experince. August & September uses the easier method of repitition to
emphasize it's point which is both less challenging and not what I'd
expect of Matt Johnson.

I understand people's concern over my point- everyone loves August &
September- of course they do, subconciously they realize that it's one opf
the few songs on Mind Bomb that fit the The's overall style, I'm saying
that Lung Shadows fits it even better. I hope people will look at Matt's
music in a new way- it's taken me many hours and many CD's to appreciate
what Matt has done, and I think that anyone can understand what I mean by
'lite'. Not crap, just 'lite'.
I understand your point about 'lite' having negative connotations- in no
way did I mean to imply that the The's music is crap, just a particular
song. But I still stand firm, Lung Shadows is what August & September
tried to be- and failed in an attempt to sell records- yes, occasionally
the The caved to capitalism (let's leave it at that.)

> I meant it was bollocks that they were the same song and
> that one was the lite version of the other.
> It might also be noted that any product that has a 'lite'
> is normally crap. e.g. Bud, Miller, Coors. Therefor, I
> would hate to refer to any of Matts songs as 'lite'.
>
> So it was bollocks on a couple of different levels with
> a sub-text off bollocks.
> > >
> > >> My immediate reaction is BOLLOCKS. I'll listen to the
> > >> lyrics (i mean
> > lyric) again tonight before I commit to that critique.
> > >> >
> > >> > As for August & September- it is the favorite the The
> > >> > song
> > >> > of so many
> > >> > people, yet it doesn't come nearly as close to my
> > >> > soul as
> > >> > Lung Shadows.
> > >> > Essentially they're the same song, August &
> > >> > September
> > >> > being the 'lite'
> > >> > version.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 16:33:07 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"rlEZQD.A.7WD.-1JZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: JWH
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: aug/sept/lung/shadow/hat/banana
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 14:36:18 -0700
Message-Id: <19980521143357.2c3ec097.in@mail.neversoft.com>


I had never heard anything by the The before Mind Bomb, I came to it via
the success of the single that was played on BBC Radio One often enough for
me to hear it at work.

For me the earlier albums are (relatively) rather too poppy and light,
musically. So in other words I liked Aug & Sept for its own sake, not
because I had heard earlier the The music and was somehow therefore
brainwashed into only being able to like one approach.

Mind Bomb stands apart from the rest of the albums (although Dusk certainly
has overtones of Mind Bomb stylistically) purely because it is a work of
greater magnitude and cohesiveness than the rest.

Yes, of course there are weak willed people with miniscule IQs and pathetic
bladders out there, who hear an album from late in a band's career and
forever assossiate that album with the band in question. However, despite
my bladder I do not fit into any of those categories, and am able to
pinpoint with certainty the greatest album in a band's career, regardless
of when I became aware of them.

As for Lung Shadows vs. Aug and Sept, well that's pure opinion, not worth
the debate really. I like beans on toast more than filet mignon, what can I
say...

See me in my latest movie, "Attack of the Cheese Copters". Also starring a
hat and a banana.

Cheers

Mark Scott

At 01:36 PM 5/21/98 -0700, you wrote:
>I listened to the song again, four times in a row and I still don't like
>it as much as Lung Shadows.
>While both songs are retrospectives, mournful and generally macabre
>(arguable)- Lung Shadows says the same thing that August & September does,
>just much simpler- and thus more effectively. How many times does Matt
>sing, "Was our love too strong to die..." compared to Lung Shadows' "come
>closer to me"? I haven't done the math, someone else can, my point is that

>saying something a few times- in a way that makes it difficult to hear,
>makes a person FOCUS more on what's being said that simple, blind
>repetition. Both songs mourn the loss or a love (?) that was perhaps great
>or never meant to be (unknown) and both are taken from an 'after the fact'
>screwed up emotional standpoint.
>If they aren't about the same thing (the thing that is what I consider the
>only reason for enjoying the The's LYRICS at all, being as I would enjoy
>quite a bit of the music regardless), then what are they about.
>This could be a matter of interpritation, but most people think Lung
>Shadows is an instrumental and that Mind Bomb (the The's activist stint),
>was the greatest thing the band ever did. I really like a few tracks on
>Mind Bomb, a few I hate, consider copouts and distant from what I consider
>the The to be.
>I have tried to show two things here:
>1) I like the The's music because it is deeply introspective and is up
>there in my books as one of the best examples of personal expression.
>(Thusly, I dislike tracks that stray from what I consider to be the soul
>of the The- while still admiring them musicallly)
>2) Both songs (August & September, Lung Shadows) are about the same thing-
>a self-torturing soul mourning a loss of something that could have been,
>on/off in addtion to a powerful emotional experience. Lung Shadows takes
>a more moody, engineered approach, forcing the listener to focus on what
>is being said and thus making for a more intense, thought-provoking
>experince. August & September uses the easier method of repitition to
>emphasize it's point which is both less challenging and not what I'd
>expect of Matt Johnson.
>
>I understand people's concern over my point- everyone loves August &
>September- of course they do, subconciously they realize that it's one opf
>the few songs on Mind Bomb that fit the The's overall style, I'm saying
>that Lung Shadows fits it even better. I hope people will look at Matt's
>music in a new way- it's taken me many hours and many CD's to appreciate
>what Matt has done, and I think that anyone can understand what I mean by
>'lite'. Not crap, just 'lite'.
>I understand your point about 'lite' having negative connotations- in no
>way did I mean to imply that the The's music is crap, just a particular
>song. But I still stand firm, Lung Shadows is what August & September
>tried to be- and failed in an attempt to sell records- yes, occasionally
>the The caved to capitalism (let's leave it at that.)
>
>> I meant it was bollocks that they were the same song and
>> that one was the lite version of the other.

