Re: Kinship registry? Was: Thoughts on gay marriage?
David said: Rich, who has, however, argued elsewhere that he thinks that states ought to introduce a kinship registry and cease recognising marriages altogether, leaving them as a private and/or religious matter. Interesting, but I'm not sure what you mean. (Where's elsewhere?) Elsewhere is a strange combination of a friend's Livejournal comments and IRC. My basic position is that what we call by the unitary name marriage is at least five different things: - Personal marriage. This is when two (or more, I suppose) people formally and publically declare their undying love to each other and their intention to stay together as a unit indefinitely. - Religious marriage. This is when some religious group or other sanctifies a personal marriage with religious rites. - Legal marriage. This is when the marriage is described and specified by a contract drawn up between the two parties. This normally involves placing possessions in common ownership and suchlike. I suppose this could be done using regular contractual law or else by forming some kind of corporation. - Kinship marriage. This attaches two formerly distinct families together by new ties of kinship. (And in former times when this was more important established the right of succession.) - State marriage. This is the business with the tax incentives and suchlike. (In the UK, for example, you can avoid quite large amounts of capital gains tax and inheritance tax by gifting each other with assets if you're married.) I then argued that the state marriage should be phased out and most of the other parts should be left in the private domain where they belong. My one exception was the establishment of a kinship registry, which would determine who gets access to critically ill people or inherits the estate in the absence of a will and suchlike. So is kinship symmetric? Do I have to have one kinship that is closer than the rest, so next of kin is defined? I don't think kinship is necessarily symmetric, and you could even stop it being transitive in principle. I can't say I've thought through the details though. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 09:57:03PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: In fact, I have had the same BMI at a time when I was woefully out of shape as I had a few years later when I'd gotten into the best shape of my life, because I'd lost as much fat weight as I had gained muscle weight. :) I think you may be setting a higher standard for yourself than just health risks. Which is fine, but note that there is a range of body fat to muscle that is acceptable from a health risk standpoint. Even if you replaced some of your muscle with fat, you may not have significantly increased your health risks. As long as your BMI is between 18.5 and 25, and your waist is less than 35 inches in circumference (female, 40 male), it is unlikely that you have obesity-related health risks. Only exceptionally sedentary and/or elderly people (i.e., extremely low muscle mass) pass the BMI and waist criteria and still have health risks due to body-fat. Of course, 30 minutes of exercise a day is almost always good for your health, no matter what your BMI. Here is a good article from the NIH about overweight and obesity assessment and treatment: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/prctgd_b.pdf -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:36:47 -0800 (PST) What exactly makes an obscenity obscene? Aside from something obscene being labled an obscenity of course. That's a good question and perhaps one worthy of exploration. However, its also pretty academic IMHO. Whether you think the F-bomb or other obcenities are indeed unacceptable or not, I think the majority of people in the US, FREX, would define those words as obcene. Damon. I agree. But to be honest, I don't know too many people who don't swear. That being said, and with recognition of the fact that we all live in the real world, whether we think so or not, I think it's more accurate to say that obscenities are conditionally obscene. And to say otherwise, is to show that hypocrisy runs rampant more so than what one may think. -Travis a Newfoundlander who speaks true Newfounese Edmunds. _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Earth almost put on impact alert
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Earth almost put on impact alert Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:49:47 + Travis Edmunds wrote: I think it's a tad irresponsible, that there isn't a more concerted effort to thwart the possible extinction of our species don't you? A big impact like the one that ended the Cretaceous would _not_ cause the extinction of our species. Possibly. Hence my use of the word possible. -Travis _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thru out Gov't
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thru out Gov't Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:04:47 -0600 At 04:01 PM 2/27/04, Travis Edmunds wrote: What exactly makes an obscenity obscene? Aside from something obscene being labled an obscenity of course. Didn't a former justice of the SCOTUS give a famous answer to that question, which AFAIK has not been superseded . . . -- Ronn! :) Well, I don't know. Exactly. -Travis _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A few new words of which this list is in need Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:07:10 -0600 At 04:05 PM 2/27/04, Travis Edmunds wrote: Biology taking precedence over society. And take some solace in the fact that we can't escape biology. Isn't that essentially the same answer some are giving about SSM (and SS activity in general)? Insert Tab A Into Slot B Maru -- Ronn! :) Hey! Call me stupid, but I'm not following you Ron... -Travis _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/featurespgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: A few new words of which this list is in need
From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 03:38:32PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: You know, I'm a little touchy about this right now. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am. Funny, the comment didn't even register on me. Most of it is because I don't pay a lot of attention to Jane's posts anyway since the S/N is so low, but also, what a ludicrous thing for a person who has never met me to write. Erik, I am a little confused. On the one hand you are persuasively arguing the case for an enlightened and socially progressive approach to SSM. Then on the other hand, you are calling Jan Jane, like its somehow sub-optimal to be a women. Do you really think women are somehow less than men, and that suggesting someone is a bit girlie is actually an insult? The fat thing was uncalled for, I agree, and I confess, its kinda amusing to watch you two poke your tounges at each other, but I would rather read yours and Jans thoughts on something a little more intellectual. You both seem to have something to offer. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Earth almost put on impact alert
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Earth almost put on impact alert Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:20:09 -0600 At 12:12 PM 2/27/04, Dave Land wrote: Travis Edmunds wrote: But in the grand scheme of things, nothing is proceeding the way that perhaps it should. Such is life, sadly. Nothing is proceeding the way that perhaps it should Just as a matter of interest, who is it who decides how things should be proceeding? -- Ronn! :) AhDee Snider? Actually I'm not sure. Besides, I think it's more important to ask what should be proceeding, as opposed to who decides what should be proceeding. But seeing as how there is no definitive what, I used the word perhaps. -Travis _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/viruspgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