>> It might also be noted that any product that has a 'lite'
>> is normally crap. e.g. Bud, Miller, Coors. Therefor, I
>> would hate to refer to any of Matts songs as 'lite'.
>>
>> So it was bollocks on a couple of different levels with
>> a sub-text off bollocks.
>> > >
>> > >> My immediate reaction is BOLLOCKS. I'll listen to the
>> > >> lyrics (i mean
>> > lyric) again tonight before I commit to that critique.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > As for August & September- it is the favorite the The
>> > >> > song
>> > >> > of so many
>> > >> > people, yet it doesn't come nearly as close to my
>> > >> > soul as
>> > >> > Lung Shadows.
>> > >> > Essentially they're the same song, August &
>> > >> > September
>> > >> > being the 'lite'
>> > >> > version.
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 16:59:26 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"5eRV2B.A.JbD.pOKZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: Mark Scott
CC: JWH , infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: aug/sept/lung/shadow/hat/banana
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 15:01:34 -0700
Message-ID: <3564A43E.15821EBB@sirius.com>

Mark Scott wrote:
>
> I had never heard anything by the The before Mind Bomb, I came to it via
> the success of the single that was played on BBC Radio One often enough for
> me to hear it at work.
>
> For me the earlier albums are (relatively) rather too poppy and light,
> musically. So in other words I liked Aug & Sept for its own sake, not
> because I had heard earlier the The music and was somehow therefore
> brainwashed into only being able to like one approach.
>
>

Just goes to show you people can react differently. I heard Soul
Mining first and shortly after Burning Blue Soul. Then the rest.
Infected is the most powerful , to me. I thought Mind Bomb was lite
and more commercial, for the most part. (we all know about the beat(en
)generation debate: some like it some think its sellout crap))
I thought Mindbomb came as close to top 40 as they ever have, and
Dusk, seemed to get back to what he is good at. IMO , I dont think he
will top INFECTED for pure brilliance and Power of ideas. (although it
will date to a certain degree). But i dont think he will ever be as
good in KIND.

people hear different things in the muc\sic and like them for different
reasons, im sure.

l.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 17:06:52 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"d2G3BC.A.mdD.nVKZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: jwh@u.arizona.edu
Cc: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: to the or not to The, the The sequel, a continuation of a the
me that , should have died long ago- go ahead, hit 'd', I dare you...
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 15:05:02 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E1812@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>



Is person A more beautiful than Person B. Depends who the beholder is unless JWH has an opinion about it then there'll be no doubt.

THE SONGS ARE DIFFERENT so Different..: how is ..come closer to me... the same as ...
Was our love to strong to die ?.... Hello !

If you saying it's a better song because it says MORE with less baggage , well OK I understand that even if I think its daft. I simply cannot see that they are saying the same thing.

- -Adrian (genu-wine-ly puzzled and not just being thick)

[Lots of Stuff deleted leaving this...]
On Thursday, May 21, 1998 1:36 PM, JWH [SMTP:jwh@U.Arizona.EDU] spake thus:
> sing, "Was our love too strong to die..." compared to Lung
> Shadows' "come
> closer to me"? I haven't done the math, someone else can,
> my point is that
> saying something a few times- in a way that makes it
> difficult to hear,
> makes a person FOCUS more on what's being said that
> simple, blind
> repetition.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 18:21:41 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"_FGNmD.A.QjD.wbLZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: Why do you like the The? Because it tastes good and is low in fat
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 19:24:05 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD84EE.05C94000.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

Don't sugar coat it! Tell us exactly how you feel!

Devo

- -----Original Message-----
From: Mark Scott [SMTP:Mark@neversoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 1:55 PM
To: Lea Curry; INFECTED (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Why do you like the The? Because it tastes good and is low in fat


See - even in Britain the government is taking over.

It's a conspiracy I tell ya!

When they interfere with cheese practise, then you know you're about to see
that big old balloon hitting the clouds.

Commie pinko fascist liberal nazi socialist libertarian ditto head
sandanista punks!

Mark S



At 10:31 AM 5/21/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:
"It's taken place for hundreds of years without stopping, even in
> the war years when a wooden cheese was used because of rationing.
> But now it seems we live in a nanny state society where people
> aren't allowed to do anything risky or have fun, and the
> authorities intervene to protect people from themselves."
>

------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 18:47:59 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"HrsUaB.A.klD.Y0LZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Nat Light ,
"INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: Why do you like the The? Because it tastes good and is low
in fat
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 16:51:27 -0700
Message-Id: <19980521164907.2cba8361.in@mail.neversoft.com>


Well ,now that I've had chance for reflection...

I think it's a good thing.

People cannot be trusted to wield cheese in a sensible fashion these days.
Dairy product dexterity was a much revered profession back in Roman times,
like being an architect or an artist.

It's a skill that is long since lost, I am sorry to say.