At 03:21 PM 2/27/2004 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote: I've explained these things before. I'm not going to do so again, just because _you_ weren't reading. But honestly, was *anyone* reading? Or at least reading *and* taking it seriously? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 02:49 PM 2/27/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: Are sterile heterosexual couples denied marriage? What if the couple does not want children? IOW, is having children a requirement for marriage? Of course not. if it were, that would necessitate a post facto way of invalidating childless marriages - which would be awkward, to say the least.Moreover, the phenomenon of childless marriages is pretty much a recent one, so there has not been much action by society to address them. And of course, an infertile heterosexual couple can adopt a child while meeting that child's reasonable expectations for a mother and a father. A homosexual couple, by definition, cannot. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 02:15 PM 2/26/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Suppose that, in an effort to control world overpopulation Everyone is free to marry anyone they want from the same sex, but not of the opposite sex. Would you consider that equal protection? How would you feel about such a thing? No, I would not consider it a denial of equal protection. Somehow I don't believe you. I have a hard time believing that you would not take exception to such a scenario had it actually occurred. I would take all kinds of exception to such a situation.I just wouldn't argue that it is a denial of my equal protection rights. Another thing to keep in mind is that in my conception of marriage, appearing before a judge is a mere annoyance in the process. In my mind, I am only married once I make my vows to my wife before the Church. And if your proposed society is prohibiting the Catholic Church from performing the Sacrament of Marriage, then there are all kinds of other objections to be had. Otherwise, if you are proposing a scenario analagous to that which exists in the United States today, then I will still be perfectly free to marry within the Catholic Church, live with my wife, and refer to her as my wife in all conversations except legal ones. The only difference is that I would be denied several legal incenties that currently exist for marriage. Thus, it is important to keep in mind in this whole debate that nobody is talking about preventing homosexual couples from marrying themselves and living together. The debate rather is about legal terminology and incentives. Actually, I don't concede that it is, as you say A profound redefinition of marriage. I never have conceded that. It is a redefinition, but only a minor one. Marriage has been re-defined for centuries. Only a few centuries ago, the vast majority of marriages were arranged. Parents were the ones who chose who married who, and the purpose of which was usually to form partnerships/alliances between families. The redefinition of marriage as an institution that two people (a man and a woman) who love each other willingly choose to enter, promising their lives to eachother was a far greater redefinition of Marriage from arranged marriages than extending an institution that two people who love each other willingly choose to enter, promising their lives to eachother to include same-sex partners. The radical redefinition as you say, is only in your mind. Sorry, but I don't believe you :-) The concept of romantic love in marriage is at least 4,000 years old.Moreover, I am not at all sure that most of the peasantry and working class in Wester Civilization over that time were married by arrangement.At any rate, an organic development in the mechanisms of marriage hardly seems on par to me with a very redefinition of marriage from husband and wife to wife and wife. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 12:18:11AM +1100, Andrew Paul wrote: Erik, I am a little confused. I agree. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:26:33 -0600 On the other I find repetitious use of such language to be either a sign of stupidity or a sign of some psycho/social personality defect. xponent Reverse Psyche Maru rob Hey!! I may be a psycho, but I'm not stupid. Ah...yeah...What I'm trying to say is that I swear all the time. You wouldn't believe how much. It's a part of my language. Which is for the most part a blend of Irish, Scottish and a few other unnameable dialects. Of course you don't see me dropping so-called F-bombs here on the list. But that's just a matter of etiquette. And all etiquette is, is an attempt at not offending someone or anyone, in a particular place or time, or a combination of the aforementioned criteria. And I'm just not an asshole (a few girls I know may tell you different) who likes to at least offend someone. Which is why I observe proper etiquette in the proper situations. I think it comes down to one word - INTEGRITY. I know a few people who have it, and I know many more that do not. But of course, at the same time, they're just words. -Travis sticks and stones Edmunds _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 09:35 PM 2/27/2004 + Richard Baker wrote: JDG said: At any rate, I find it has hardly been established that there somehow exists a universal right to marry a person of the same sex. If we start from the premise that men and women should have equal rights, then it's obvious, isn't it? After all, women have the right to marry men, therefore men must have the right to marry men too. And similarly, men have the right to marry women therefore women must also have that right. Or do you think that men and women should not have equal rights? (I suppose it could be argued that they should have equal but not *identical* rights, but that seems a dodgy position to me, because there doesn't seem to be any way to determine the equality of non-identical rights, and such a system would clearly be open to abuse.) Bascially, what you are saying is that the Equal Rights Amendment would have required the institution of homosexual marriages. Thank goodness we voted that thing down. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 10:19 PM 2/27/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote: What it says to me is that it is a ban on ALL new marriages both heterosexual and homosexual. It will remove all 1049 'marriage' rights that now exist for all existing married couples. Shirley, you can't be serious. There's the word require in the second sentence of the Musgrave Amendment. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
List Criticims Re: Tyranny
At 04:47 PM 2/26/2004 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote: Actually, speaking purely for myself, I find I'm MUCH more defensive when challenged offlist. I _always_ ask why said conversation couldn't take place onlist. I think that you are in the minority in preferring to be criticized in public, rather than private. From experience, people who challenge others offlist are either trying to intimidate them or want to attack them in a manner that would be inappropriate onlist. Presumably, you are able to tell the difference between such people, and those who are legitimately engaging in constructive criticism discretely. I suspect that when technicalities help your side, you do in fact cheer. He's saying he _suspects_ you _may_ have a double standard. He is not attacking you, however. I've seen enough examples on the list this month of people attacking each other to be able to say that with confidence. This is a problem with line-by-line responding. I did not accuse him of attacking me indeed, I said that to describe him as attacking me is probably a bit too harsh. I did, however, say that he was questioning my intellectual credentials, which the above clearly does. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 05:12 PM 2/26/2004 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote: A great quote from ABC's The Note blog on the Constitutional Amendment: Whatever one thinks about the merits of such an amendment, we are amazed (OK: not really) at the degree to which the [mainstream press] casts the President's decision in purely political terms -- rather than a response to the tens of millions of real Americans who are fundamentally freaked out by what is going on in (Nancy Pelosi's) San Francisco and (John Kerry's) Massachusetts. Are you _really_ taking the stance that amending the Constitution is no big deal? Are you saying that having a sitting President endorse a constitutional amendment based on a moral, not politically-necessary judgement (equivalent to Prohibition, perhaps, as opposed to offering women and African-Americans the right to vote) is _nothing_ to be concerned with? I think that almost every amendment is based on a moral judgement. For example, the amendment giving the Distict of Columbia three electoral votes was certainly not politically necessary, but was based upon a moral judgement. At any rate, the point of the quote was criticizing media coverage of Bush's support of the FMA solely on the grounds of political calcuations - and not on the principles that might actually motivate his support. The Constitution was not meant to be a static document, but a living, adapting one. Translation: It is o.k. for liberal judges to radically redefine the Constitution in ways that the writers, signers, and voters of that document never imagined. For a conservative President to propose that we change the Constitution by actually taking a vote on it, however, is an absolutely horrible attempt to alter a sacred document. I understand now. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 06:05 AM 2/26/2004 -0800 Richard Baker wrote: I seriously find it very hard to imagine being freaked out by the idea of gay marriage. I think a lot of people consider marriage to be the fundamental building block of society. At this time, this buidling block is, in their minds, being profoundly redefined, without any of the usual debating and voting that we come to expect of such decisions living in a constitutional republic. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Anyone See The Passion Yet?