Mark S

At 07:24 PM 5/21/98 -0400, Nat Light wrote:
>Don't sugar coat it! Tell us exactly how you feel!
>
>Devo
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Scott [SMTP:Mark@neversoft.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 1:55 PM
>To: Lea Curry; INFECTED (E-mail)
>Subject: Re: Why do you like the The? Because it tastes good and is low in
fat
>
>
>See - even in Britain the government is taking over.
>
>It's a conspiracy I tell ya!
>
>When they interfere with cheese practise, then you know you're about to see
>that big old balloon hitting the clouds.
>
>Commie pinko fascist liberal nazi socialist libertarian ditto head
>sandanista punks!
>
>Mark S
>
>
>
>At 10:31 AM 5/21/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:
> "It's taken place for hundreds of years without stopping, even in
>> the war years when a wooden cheese was used because of rationing.
>> But now it seems we live in a nanny state society where people
>> aren't allowed to do anything risky or have fun, and the
>> authorities intervene to protect people from themselves."
>>
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 19:05:42 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"pRaJq.A.8nD._EMZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Nat Light
To: "INFECTED (E-mail)"
Subject: RE: Why do you like the The? Because it tastes good and is low in fat
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 20:08:03 -0400
Message-ID: <01BD84F4.29D73BE0.NatLight@worldnet.att.net>

There you go. Get it out in the open. You will feel better about yourself.

Devo

- -----Original Message-----
From: Mark Scott [SMTP:Mark@neversoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 7:51 PM
To: Nat Light; INFECTED (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Why do you like the The? Because it tastes good and is low in fat


Well ,now that I've had chance for reflection...

I think it's a good thing.

People cannot be trusted to wield cheese in a sensible fashion these days.
Dairy product dexterity was a much revered profession back in Roman times,
like being an architect or an artist.

It's a skill that is long since lost, I am sorry to say.

Mark S

At 07:24 PM 5/21/98 -0400, Nat Light wrote:
>Don't sugar coat it! Tell us exactly how you feel!
>
>Devo
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Scott [SMTP:Mark@neversoft.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 1:55 PM
>To: Lea Curry; INFECTED (E-mail)
>Subject: Re: Why do you like the The? Because it tastes good and is low in
fat
>
>
>See - even in Britain the government is taking over.
>
>It's a conspiracy I tell ya!
>
>When they interfere with cheese practise, then you know you're about to see
>that big old balloon hitting the clouds.
>
>Commie pinko fascist liberal nazi socialist libertarian ditto head
>sandanista punks!
>
>Mark S
>
>
>
>At 10:31 AM 5/21/98 -0700, Lea Curry wrote:
> "It's taken place for hundreds of years without stopping, even in
>> the war years when a wooden cheese was used because of rationing.
>> But now it seems we live in a nanny state society where people
>> aren't allowed to do anything risky or have fun, and the
>> authorities intervene to protect people from themselves."
>>
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 09:48:58 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"Y9oNTB.A.1_D.DBZZ1"@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, JWH
Subject: Re: to the or not to The, the The sequel, a continuation of
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 10:43:25 -0400
Message-ID: <001CED7E.@wbsaunders.com>

- --IMA.Boundary.161848598
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part

And here I just thought that Lung Shadows was about a patient on a
ventilator who was calling for his nurse...

I first heard Infected when I saw the movie, and I was amazed at how
powerful it was. When Mind Bomb came out, it had the "feel" of a more
commercial album, but that's relative to the other the The stuff.
Compared to most of the other stuff out by other artists, Mind Bomb is
still far, far away from a commerical sell-out. I introduced Mind
Bomb to two of my friends who were into more conventional music, and
both were actually scared away by the messages in the songs and the
passion of the lyrics. I daresay they misunderstood them, but the
very fact that they could be scared by music proves that it just
wasn't for them. My, that sounds arrogant, doesn't it?

At any rate, as much as I like Mind Bomb, I really, REALLY like Dusk
and Infected. I love the feel of Dusk, which is much more personal
than Infected. And I'd have to agree that Mind Bomb is the least
personal of the The's albums. Just different CD's for different
moods. As for the songs, both are intense, just in different ways.
The maniacal "YOU'RE MINE" in August & September is just as intense as
the aching "Come closer to me" in Lung Shadows. Both are good songs.
There are just more words to August & September to remember when
you're singing in the shower. I also like Bluer than Midnight,
probably more than the other two.

MG


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: to the or not to The, the The sequel, a continuation of a th
Author: JWH at ~internet
Date: 5/21/98 1:36 PM


I listened to the song again, four times in a row and I still don't like
it as much as Lung Shadows.
While both songs are retrospectives, mournful and generally macabre
(arguable)- Lung Shadows says the same thing that August & September does,
just much simpler- and thus more effectively. How many times does Matt
sing, "Was our love too strong to die..." compared to Lung Shadows' "come
closer to me"? I haven't done the math, someone else can, my point is that
saying something a few times- in a way that makes it difficult to hear,
makes a person FOCUS more on what's being said that simple, blind
repetition. Both songs mourn the loss or a love (?) that was perhaps great
or never meant to be (unknown) and both are taken from an 'after the fact'
screwed up emotional standpoint.
If they aren't about the same thing (the thing that is what I consider the
only reason for enjoying the The's LYRICS at all, being as I would enjoy
quite a bit of the music regardless), then what are they about.
This could be a matter of interpritation, but most people think Lung
Shadows is an instrumental and that Mind Bomb (the The's activist stint),
was the greatest thing the band ever did. I really like a few tracks on
Mind Bomb, a few I hate, consider copouts and distant from what I consider
the The to be.
I have tried to show two things here:
1) I like the The's music because it is deeply introspective and is up
there in my books as one of the best examples of personal expression.
(Thusly, I dislike tracks that stray from what I consider to be the soul
of the The- while still admiring them musicallly)
2) Both songs (August & September, Lung Shadows) are about the same thing-
a self-torturing soul mourning a loss of something that could have been,
on/off in addtion to a powerful emotional experience. Lung Shadows takes
a more moody, engineered approach, forcing the listener to focus on what
is being said and thus making for a more intense, thought-provoking
experince. August & September uses the easier method of repitition to
emphasize it's point which is both less challenging and not what I'd
expect of Matt Johnson.