Reviews? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 09:24 AM 2/25/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:17 PM 2/24/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you give the appearance of being a run with the pack kind of guy. I don't mean to be insulting, but you seem to be on a dittohead heading lately. I am flabbergasted. I am the only Brin-L'er sticking my neck out and taking a position that I *know* will be very unpopular here. And *I* am running with the pack?Hello I put great effort into my defense of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and I doubt that you will find anything much like my post on that subject from any other right-wing source. I agree with you here. Not one right wing source I have heard from is making as big a deal about the judges striking down the impropper order as you are, probably because it *is* an impropper order and they know it. In other words, when I present novel arguments and opinions, their lack of repetition in other sources is prima facie evidence that my arguments and opinions are not credible. On the other hand, if I present novel arguments and opinions that are present in other sources, then I am merely running with the pack. Thank you Michael and Robert for making right-wingers feel really welcome here as credible participants of Brin-L. I actually do hope that the order, once properly worded, does go to court, and is passed by the same judge that struck it down for being impropperly worded. Then that would demonstrate that George Bush's sudden endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment to be an unneccessary knee-jerk reaction based in fear. Unfortunately, there is no hope of the atrocious ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Court being struck down. Which is why we need a FMA. Especially since this phenomenon has also sprung up in New Mexico and now New Paltz, and who knows where else in the two years or so at *minimum* it would take to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Personally, I think that it is instructive that it has been how many days now that this semicolon delay has lasted, and San Francisco is *still* handing out faux marriage certificates. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
Travis Edmunds wrote: What exactly makes an obscenity obscene? Aside from something obscene being labled an obscenity of course. serious In the recent months, the only time I seriously considered _censuring_ TV for my kids was when they started asking questions about astrology, that they got from the TV [Nickelodeon]. I find that much more obscene than naked bodies. /serious Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Richard Baker wrote: Even if we disregard polyamorous relationships or whatever, surely friendship is one of the bases of civil society - so why not formally recognise friendships in law? And what prevents a group of people to create a new firm whose purpose is just to share their hourse? This would be the equivalent of a civil union of two [or more] people, possibly with the same sex. Maybe that's the path to gay marriage, without offending the big... oops conservatives: make those unions easier by decreasing the bureucracy. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 19:14:27 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 11:42 AM Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:01:20 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 10:36 AM Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:14:15 -0600 If it's relevance has diminished over time, then it can't be that important. As opposed to the likes of Iron Man or Paranoid of course, which have not faded in any way. Those have faded in relavence also. You must not be exposed to people who are really into Zepplin. If you mean that they don't get as much radio play as Justin Timberlake, then I can't disagree with you. But musicians, particularly of the Heavy Metal ilk, cite those songs along with others as being very influential to themselves. Whereas Communication Breakdown is lost in translation so to speak. As far as me being exposed to Zep freaks, I'm feeling claustrophobic. They're everywhere!! I don't know one person in the real world (that has ANY sort of musical credentials) who doesn't worship Zep. Good songs, but for those of us who lived through those times they were MOS. Actually, this is where your POV is usefull because you can see the groups whole catalogue simultaneously whereas we older folks tend to view the same catalogue temporaly. Have you ever noticed this effect where people like a bands first few albums immensely and their later albums somewhat less so? Thats where we old folks are at a disadvantage at least as far as decades old music is concerned. I have noticed what you mention. I have a question however. Is change a static thing? I don't know that that is the proper way to phrase the question, to be honest. But I know what you mean. I would have to say that change is a constant thing. The only thing that really changes about change is the rate of change. (What a weird sentence!) And over the past century, the rate of change has increased significantly. You can see this in almost every mode of human endevour. I agree. Travis? Are familiar with the term The Singularity? It is an important concept and one it would help to be familiar with, just in case such an occurance pops up during our lifetimes. (No snide remarks! We all know it is a possibility) Do you mean (A) singualarity? If so, I saw one the other night on TNG. If not...then could you explain? I probably am familiar with what you speak of, but it's not exactly rolling of my tongue. Supertramp Blah. Ever try Crime Of The Century or Crisis What Crisis? Actually no. But blah. Give them a chance someday. There is some really good stuff in there.G Perhaps I will. Understand however, that I will hold you personally responsible for the content of that music!! Aerosmith One of the greatest Rock bandsever. Tyler is an amazing vocalist. Joe Perry is one of the best at inventing guitar hooks. Really oustanding at times. Ok, Perry himself admits that he's not a guitarists guitarist, but to brand him as one of the best at inventing guitar hooks...ah...no... Guitar hooks have very little to do with a players quality. Perry is a good guitarist, but not a great one. What he does have is an exceptional ear for a catchy guitar phrase, hence my comment. I dislike the use of the word exceptional. I don't think it applies to Joe in the least. Horslips Heard of, I think, but never heard. You like Tull? I had a mind to look them up but I never. Seriously, I love Tull, but have never heard Horslips. Care to tell me a little? Absolutely on of my all time favorites. What Tull did with Scottish music, Horslips did with the Irish. The early albums are very energetic Irish folk rock, but the later albums are just great. Almost every album is a concept album. My favorite is Aliens, which is about refugees from the potato famine coming to America. Cool. I check them out when I get the chance. -Steppenwolf A solid heavy rock band of the sixties for the most part. Kaye is a good frontman live. He's excellent live!! I saw them back in 97. They sounded HEAVY. Oh! I caught one of the drumsticks that the drummer threw my way. -April Wine Posers Sign of the gypsy queen... -Heart One
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 10:56:24PM +, Alberto Monteiro wrote: serious In the recent months, the only time I seriously considered _censuring_ TV for my kids was when they started asking questions about astrology, that they got from the TV [Nickelodeon]. I find that much more obscene than naked bodies. /serious You can say that again. In fact, I will say it again: encouraging irrational thought and behavior is bad for individuals and humanity. The same cannot be said for naked bodies or words like fuck. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
Andrew said: You are calling Jan Jane, like its somehow sub-optimal to be a women. Actually, he isn't. He's calling Jan Jane because Jan keeps calling Erik by variants of his name with additional or alternative letters. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Homo [was: Thoughts on gay marriage?]
Bob Z wrote: the current trend seems to be to view the hominids of the last millenia as seperate species. the dna evidence suggests that neanderthal was a seperate species and erectus was pretty different from sapien. Yes, but there are traces of Neaderthal and Sinanthropus erectus that are similiar to the sapiens populations that came to the region that they lived, suggesting that they _might_ have traded genes. In fact, early sapien may have been different from the more recent version. We know that there was a great leap forward about 100,000 years ago when culture possibly related to language exploded. this probably was the result of some change in the human brain. This time marks the arrival of a new and fiercer predator, that competed savagely with the hominids: man itself. But the changes might not have been speciation, but only an improvement of the existing species. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Homo [was: Thoughts on gay marriage?]