I understand people's concern over my point- everyone loves August &
September- of course they do, subconciously they realize that it's one opf
the few songs on Mind Bomb that fit the The's overall style, I'm saying
that Lung Shadows fits it even better. I hope people will look at Matt's
music in a new way- it's taken me many hours and many CD's to appreciate
what Matt has done, and I think that anyone can understand what I mean by
'lite'. Not crap, just 'lite'.
I understand your point about 'lite' having negative connotations- in no
way did I mean to imply that the The's music is crap, just a particular
song. But I still stand firm, Lung Shadows is what August & September
tried to be- and failed in an attempt to sell records- yes, occasionally
the The caved to capitalism (let's leave it at that.)

- --IMA.Boundary.161848598
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 001CD42E; Thu, 21 May 98 16:54:46
- -0400
Received: (from list@localhost) by purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu (8.8.5/8.8.3) id
PAA11900; Thu, 21 May 1998 15:36:29 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 15:36:29 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 13:36:16 -0700 (MST)
From: JWH
Reply-To: JWH
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: to the or not to The, the The sequel, a continuation of a theme that ,
should have died long ago- go ahead, hit 'd', I dare you...
In-Reply-To:
<4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E180A@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Resent-Message-ID: <"FvibhC.A.h5C.EBJZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/831
X-Loop: infected@lists.uchicago.edu
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: infected-request@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu

- --IMA.Boundary.161848598--
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:12:05 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"1KOCG.A.ZFE.QHbZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: JWH
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: last time...
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 10:11:40 -0700 (MST)
Message-ID:

> THE SONGS ARE DIFFERENT so Different..: how
is ..come closer to me... the same as ...
> Was our love to strong to die ?.... Hello !
Have you ever wanted something so much that it possesed your body and your
soul through the night and through the day?
- -Obvioulsy not.

O.K.- I will spell this out painfully for the last time-
You really think you like a girl you're with and then you realize that
there's something about her that you hate. You break up for whatever
manefestation of that hate that comes out into the open first. You wait.
You want her back- (this process can repeat n times).
You don't know if it's love and you can't see it, or if it's hate and you
want it to be love, and you can make sense of any of your emotions at all.
(I will tell you that it's not love at this point- but a lot of people
want it to be so badly that they sacrifice themselves- source of so many
divorces) You know the saying, you'll know it when it's love- you'll
actualy know it's love after you break up. If you think that it's love
during- congradulations! I have a girlfriend that I've been with for
three years and we are in love- you know how I know that? I broke up with
her for a month last summer- no contact whatsoever, to test how I felt.
We've been together and stronger ever since. I am a skeptical person and
I don't even believe what I have, but obviously August & September is
still in the confused (mental turmoil) state. So the song is about a vast
amount on unsurity about a (supposed) love. Maybe I'm reflecting too much
of myself onto the music, but this whole thing started with Lea asking
people to expalin what the The meant to them- I expressed an OPINION as
asked to, I'm not telling people what to think- just the way the I SEE
THINGS, again, AS ASKED!
Lung Shadows is about being in bed, late at night and wanting a person
next to you for obvious reasons. That person is the one that you are no
longer with for whatever reason- the one from August & September (the
summer months of romance(?)). I suppose August & September would have to
be before Lung Shadows if you were to experience both. Here's an opinion:
I think people should experience both. End opinion (as if that's
possible). Both songs are about the same thing, trust me.

> If you saying it's a better song because it says MORE with less baggage ,
well OK I understand that even if I think its daft. I simply cannot
see that they are saying the same thing.
It's about efficiency- do the same job in four days or in four,
repetitive months- you'll still get it done, but at less expense (to our
ears). Again- why I like the The- both songs, musically are fine,
lyrically though, I think August & Septmeber is too repetitive towards the
end. Lung Shadows repeats because the person he's talking to isn't there
and can't hear him. While it can be argued that August & Septmeber is
purposely repetitive as to drive in the 'wailing' aspect, I think that the
whispering of lines in Lung Shadows is more effective because it forces
you to listen, to learn in and devote more of your brain to understanding
what you are listening to.

Or, maybe I'm completely daft. (it's starting to look like a real
possibility and I'm starting to be worried).

~jwh
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:28:44 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"7iDTm.A.oLE.3WbZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: JWH , infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: last time...
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 10:31:48 -0700
Message-Id: <19980522102941.3085a3c8.in@mail.neversoft.com>

At 10:11 AM 5/22/98 -0700, JWH wrote:


>You really think you like a girl you're with and then you realize that
>there's something about her that you hate.

Like...she has man-hands...or always wears the same dress...or is a
close-talker, or a low talker, or is a two-face?

You break up for whatever
>manefestation of that hate that comes out into the open first. You wait.
>You want her back- (this process can repeat n times).

This is so true.

Cheers

Mark S
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 13:27:46 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"OTD_tB.A._PE.KOcZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: astubbs@BayNetworks.COM
To: jwh@u.arizona.edu, infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: RE: last time...
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 11:25:47 -0700
Message-ID: <4161A623F78DD1119A3F00805FA731772E1815@bayxsc02.corpwest.baynetworks.com>

OK you've done a nice summary of A & S which no body needed. The point is hammered home pretty well. When a song has one phrase, it's open to many different interpretations. Your's is different from mine which is what you've failed to infer from my inarticulate (rushed cos I'm busy for a change) e-mails. I've watched a friend (my adopted father for lack of a better description) die from lung cancer. Lung-shadows for me is as far from A & S as you can get. Yeah, you're wanting somebody closer but the reasons are so different (making the message of the song SO DIFFERENT. The whole rating and raving essential in A & S, you know what it's like in those situations, you go round and round the issues in your head, you convince yourself lies are truths, you over-analyse, you obsess. The need in Lung-shadows is simple and understood; there is no doubt that you need that person closer. There is a huge doubt in A & S.