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Speaking of strange and probably unintended consequences of changing the subject line . . . Unintended? No, it was intended :-P Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thru out Gov't
The Fool wrote: Use a password protected screensaver. I gave it up when my kids learned that a simple reset would remove the screensaver :-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
From: Matthew and Julie Bos [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 01:16:59 -0500 On 2/27/04 1:04 PM, Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You like Slayer!? Neat. How heavy are you willing to go, if you don't mind my asking? Do you listen to the likes of Sepultura, Soulfly, Pantera, White Zombie, Coal Chamber, or newer bands like Godsmack, Papa Roach, Korn, Static-X, Andrew W.K., Sevendust, Drowning Pool, Flaw? I have never had the response of neat whenever I say I listen to Slayer. That's a new one. Hey! Neat. How heavy do I go? Well for short periods of time I can handle some Napalm Death...but most of the other death metal has no appeal to me. Too fast to be useful, and the lyrics are downright stupid. About the other bands, I have listened to them all...but I can't recall any song by Flaw. Just to start with a little Flaw, try out Only The Strong. My favorites on that list would be Mr. Zombie, Pantera, Static-X, AWK, and Sevendust. Other current faves are Fear Factory, KMFDM, and Type 0 Negative. How about a little Cannibal Corpse, Mudvayne, Mushroomhead, System Of A Down, Ramstein, Deftones, or Ministry? So I'm a walking contradiction... Music isn't a rational enjoyment...we like what we like. No contradiction there. Although I might have to cut down on the Slayer and the Lords of Acid if I am elected Deacon in my church. lol Satriani is one of my fav guitarists. Though he is behind Vai, Malmsteen, Buckethead, and a few other select band guitarists such as Slash, Bratta, Van Halen, Petrucci and perhaps a few others. We are going to have to agree to disagree about this...the teacher has yet to be bettered by the pupil. Joe is simply more incredibler* in my opinion. If you have a good home theater spend the 15 bucks or so to get the DVD Live in San Francisco. Get the volume past 30% and make your mind happy. Joe is so technically perfect, I still have a hard time believing he plays that well. Well, I guess it comes down to who's style I like more. And that's Vai for me. Also, Vai IS technically more proficient than Satriani. Hear For The Love Of God, Get The Hell Outta Here, Fire Garden Suite, and many others. My list of guitar masters are Hendrix One of the most overrated guitarists to have ever walked this Earth. Vaughn, I don't he's THAT good. Satriani I'm fine with that. and Carlos (you may call him Mr. Santana) The world is a better place because of them. I have nothing bad to say about Santana. But I wouldn't consider him a great, GREAT. Matthew Bos -Travis _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
Travis said: Do you mean (A) singualarity? If so, I saw one the other night on TNG. If not...then could you explain? I probably am familiar with what you speak of, but it's not exactly rolling of my tongue. He doesn't mean a physical singularity like the thing in the middle of black holes: he means a technological singularity, a time when technological change becomes so rapid that we (unaugmented, baseline people) aren't able to understand it any longer. The usual situation that people consider a technological singularity is a runaway self-improvement of artificial intelligences, although a runaway process of intelligence amplification is possible too. The idea of the Singularity in this sense was popularised by the computer scientist and sf writer Vernor Vinge but it goes right back to Turing and von Neumann, and possibly beyond. I think there's a non-zero probability of such a thing happening in our lifetime. In my more optimistic moments, I think it might even be likely. I also think it would be a good thing were it to happen. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 09:24 AM 2/25/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:17 PM 2/24/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you give the appearance of being a run with the pack kind of guy. I don't mean to be insulting, but you seem to be on a dittohead heading lately. I am flabbergasted. I am the only Brin-L'er sticking my neck out and taking a position that I *know* will be very unpopular here. And *I* am running with the pack?Hello I put great effort into my defense of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and I doubt that you will find anything much like my post on that subject from any other right-wing source. I agree with you here. Not one right wing source I have heard from is making as big a deal about the judges striking down the impropper order as you are, probably because it *is* an impropper order and they know it. In other words, when I present novel arguments and opinions, their lack of repetition in other sources is prima facie evidence that my arguments and opinions are not credible. On the other hand, if I present novel arguments and opinions that are present in other sources, then I am merely running with the pack. Thank you Michael and Robert for making right-wingers feel really welcome here as credible participants of Brin-L. Yes, yes, try to vilify those arguing with you to detract attention from the merits of the arguments. Keep up the good work. I actually do hope that the order, once properly worded, does go to court, and is passed by the same judge that struck it down for being impropperly worded. Then that would demonstrate that George Bush's sudden endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment to be an unneccessary knee-jerk reaction based in fear. Unfortunately, there is no hope of the atrocious ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Court being struck down. Which is why we need a FMA. Especially since this phenomenon has also sprung up in New Mexico and now New Paltz, and who knows where else in the two years or so at *minimum* it would take to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally, the Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their state constitution that can counter the courts ruling. Some Republicans have said leave it to the states. Let Massachusetts decide whether it wants to ban same sex marriages or not. Personally, I think that it is instructive that it has been how many days now that this semicolon delay has lasted, and San Francisco is *still* handing out faux marriage certificates. Yes, it's indicative of the fact that those opposed to the same sex marriages want to be heard from a higher state court on the matter without first having gone through the lower courts. That court has a very busy schedule and almost never hears a case before it has been through the lower courts. Now who's asking for special treatment? Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: A few new words of which this list is in need
From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 12:18:11AM +1100, Andrew Paul wrote: Erik, I am a little confused. I agree. Well, thats what happens when people don't explain themselves properly. It was a fairly simple question. Andrew ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
Travis Edmunds wrote: Do you mean (A) singualarity? If so, I saw one the other night on TNG. If not...then could you explain? I probably am familiar with what you speak of, but it's not exactly rolling of my tongue. The Singularity Robert's talking about is metaphorically like a black hole-type singularity, because you can't see in from outside. The idea is that computing technology (and other technologies as well) has been increasing in speed and power exponentially. Assuming that exponential curve continues at the same rate, computers should have the raw processing power of a human brain in about 30 years or so, give or take a year or two. Moore's Law suggests that 18 months later, they'll be equivalent to 2 brains, then 18 months later, 4 brains, then 8 brains, 16 brains, etc. In the course of a few years, that effect should change society so much and so rapidly that people living before it happens can't even comprehend it, much less predict its effects with any reliability. Vernor Vinge is the main author who promoted the idea in science fiction, and serious stories since then have had to react to it. They either have to explain why it didn't happen in the particular far future society they're writing about, or find some way to imagine and write about a society where it did happen. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 08:09 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally, the Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their state constitution that can counter the courts ruling. Some Republicans have said leave it to the states. Let Massachusetts decide whether it wants to ban same sex marriages or not. Except in very rare cases, the US Supreme Court does not have authority over the interpretation of a State constitution. In this case, the MA Supreme Court's ruling required implementation of their radical decision immediately. The only recourse the people have of MA have to this decision, is to spend a minimum of two years in order to amend their Constitution to simply say what they believe it had said all along... going back to the day it ratified it. For example, even a simple amendment No provision of this Constitution shall be construed as requiring the enactment of marriages or civil unions between any couple or group cannot be enacted for two years. In the meantime, they have no choice but to hand out gay marriages. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] And of course, an infertile heterosexual couple can adopt a child while meeting that child's reasonable expectations for a mother and a father. A homosexual couple, by definition, cannot. that child's reasonable expectations for a mother and a father How many children have you questioned regarding this, particularly, how many orphans or other children put up for adoption or are in foster care? I think it's far more important to provide a stable family than to be picky about the sex of the adoptive parents, but maybe that's just me... Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: A few new words of which this list is in need