What am I trying to say? Lung Shadows 'style' is right for Lung Shadows.
A & S's 'style' is right for A & S ?

Sure I LIKE Lung Shadows better than A & S, they are not the same song when you interpret then as I do. That's all I've been trying to say.

I hope the BOLLOCKS thing didn't er.. get your back up... it may have seemed like an over-reaction. You stated your opinion as fact and that got my hackles raised.

- -Adrian





On Friday, May 22, 1998 10:12 AM, JWH [SMTP:jwh@U.Arizona.EDU] wrote:
> > THE SONGS ARE DIFFERENT so Different..: how
> is ..come closer to me... the same as ...
> > Was our love to strong to die ?.... Hello !
> Have you ever wanted something so much that it possesed
> your body and your
> soul through the night and through the day?
> -Obvioulsy not.
>
> O.K.- I will spell this out painfully for the last time-
> You really think you like a girl you're with and then you
> realize that
> there's something about her that you hate. You break up
> for whatever
> manefestation of that hate that comes out into the open
> first. You wait.
> You want her back- (this process can repeat n times).
> You don't know if it's love and you can't see it, or if
> it's hate and you
> want it to be love, and you can make sense of any of your
> emotions at all.
> (I will tell you that it's not love at this point- but a
> lot of people
> want it to be so badly that they sacrifice themselves-
> source of so many
> divorces) You know the saying, you'll know it when it's
> love- you'll
> actualy know it's love after you break up. If you think
> that it's love
> during- congradulations! I have a girlfriend that I've
> been with for
> three years and we are in love- you know how I know that?
> I broke up with
> her for a month last summer- no contact whatsoever, to
> test how I felt.
> We've been together and stronger ever since. I am a
> skeptical person and
> I don't even believe what I have, but obviously August &
> September is
> still in the confused (mental turmoil) state. So the song
> is about a vast
> amount on unsurity about a (supposed) love. Maybe I'm
> reflecting too much
> of myself onto the music, but this whole thing started
> with Lea asking
> people to expalin what the The meant to them- I expressed
> an OPINION as
> asked to, I'm not telling people what to think- just the
> way the I SEE
> THINGS, again, AS ASKED!
> Lung Shadows is about being in bed, late at night and
> wanting a person
> next to you for obvious reasons. That person is the one
> that you are no
> longer with for whatever reason- the one from August &
> September (the
> summer months of romance(?)). I suppose August &
> September would have to
> be before Lung Shadows if you were to experience both.
> Here's an opinion:
> I think people should experience both. End opinion (as if
> that's
> possible). Both songs are about the same thing, trust me.
>
> > If you saying it's a better song because it says MORE
> > with less baggage ,
> well OK I understand that even if I think its daft. I
> simply cannot
> see that they are saying the same thing.
> It's about efficiency- do the same job in four days or in
> four,
> repetitive months- you'll still get it done, but at less
> expense (to our
> ears). Again- why I like the The- both songs, musically
> are fine,
> lyrically though, I think August & Septmeber is too
> repetitive towards the
> end. Lung Shadows repeats because the person he's talking
> to isn't there
> and can't hear him. While it can be argued that August &
> Septmeber is
> purposely repetitive as to drive in the 'wailing' aspect,
> I think that the
> whispering of lines in Lung Shadows is more effective
> because it forces
> you to listen, to learn in and devote more of your brain
> to understanding
> what you are listening to.
>
> Or, maybe I'm completely daft. (it's starting to look like
> a real
> possibility and I'm starting to be worried).
>
> ~jwh
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 14:47:32 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"DvcIVD.A.ZWE.BZdZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: JWH
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: last time...
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 12:49:48 -0700
Message-ID: <3565D6DC.34E88D7D@sirius.com>

> The meant to them- I expressed an OPINION as
> asked to, I'm not telling people what to think- just the way the I SEE
> THINGS, again, AS ASKED!


Oh, than excuse me. Sounded like you were stating a sure fact.

> Both songs are about the same thing, trust me.


Oh. opinion or FACT? :>) "YOU BE THE JUDGE"

L.
not being too serious....
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 16:08:19 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"-AD1SD.A.GoE.ukeZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: The END of the THE
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 14:10:35 -0700
Message-ID: <3565E9CB.930F4984@sirius.com>

Could it be? No more "hidden feelings to explain", thoughts
unexpressed, and no more need for the THE.