From: Richard Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Andrew said: You are calling Jan Jane, like its somehow sub-optimal to be a women. Actually, he isn't. He's calling Jan Jane because Jan keeps calling Erik by variants of his name with additional or alternative letters. Yes, quite possibly, I wasn't supporting eithers behaviour, I was more interested in why Erik choose that particular form of attempted humiliation. Seems at odds with some of his other positions on things. Anyway, no matter, they do go on like a pair of old women don't they ! Andrew (Hypocrite Class) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 08:09 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally, the Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their state constitution that can counter the courts ruling. Some Republicans have said leave it to the states. Let Massachusetts decide whether it wants to ban same sex marriages or not. Except in very rare cases, the US Supreme Court does not have authority over the interpretation of a State constitution. In this case, the MA Supreme Court's ruling required implementation of their radical decision immediately. The only recourse the people have of MA have to this decision, is to spend a minimum of two years in order to amend their Constitution to simply say what they believe it had said all along... going back to the day it ratified it. For example, even a simple amendment No provision of this Constitution shall be construed as requiring the enactment of marriages or civil unions between any couple or group cannot be enacted for two years. In the meantime, they have no choice but to hand out gay marriages. Yes, and the national amendment process can take up to seven years after it's already been passed in both the House and the Senate. Let's see, leave it to the states: 2 years. Deal with it on a national level: 7 years. Methinks you have your proirities backwards. If other states are affraid of judicial activism, they can amend their own constitutions a lot faster than you can amend the US Constitution. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 02:41:40AM +1100, Andrew Paul wrote: Anyway, no matter, they do go on like a pair of old women don't they ! You do go on like a doofus, don't you? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thru out Gov't
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Fool wrote: Use a password protected screensaver. I gave it up when my kids learned that a simple reset would remove the screensaver :-) Login. in NT / 2000 / XP / 2003 the login password is the same as the screensaver password (the screensaver 'locks' the computer and you have RE-login to get back in). ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 08:39 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: that child's reasonable expectations for a mother and a father How many children have you questioned regarding this, particularly, how many orphans or other children put up for adoption or are in foster care? I think it's far more important to provide a stable family than to be picky about the sex of the adoptive parents, but maybe that's just me... Given that every child is produced by a mother and a father, that is surely a reasonable expectation of that child. Are stable homosexual parents better than abusive parents? Of course. But ceteris paribis, every child can reasonable expect to have a mother and a father, and we should do our best to meet that expectation. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 08:49 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: Yes, and the national amendment process can take up to seven years after it's already been passed in both the House and the Senate. Let's see, leave it to the states: 2 years. Deal with it on a national level: 7 years. Methinks you have your proirities backwards. If other states are affraid of judicial activism, they can amend their own constitutions a lot faster than you can amend the US Constitution. A US Constitutional Amendment can, from time to time, move more quickly than that. In addition, if federal judges are anything like those in Massachusetts, they will likely in short order find the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, thus necessitating a Federal Marriage Amendment. JDG - The clock is running ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 12:58 PM 2/25/2004 -0600 Horn, John wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] At any rate, I find it has hardly been established that there somehow exists a universal right to marry a person of the same sex. Has it been established that there is a universal right to marry a person of the opposite sex? I believe that common law would apply in this case. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 08:39 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: that child's reasonable expectations for a mother and a father How many children have you questioned regarding this, particularly, how many orphans or other children put up for adoption or are in foster care? I think it's far more important to provide a stable family than to be picky about the sex of the adoptive parents, but maybe that's just me... Given that every child is produced by a mother and a father, that is surely a reasonable expectation of that child. Children don't know where children come from until they are told, therefore, it is not the child's expectation, but yours. Are stable homosexual parents better than abusive parents? Of course. But ceteris paribis, every child can reasonable expect to have a mother and a father, and we should do our best to meet that expectation. Should we try to provide every child with a mother and father? Maybe, but should that effort neccessarily exclude the possibility of same sex parents when a good set of parents in with both genders is not available. Should we deny a child a good family simply because that family isn't everything that you think the child expects? The way you have stated your case, you have made it seem that no same sex couples should be able to adopt, ever. You certainly argued that same sex couples have no child-bearing and no child raising potential. Am I wrong in interpriting your possition in that way? Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 10:49:18AM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote: Given that every child is produced by a mother and a father... Within a few decades, this will almost certainly be proved false. Then you would have no reason for restricting the rights of gay couples anymore, JDG, huh? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
Erik said: You do go on like a doofus, don't you? I don't know if Andrew does, but I know I do! Rich GCU Single Line Reply ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 08:49 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: Yes, and the national amendment process can take up to seven years after it's already been passed in both the House and the Senate. Let's see, leave it to the states: 2 years. Deal with it on a national level: 7 years. Methinks you have your proirities backwards. If other states are affraid of judicial activism, they can amend their own constitutions a lot faster than you can amend the US Constitution. A US Constitutional Amendment can, from time to time, move more quickly than that. Examples, please. Show me that a US Amendment can pass faster than 2 years. In addition, if federal judges are anything like those in Massachusetts, they will likely in short order find the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, thus necessitating a Federal Marriage Amendment. Now this is just paranoia. You are already assuming a bad outcome if it goes to the Supreme Court. The same Supreme Court that found in favor of George W. Bush's position on the ballots in Florida. Surely, you can expect a fair ruling from them, not activism. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet?
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reviews? What kind of sadomasochist would be willing to go see a film that has 45 minutes of nothing but the most viscious bloody torture, almost pornographic in it's gore? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:39:22PM +, Richard Baker wrote: Erik said: You do go on like a doofus, don't you? I don't know if Andrew does, but I know I do! Occasionally, everyone does I think. But your S/N is quite high. So far as I have seen, his is very low. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 09:46 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: A US Constitutional Amendment can, from time to time, move more quickly than that. Examples, please. Show me that a US Amendment can pass faster than 2 years. Kevin Tarr posted the relevant excerpts from the US Constitution. That process can theoretically be completed within a year. In addition, if federal judges are anything like those in Massachusetts, they will likely in short order find the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, thus necessitating a Federal Marriage Amendment. Now this is just paranoia. You are already assuming a bad outcome if it goes to the Supreme Court. You mean, the same Supreme Court that decided Roe vs. Wade and Casey vs. Pennsylvania? Sorry Michael, but if the Supreme Court rules against us, as Massachusetts has learned, it is already too late. I have no problem with amending the Constitution to handle situations - much like the present one - which the framers never envisioned. And I honestly don't think that you seriously that the FMA is redundant. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet?