Shudder...coming soon to a store near YOU, its the LOVEGETY!
,
>
>> >
>> > 'Love detectors' rack up huge sales in
>> > Japan
>> >
>> >
>> > Copyright ) 1998 Nando.net
>> > Copyright ) 1998 Reuters News Service
>> >
>> > Market Indices | Dow Jones Industrials | Internet Stocks |
>> > Most Active | Gainers | Losers
>> >
>> > TOKYO (May 15, 1998 08:26 a.m. EDT http://www.nando.net) -
>> > When would-be lovers in Japan meet that special someone
>> > these days, they can truly say bells have rung.
>> >
>> > Or, more properly, bleeped.
>> >
>> > A love detector that bleeps when the chance of romance
>> > comes near has taken the Japanese market by storm, ringing
>> > up sales unseen since a distant cousin, the "Tamagotchi,"
>> > burst on the scene two years ago.
>> >
>> > But while the Tamagotchi -- an electronic virtual pet that
>> > has to be "fed" and "cleaned" by punching buttons -- was
>> > about platonic care, the "Lovegety" is about love, love,
>> > love.
>> >
>> > The egg-shaped device comes in male and female versions.
>> > One has a blue underside and the other pink, and they are
>> > small enough to fit in a hand.
>> >
>> > Owners can set the device to show display lights according
>> > to whether they are in the mood for a simple chat, ready to
>> > sing karaoke, or want to go all the way up to the "Get2"
>> > mode, in which anything the couple wants goes.
>> >
>> > When a male Lovegety and a female Lovegety come within
>> > 4.5 meters (15 feet) of each other, a high-pitched bleeper
>> > goes off, alerting the owners to a possible rendezvous.
>> >
>> > Neither responds to the same sex.
>> >
>> > Once a hopeful couple has homed in on each other, a
>> > delicate social ritual ensues as they size each other up
>> > and,
>> > if mutually agreeable, try to match Lovegety program modes.
>> > When harmony reigns, the machines flash green.
>> >
>> > "Men wanting to meet women, and women wanting to meet
>> > men - it's a universal theme, and this toy is here to make
>> > the
>> > whole process easier, less embarrassing," said Takeya
>> > Takafuji, at the Tokyo branch of Erfolg, the firm that
>> > makes
>> > them.
>> >
>> > The devices are certainly proving an attraction for
>> > reserved
>> > Japanese. Priced at 2,900 yen - around $25 - some
>> > 350,000 have been sold since they hit the stores this
>> > February.
>> >
>> > Men have bought more than half, said Takafuji, because
>> > "Japanese men are very shy."
>> >
>> > The birth of Lovegety came when an insurance salesman
>> > friend of Takafuji's said it would be nice to have a gadget

>> > that let people meet painlessly and understand each other's
>> > feelings in a flash.
>> >
>> > Takafuji took the idea to the president of Erfolg --
>> > "success"
>> > in German -- and after a year of development, Lovegety
>> > was ready to strut its stuff.
>> >
>> > Lovegety's runaway success was a shock that has given a
>> > massive shot in the arm to the six-year-old company, which
>> > was originally a manufacturer of modems and producer of
>> > Internet pages.
>> >
>> > Takafuji said the huge success last year of Bandai Co Ltd's
>> > Tamagotchi paved the way for the Lovegety.
>> >
>> > She said the company hopes to sell three million of the
>> > love
>> > machines.
>> >
>> > Plans are also afoot for a deluxe model by which
>> > prospective
>> > lovers can talk to each other at a distance of 100 meters
>> > (yards).
>> >
>> > The company plans to start sales of the device in Britain
>> > in
>> > several months and is also talking with distributors in
>> > Hong
>> > Kong.
>> >
>> > Many happy relationships have already resulted from use of
>> > the Lovegety, Takafuji said, although nobody appears to
>> > have tied the knot yet.
>> >
>> > "But I personally know of at least 10 couples, so there is
>> > always hope."
>> >
>> > By ELAINE LIES, Reuters
>> >
>> >
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 17:29:12 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"jaocAB.A.YrE.iwfZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Ken Maclean"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: How not to give someone the spanish archer (el bow)
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 16:28:16 MDT
Message-ID: <19980522222816.22228.qmail@hotmail.com>

This,in my opinion (because who wants bollocks in their e-mail?) is
outrageously funny.(comedy = tragedy + time) But "I'll sail this ship
alone" is about someone doing all kinds of stuff to get someone to get
someone back. The last suggestion being to burn himself alive at which
point the song ends suddenly,implying that he did it. Hmmmmmm may not
have been the best song to use, unless of course you were dating Joan of
Arc.

Yours looking forward to the sequel "How to dump the maid of Orleans
gracefully."
Ken.

This, after a five year
relationship that should have lasted two. The first time we broke
up,
I, being the manipulative bastard that I am, sent her a tape that
was
a mix of break-up songs ("I Dont Mind If You Forget Me"--
Morrissey,
"I'll Sail This Ship Alone" and "A Little Time"--Beautiful South,
"August and September", "Medicine"-- The Sundays, "Wish You Were
Her"-- Billy Bragg, stuff like that.) It worked. It probably
shouldn't have, though.



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 19:26:44 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"QJriOD.A.7zE.uehZ1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Ken Maclean"
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Drs of luuuuurrrve: Partners as lab rats.
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 18:25:47 MDT
Message-ID: <19980523002548.824.qmail@hotmail.com>

First off if i had to give a the the song that reminds me of a
relationship it would be "Slow train to dawn" which reminds me of a week
spent mating like wild deranged weasels in a hotel in Brussels that a
year later turned into August and September. (If only i had known Mark G
then !)

To be honest MJ's more moody introspective love songs dont talk to me a
clearly as Billy Braggs (workers playtime especialy) but i think thats
more a reflection of my personality than a commentary on MJ. Even in the
middle of pathos, BB allows himself a line that makes me smile (how can
you lie there and think of England when you dont even know who's in the
team.)Which is why i'm glad that MJ mixes his styles and its not just
about his inner torments, because for me, too much of that would get
tedious and overly self-obsessed. Thats why i dont really agree with
this bit below.

a few I hate, consider copouts and distant from what I consider
the The to be.