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet? Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:46:58 -0600 From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reviews? What kind of sadomasochist would be willing to go see a film that has 45 minutes of nothing but the most viscious bloody torture, almost pornographic in it's gore? I would. And I'm not a sadomasochist. Another thing that I'm not, is sure that your statement is something that has any validity. For I have heard and seen too many reviews of this film bearing pornographic refrences. And I vehemently disagree. I ask you now, and all detractors of the film, how in the name of God (figure of speech) can the story of Jesus' death be accurately presented in a realistic sense without gore? -Travis the truth hurts Edmunds _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A few new words of which this list is in need Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:51:02 -0500 On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:39:22PM +, Richard Baker wrote: Erik said: You do go on like a doofus, don't you? I don't know if Andrew does, but I know I do! Occasionally, everyone does I think. But your S/N is quite high. So far as I have seen, his is very low. Ah, but if you have ever seen how flies cluster about the brimming milk pails on a dairy farm in early summer... -Travis _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet?
From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reviews? What kind of sadomasochist would be willing to go see a film that has 45 minutes of nothing but the most viscious bloody torture, almost pornographic in it's gore? I would. And I'm not a sadomasochist. Another thing that I'm not, is sure that your statement is something that has any validity. For I have heard and seen too many reviews of this film bearing pornographic refrences. And I vehemently disagree. I ask you now, and all detractors of the film, how in the name of God (figure of speech) can the story of Jesus' death be accurately presented in a realistic sense without gore? But it was only 45 minutes. A complete waste of the rest of the film. The torture needed to be 2 hours long. The real problem is, the film just wasn't violent enough. I want more violence from a film than this. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet?
I think the Fool (again) doesn't understand the movie, so the only reaction he can have is a knee-jerk one. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 09:46 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: A US Constitutional Amendment can, from time to time, move more quickly than that. Examples, please. Show me that a US Amendment can pass faster than 2 years. Kevin Tarr posted the relevant excerpts from the US Constitution. That process can theoretically be completed within a year. Ok, theoretically, if everyone cooperated, that might be possible. But, from what I understand, how long it takes depends entirely on the states. They have up to seven years to cast their vote on the issue, and that is not something that George W. Bush can rush. A single state holding out can drag out the process to 7 years. Besides, the FMA has little chance of passing even in the House and Senate. Moreover, the republicans in the senate have already made it clear that the FMA is not something they will rush through. You would be lucky if it even passed both the Senate and the House within 2 years, if it passes at all. In addition, if federal judges are anything like those in Massachusetts, they will likely in short order find the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, thus necessitating a Federal Marriage Amendment. Now this is just paranoia. You are already assuming a bad outcome if it goes to the Supreme Court. You mean, the same Supreme Court that decided Roe vs. Wade and Casey vs. Pennsylvania? No, it is not the same supreme court that issued Roe v. Wade. As for Casey v. Pennsylvania, I am simply unfamiliar with it. There are many judges on the court now that were not there for Roe v. Wade. That is why I chose the example of the ballots in Florida. It's the same judges then that would rule if the case were to go to the Supreme Court now. If they issued what I would dare say that you considered a fair ruling in the Florida Ballots case, why would they suddenly lend themselves to liberal judicial activism now? Sorry Michael, but if the Supreme Court rules against us, as Massachusetts has learned, it is already too late. How is it too late in Massachusetts? There is still the possiblity of a state amendment. I dare say, that has a far better chance of passing than a federal amendment. I have no problem with amending the Constitution to handle situations - much like the present one - which the framers never envisioned. And I honestly don't think that you seriously that the FMA is redundant. I don't think it's redundant. I never said it was. I think it's like using a bazooka to kill flies. If same sex marriages bother you that much, then use the right tool to address it. Marriage is a state issue, and as such, shouldn't the situation be handled on the state level? Really, John, why does same sex marriage bother you so much? If homosexuals marry each other, that won't affect you or your life in the slightest. What about gay marriage is so disturbing to you that you can only think of forbidding it rather than having a live and let live attitude about it? Don't give me that cornerstone of society and radical redefinition BS you have been dishing out, what really bothers you about it so much? This is asking for a personal opinion, not neccessarily something based in sound argument. If you want to discuss that off list so you won't get flamed on-list for your personal opinions, I will gladly discuss it off-list and keep everything you say off-list private. I just think there is more too this reaction of yours than simple disagreement with gay marriage if you want to make gay marriage banned in the whole USA and by means of the most powerful tool available. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 09:35 PM 2/27/2004 + Richard Baker wrote: JDG said: At any rate, I find it has hardly been established that there somehow exists a universal right to marry a person of the same sex. If we start from the premise that men and women should have equal rights, then it's obvious, isn't it? After all, women have the right to marry men, therefore men must have the right to marry men too. And similarly, men have the right to marry women therefore women must also have that right. Or do you think that men and women should not have equal rights? (I suppose it could be argued that they should have equal but not *identical* rights, but that seems a dodgy position to me, because there doesn't seem to be any way to determine the equality of non-identical rights, and such a system would clearly be open to abuse.) Bascially, what you are saying is that the Equal Rights Amendment would have required the institution of homosexual marriages. Thank goodness we voted that thing down. So now we have JDG bringing out the misogyny in addition to the homophobia and the hate. When JDG's true bigoted colors show, they sure aint pretty. One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. ...[This] convention protects them, and so they proceed with their blather unwhipped and almost unmolested, to the great damage of common sense and common decency. that they should have this immunity is an outrage. There is nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas. On the contrary, they are always dubious and often quite silly. Nor is there any visible intellectual dignity in theologians. Few of them know anything that is worth knowing, and not many of them are even honest. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet?
From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think the Fool (again) doesn't understand the movie, so the only reaction he can have is a knee-jerk one. Who says I don't understand. I just don't help spread Vile memes which I happen to disagree with. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Homo [was: Thoughts on gay marriage?]
In a message dated 2/28/2004 9:45:40 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes, but there are traces of Neaderthal and Sinanthropus erectus that are similiar to the sapiens populations that came to the region that they lived, suggesting that they _might_ have traded genes. bob z; it is not clear whether there would be mating. of course just as one hears occaisonally of man sheep things it is possible that some men of either group would have forced themselves on women of theother group. but by and large these would have been men unable to gain access to females of their own group. the offspring of such unions would probably be disadvantaged socially so i suspect not much gene transfer occurred - all speculation of course. In fact, early sapien may have been different from the more recent version. We know that there was a great leap forward about 100,000 years ago when culture possibly related to language exploded. this probably was the result of some change in the human brain. This time marks the arrival of a new and fiercer predator, that competed savagely with the hominids: man itself. But the changes might not have been speciation, but only an improvement of the existing species bob z; this cuts to the heart of what it means to be a species. the best current definition is an interbreding or potentially interbreeding population. if the cognitive changes in anatomically humans was great enough interbreeding may not have occurred and they would be seperate species ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet?