I think this might be more accurate if it was along the lines of "what i
would like the the to be" The reason i say this because the political
stuff is not just in Mind Bomb. Heartland ? Angel of deception ? Sweet
bird of truth was withdrawn from sale by epic after one day because the
sensitivity about bombing Libya. The social stuff is, in my mind every
bit as satisfying to me as the personal and an intrinsic part of the
the. Not because i necessarily share his views (missiles in my garden
yes but rather that than russian tanks ta very much.) because i dont see
my personal life in the exactly the same way either. Have you ever felt
the urge to laugh from one of MJ's lines ?. Believe me a black sense of
humour really helps you keep perspective and stops you taking yourself
more seriously than is good for you. Even Morrissey gets that bit. But
what i unreservedly admire is the beauty in how he puts his views over.
Too much political would be dreary too. I am curious though JWH which
tracks do you hate ?

The other question i had was did your girl friend know she was being
tested and did either of you see other people during this hiatus,
because i see sexual frustration and loneliness could cloud the data.
How did you differentiate a desire for her from a desire for somebody ?

Yours wondering if throwing large 9 pound cheeses at sports utilities
from motorway bridges is also covered by the ban.
Ken
P.S. Isn't "lies " an unfortunate name for someone working at a news
agency.




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 11:08:04 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"HH5XrD.A.-VD.Tjua1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Patrick Mura
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: what the hey ????
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 18:06:25 +0100
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980526180625.007b1dd0@mailer2.sm.uni-bocconi.it>

Sorry pals,
I know what's been already said about talking of things not pertinent to
the The, but I'm an Italian fan so I have a rather curious question to ask.

What the hell is "Seinfeld" (or whatever) all about ?

I know it is (was) a tv show. I hear the name on tv, on the press, and
mentioned by US fellows. But I really don't get what was so HUGE about it.

Maybe answer me directly - not on the list ?
t547554@tutor.uni-bocconi.it

Thanks, pals.
Patrick.
===============================================================
"Quest'uomo sta privando qualche villaggio,
da qualche parte nel mondo,
del proprio scemo del villaggio."
================================================================
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 14:04:12 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"BTEwVB.A.A6D.eIxa1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Jennifer MacFarlane"
To: Infected Mailing List
Subject: Perfect
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 12:57:23 -0600
Message-ID: <356B1093.529F81AA@smednet.com>

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------35A1B196607A1D0F54352BF0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi there,

I'm writing from Canada, and I am very curious about Perfect. I bought
Soul Mining years and years ago on cassette tape, and it had a version
of Perfect that seems to be otherwise not available. It's a really great
version, but when I bought the CD, to my surprise the version of Perfect
on that was completely different. Oh, don't get me wrong, I love them
both now (it took some getting used to when that beat first picked up
after Giant...), but I'm wondering why the "first" version isn't on the
website anywhere. It's such an extensive, well-maintained collection, I
was a bit surprised to not see my old favourite, "Version #1" of
Perfect.

Anyway, if you have any comments, please let me know. And if you know
where I can pick that first version up on CD, I'd love to get it. My
cassette is quite worn!!

Thanks!!

Jennifer

- --------------35A1B196607A1D0F54352BF0
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Jennifer MacFarlane
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"

begin: vcard
fn: Jennifer MacFarlane
n: MacFarlane;Jennifer
org:
adr: 6460 - 52 St. S.E.;;;Calgary;Alberta;T2C 4P8;Canada
email;internet: jmacfarlane@smednet.com
tel;work: 203-6401
tel;home: (403) 220-0408
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
version: 2.1
end: vcard


- --------------35A1B196607A1D0F54352BF0--
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 17:14:35 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"JVHraB.A.xEE.76za1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Mark Scott"
To: Patrick Mura ,
infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: what the hey ????
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 15:14:36 -0700
Message-Id: <19980526151204.04a406b4.in@mail.neversoft.com>




I discovered Seinfeld rather late in its life - 1995. I'm not really sure
how to put Seinfled into words. It's not as easy to  describe as Red
Dwarf or Blackadder for instance.



The writing and ideas are second to none. Seinfeld stands to one side and
thumbs its nose at all the would bes on the American networks. Only
"Third Rock..." , "Friends", and "The
Simpsons" get remotely close.



It is a self proclaimed "show about nothing" and yet it is in
fact a show about everything. There is nothing that is too trivial or
everyday to be the subject of a Seinfeld episode. It is about
relationships and how screwed up most people are. I relate to the dapper
and sarcastic Jerry the most, although I resemble more closely the stout
and seething George.



Time magazine reported that Seinfeld's motto was No Hugging, No Learning,
and that is certainly true. In all those years none of the characters
ever truly moved on, just about, job to job, person to person, but the
action always centred on Jerry's apartment and his three friends.



Critics insisted that as the seasons passed, the quality and humour of
the shows went down. In fact I thought that they improved, the plots and
sub plots weaved even more intricately, the humour became darker and more
sardonic.



AMongst these later shows were gems like The Bizarro Jerry, where Elaine
meets three friends who are the opposites in personality to Jerry and
George and Kramer. Jerry's explanation of what Bizarro Superman is to
Elaine is stupendously funny. In a later episode, when Jerry takes his
cronies with him to buy a new Saab, Elaine's exchange with her boyfriend
over the photocopier is inspired.



All this written description really does no good whatsoever, you have to
see some episodes and see the relationships working - George's crazy
parents, Elaine's boyfriend, David Puddy, Kramer's friend, Newman - these
characters enhance the show greatly.



I think the biggest compliment I can pay Seinfeld is that it can stand
its ground against all the best British comedies.



If you want more info there are plenty of sites on the Internet.



www.seinfeld.com
has clips from the show.



>M a  r   k      S   c  o t t<



At 06:06 PM 5/26/98 +0100, Patrick Mura wrote:

>Sorry pals,

>I know what's been already said about talking of things not pertinent to

>the The, but I'm an Italian fan so I have a rather curious question to ask.

>

>What the hell is "Seinfeld" (or whatever) all about ?

>

>I know it is (was) a tv show. I hear the name on tv, on the press, and

>mentioned by US fellows. But I really don't get what was so HUGE about it.

>

>Maybe answer me directly - not on the list ?

>t547554@tutor.uni-bocconi.it

>

>Thanks, pals.

>Patrick.

>===============================================================

>"Quest'uomo sta privando qualche villaggio,

> da qualche parte nel mondo,

> del proprio scemo del villaggio."

>================================================================

>



------------------------------
Resent-Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 22:18:38 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"XF9m1C.A.5WE.7X4a1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: "Kyle Milligan"
To: "Jennifer MacFarlane"
Cc: "Infected"
Subject: Re: Perfect
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 23:09:49 -0700
Message-Id: <199805270317.XAA25879@toronto.planeteer.com>

Hi Jennifer,

In an interview with Matt himself on the radio, he explained that "Perfect" had
no business being on "Soul Mining" in the first place. He explained that the
record company put it on without his permission and he was pretty p.o.'d about
it. The version you speak of is something I'm looking for also.

I'm writing from Toronto, where are you from?


Kyle Milligan
toldyaso@planeteer.com

- ----------
> From: Jennifer MacFarlane
> To: Infected Mailing List
> Subject: Perfect
> Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 11:57 AM
>
> Hi there,
>
> I'm writing from Canada, and I am very curious about Perfect. I bought
> Soul Mining years and years ago on cassette tape, and it had a version
> of Perfect that seems to be otherwise not available. It's a really great
> version, but when I bought the CD, to my surprise the version of Perfect
> on that was completely different. Oh, don't get me wrong, I love them
> both now (it took some getting used to when that beat first picked up
> after Giant...), but I'm wondering why the "first" version isn't on the
> website anywhere. It's such an extensive, well-maintained collection, I
> was a bit surprised to not see my old favourite, "Version #1" of
> Perfect.
>
> Anyway, if you have any comments, please let me know. And if you know
> where I can pick that first version up on CD, I'd love to get it. My
> cassette is quite worn!!
>
> Thanks!!
>
> Jennifer
>
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 12:37:04 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"LDEJVB.A.5TC.tOEc1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: Lea Curry
To: wherever
CC: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: An open letter to Nigel:
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 10:35:09 -0700
Message-ID: <3570434D.61D974CC@sirius.com>

> It's happened to
> too many other bands that I loved for years - they get huge and
> then all kinds of dumb people like them and it the music goes
> to pot. This is what happened to me with Nine Inch Nails. I've been
> listening to them for almost a decade, and a few years ago they
> just exploded into popularity, and now we have twelve year olds
> buying their albums and fourteen year old girls are screaming
> "I want to fuck you like an animal" at the concerts, which makes
> me ill.


to expand on what you are saying:


I know that bands tend to get dilluted over a period of time but I
wonder if it is because they are deliberately catering to the masses, or
just if they have run out of material, and the masses keep demanding
albums? Well, also they may have contractual demands.

If The The was at the top of the charts and had a locked in contract to
produce an album every year, they might well put out mush too. But Im
not sure that these other bands are bending their style to be more
popular as much as running out of inspiration, and just cranking out
production work.


Lea
.
------------------------------
Resent-Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 22:53:48 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-Message-ID: <"6yxjlD.A.eGC.6K4b1"@purpletape>
Resent-From: infected@cs.uchicago.edu
Resent-Sender: infected-request@cs.uchicago.edu
From: wherever
To: infected@purpletape.cs.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: (fwd) Re: An open letter to Nigel:
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 20:54:10 -0700
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19980522183847.00a2cff8@pop.primenet.com>

Sorry if this is an old subject, I'm catching up.

>When I saw Mark Scott's:
>"I have mixed feelings about discovering there are like minded people
> on the planet. I've always quite enjoyed the fact that almost
> everyone I've played Mind Bomb to hates it! But I'm glad there are
> others out there, it means I'm not all alone on this Earth."
>I found myself suddenly empowered to share my feelings!
>
>Again though, it's a bittersweet feeling finding other people who
>not only share your liking of theThe, but also your emotional response
>to it.

Personally I'm happy to find other people who like theThe, but I
can sympathize with where you're coming from - I've often worried
that someday they'll get hugely popular and everyone will like them.
See, right now it's cool to find other people who like them, because
it's *rare* and so now it's special. If they become hugely popular,
then tons of stupid people will like them and it will ruin it for
me. This is of course selfish - Matt deserves commendation, money,
fame, awards, all that - but I can't help it. It's happened to
too many other bands that I loved for years - they get huge and
then all kinds of dumb people like them and it the music goes
to pot. This is what happened to me with Nine Inch Nails. I've been
listening to them for almost a decade, and a few years ago they
just exploded into popularity, and now we have twelve year olds
buying their albums and fourteen year old girls are screaming
"I want to fuck you like an animal" at the concerts, which makes
me ill.

So in short, I basically share your misanthropic view towards
other fans - I don't mind if other fans exist, I just want them
to get the same experience that I do out of it, to hold it sacred
and special, not something that's the in fad thing of the week.

Elitist bullshit? Of course. But I don't care.



Jenna
wherever@primenet.com
AIM: invisigo

"We like our solutions fast and we like them
stupid. As long as there's a good slogan."

- Bill Maher
------- end -------