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet? Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:29:35 -0600 From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reviews? What kind of sadomasochist would be willing to go see a film that has 45 minutes of nothing but the most viscious bloody torture, almost pornographic in it's gore? I would. And I'm not a sadomasochist. Another thing that I'm not, is sure that your statement is something that has any validity. For I have heard and seen too many reviews of this film bearing pornographic refrences. And I vehemently disagree. I ask you now, and all detractors of the film, how in the name of God (figure of speech) can the story of Jesus' death be accurately presented in a realistic sense without gore? But it was only 45 minutes. A complete waste of the rest of the film. The torture needed to be 2 hours long. The real problem is, the film just wasn't violent enough. I want more violence from a film than this. The patronization has soaked through that last statement as rain would soak through my clothes if I were to fall asleep underneath a rain cloud. I will however give you the benefit of the doubt, and ask why you have had such a miraculous change of opinion. Why? Although, perhaps you now hold the same opinion as you did in your original statement. Which leads me to believe that you were unable to effectively convey your meaning. For surely I did not misinterpret your words. It was after all a pretty black white statement. Correct? -Travis just seeking clarification Edmunds _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet?
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet? Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 12:11:58 -0600 From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think the Fool (again) doesn't understand the movie, so the only reaction he can have is a knee-jerk one. Who says I don't understand. I just don't help spread Vile memes which I happen to disagree with. What exactly do you mean? -Travis _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
From: Steve Sloan II [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:22:33 -0600 Travis Edmunds wrote: Do you mean (A) singualarity? If so, I saw one the other night on TNG. If not...then could you explain? I probably am familiar with what you speak of, but it's not exactly rolling of my tongue. The Singularity Robert's talking about is metaphorically like a black hole-type singularity, because you can't see in from outside. The idea is that computing technology (and other technologies as well) has been increasing in speed and power exponentially. Assuming that exponential curve continues at the same rate, computers should have the raw processing power of a human brain in about 30 years or so, give or take a year or two. Moore's Law suggests that 18 months later, they'll be equivalent to 2 brains, then 18 months later, 4 brains, then 8 brains, 16 brains, etc. In the course of a few years, that effect should change society so much and so rapidly that people living before it happens can't even comprehend it, much less predict its effects with any reliability. Vernor Vinge is the main author who promoted the idea in science fiction, and serious stories since then have had to react to it. They either have to explain why it didn't happen in the particular far future society they're writing about, or find some way to imagine and write about a society where it did happen. Thanks Steve, AND Richard. Light has now been shed on Roberts singularity. -Travis _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photospgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet?
From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reviews? What kind of sadomasochist would be willing to go see a film that has 45 minutes of nothing but the most viscious bloody torture, almost pornographic in it's gore? I would. And I'm not a sadomasochist. Another thing that I'm not, is sure that your statement is something that has any validity. For I have heard and seen too many reviews of this film bearing pornographic refrences. And I vehemently disagree. I ask you now, and all detractors of the film, how in the name of God (figure of speech) can the story of Jesus' death be accurately presented in a realistic sense without gore? But it was only 45 minutes. A complete waste of the rest of the film. The torture needed to be 2 hours long. The real problem is, the film just wasn't violent enough. I want more violence from a film than this. The patronization has soaked through that last statement as rain would soak through my clothes if I were to fall asleep underneath a rain cloud. I will however give you the benefit of the doubt, and ask why you have had such a miraculous change of opinion. Why? Although, perhaps you now hold the same opinion as you did in your original statement. Which leads me to believe that you were unable to effectively convey your meaning. For surely I did not misinterpret your words. It was after all a pretty black white statement. Correct? You are implying that I am somehow against violence. Nothing could be further from the truth. I love violence, the more violent the better. I am also extremely pro-pornography. The More Sex violence the Better. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: another riddle?
From: Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: another riddle? Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:43:13 -0500 Q: You are sitting behind the wheel in a car keeping a constant speed, on your left side there is an abyss. On your right side you have a fire engine and it keeps the same speed as you. In front of you runs a pig, larger than your car. A helicopter is following you, at ground level. Both the helicopter and the pig are keeping the same speed as you. What will you need to do to be able to stop? Kevin T. - VRWC Answer #1 - Stop Answer #2 - Drive over the abyss -Travis ??? Edmunds _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet?
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet? Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 12:35:55 -0600 You are implying that I am somehow against violence. Nothing could be further from the truth. I love violence, the more violent the better. I am also extremely pro-pornography. The More Sex violence the Better. I imply nothing. I do however seek clarification of your words. Originally, you stated what appeared to be disgust for the so-called pornographic nature of the way that the torture of Jesus' body was presented to the audience. Then you had an apparant change of heart, and became an advocate of sex and violence. Now, in lieu of the patronizing nature of your last two responses, I give you an opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings on my part. -Travis _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and now New Paltz Huh? - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
Travis Edmunds wrote: Ah, but if you have ever seen how flies cluster about the brimming milk pails on a dairy farm in early summer... All the dairy farms I've hung out on were using milking machines, no pails, no access to vast quantities of milk for the flies Julia and there were at least 2 different ones I can recall offhand (but my mother-in-law grew up with milk pails on her family's dairy farm) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet?
In a message dated 2/28/2004 7:27:56 AM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Reviews? JDG Saw the 10:50PM showing as previously stated. It is a movie. The spiritually hyper people all left the theater before the end credits actually started, with the credit for muppet-controller.. Proof positive that both reviewers ans viewers basically see only what they want to see. William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Domestic Terrorism: was Great Britain
Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Domestic Terrorism: was Great Britain Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 00:39:54 -0500 From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Interestingly the demographics are quite clear that the USA will become a predominantly Catholic nation within the next twenty years. Really? I've never heard that before - Is this due to immigration or rapid population growth in certain Catholic communities? That'd be quite a feat. Protestants outnumber them approx. 2 to 1 right now. Based on that alone, I kinda doubt this is an accurate prediction. Unless the Church is attracting record numbers of converts in spite of the scandals What about immigrants? How many people are coming to the US from Mexico, what is their birthrate, how many of them continue to practice Catholicism? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thru out Gov't
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 07:33 PM 2/27/04, The Fool wrote: Use a password protected screensaver. On your TV? No, use one of these: http://www.onestepahead.com/jump.jsp?itemID=115itemType=PRODUCTlGen=detailiMainCat=117iSubCat=27181iProductID=115change=117 or http://tinyurl.com/2h7jf The one for the bigger TVs works wonderfully, but you need to aim the remote at the TV with more precision than was true previously. (I used to bounce the signal off the window for grins, and that doesn't work very well now.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 09:42 PM 2/27/04, Doug Pensinger wrote: What it says to me is that it is OK to outlaw civil unions or any aspect of them. That SSUs can never expect to have the same rights conferred upon them that traditional marriages do and that homosexuals are thereby second class citizens. IMO it is therefore in conflict with the 14th amendment. Furthermore, because there are religious aspects to the concept of marriage, the proposed amendment is also in conflict with the second amendment. So many possible smart-aleck responses come to mind that I cannot decide on the one I like best, so I will respond by simply quoting the above-cited second amendment: 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. Shooting Off My Mouth Again Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Singularity, was Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
At 09:22 AM 2/28/04, Steve Sloan II wrote: Travis Edmunds wrote: Do you mean (A) singualarity? If so, I saw one the other night on TNG. If not...then could you explain? I probably am familiar with what you speak of, but it's not exactly rolling of my tongue. The Singularity Robert's talking about is metaphorically like a black hole-type singularity, because you can't see in from outside. The idea is that computing technology (and other technologies as well) has been increasing in speed and power exponentially. Assuming that exponential curve continues at the same rate, computers should have the raw processing power of a human brain in about 30 years or so, give or take a year or two. Moore's Law suggests that 18 months later, they'll be equivalent to 2 brains, then 18 months later, 4 brains, then 8 brains, 16 brains, etc. In the course of a few years, that effect should change society so much and so rapidly that people living before it happens can't even comprehend it, much less predict its effects with any reliability. Vernor Vinge is the main author who promoted the idea in science fiction, and serious stories since then have had to react to it. They either have to explain why it didn't happen in the particular far future society they're writing about Perhaps because some working in the AI field were predicting the same thing thirty years ago, and like controlled fusion as a commercially feasible power source, thirty years later it is still thirty years away? HAL Turned Seven Last Month And I Didn't Send A Card Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 09:49 AM 2/28/04, Michael Harney wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 08:09 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally, the Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their state constitution that can counter the courts ruling. Some Republicans have said leave it to the states. Let Massachusetts decide whether it wants to ban same sex marriages or not. Except in very rare cases, the US Supreme Court does not have authority over the interpretation of a State constitution. In this case, the MA Supreme Court's ruling required implementation of their radical decision immediately. The only recourse the people have of MA have to this decision, is to spend a minimum of two years in order to amend their Constitution to simply say what they believe it had said all along... going back to the day it ratified it. For example, even a simple amendment No provision of this Constitution shall be construed as requiring the enactment of marriages or civil unions between any couple or group cannot be enacted for two years. In the meantime, they have no choice but to hand out gay marriages. Yes, and the national amendment process can take up to seven years after it's already been passed in both the House and the Senate. Let's see, leave it to the states: 2 years. Deal with it on a national level: 7 years. Methinks you have your proirities backwards. If other states are affraid of judicial activism, they can amend their own constitutions a lot faster than you can amend the US Constitution. I think the argument is that without a national amendment in place, any State law or amendment to the constitution of an individual State is likely to be immediately overturned by the Federal courts, so any effort expended to pass a State law or amendment first is likely to be wasted. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Tyranny
At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and now New Paltz Huh? That made two of us . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet?
At 04:15 PM 2/28/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The spiritually hyper people all left the theater before the end credits actually started, with the credit for muppet-controller.. Proof positive that both reviewers ans viewers basically see only what they want to see. Sorry. Huh?, again. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:06PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and now New Paltz Huh? That made two of us . . . It is a city in New York that has been in the news. The mayor has recently presided over weddings of same sex couples. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Singularity, was Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 09:22 AM 2/28/04, Steve Sloan II wrote: Travis Edmunds wrote: Do you mean (A) singualarity? If so, I saw one the other night on TNG. If not...then could you explain? I probably am familiar with what you speak of, but it's not exactly rolling of my tongue. The Singularity Robert's talking about is metaphorically like a black hole-type singularity, because you can't see in from outside. The idea is that computing technology (and other technologies as well) has been increasing in speed and power exponentially. Assuming that exponential curve continues at the same rate, computers should have the raw processing power of a human brain in about 30 years or so, give or take a year or two. Moore's Law suggests that 18 months later, they'll be equivalent to 2 brains, then 18 months later, 4 brains, then 8 brains, 16 brains, etc. In the course of a few years, that effect should change society so much and so rapidly that people living before it happens can't even comprehend it, much less predict its effects with any reliability. Vernor Vinge is the main author who promoted the idea in science fiction, and serious stories since then have had to react to it. They either have to explain why it didn't happen in the particular far future society they're writing about Perhaps because some working in the AI field were predicting the same thing thirty years ago, and like controlled fusion as a commercially feasible power source, thirty years later it is still thirty years away? The difference is that computer processor speed / # of transistors, RAM Size and Hard-Disk storage have all _continued_ doubling every 18 or so months, and will continue to do so. It's actually slightly faster than that (there are two exponents, the rate of doubling is also increasing if more slowly). Apparently the top Chess-AI Programs increase in Chess Rating at about 50 points per year. Only a few more years where a human can win or draw a computer before being completely bypassed. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Singularity, was Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
The Fool said: The difference is that computer processor speed / # of transistors, RAM Size and Hard-Disk storage have all _continued_ doubling every 18 or so months, and will continue to do so. It's actually slightly faster than that (there are two exponents, the rate of doubling is also increasing if more slowly). Fusion has advanced similarly. The key value, the triple product of plasma density, temperature and confinement time has increased by a factor of 10,000 in the last thirty years (its increase has been exponential for much of that period). It's now estimated to be within a factor of six of the value required for a commercial fusion reactor, which means it really might be close now. On the other hand, the price of fusion research is increasing and the intermediate step between reactors like JET and a pilot commercial plant might be too expensive just yet. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet?
In a message dated 2/28/2004 3:57:26 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The spiritually hyper people all left the theater before the end credits actually started, with the credit for muppet-controller.. Proof positive that both reviewers ans viewers basically see only what they want to see. Sorry. Huh?, again. -- Ronn! :) A muppet type doll was used somewhere. Either in a beating or on the cross. (Or maybe a demon.) So in the end credits you see Muppet Controller and somebody's name. There were two people in the theater when the credits ended. William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
At 07:13 AM 2/28/04, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A few new words of which this list is in need Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:07:10 -0600 At 04:05 PM 2/27/04, Travis Edmunds wrote: Biology taking precedence over society. And take some solace in the fact that we can't escape biology. Isn't that essentially the same answer some are giving about SSM (and SS activity in general)? Insert Tab A Into Slot B Maru -- Ronn! :) Hey! Call me stupid, but I'm not following you Ron... Their argument being that biology dictates that you are born with either tab A or slot B.* Biology designed tab A to fit into slot B, and biology didn't design two tab As or two slot Bs to fit together, therefore that takes precedence over everything else, or, IOW, those who engage in SS activity are trying to escape biology by attempting to fit parts together which were not designed by biology to fit together. (*Ignoring the relatively small number born with something not clearly identifiable as either a tab or a slot.) Euphemisms 'R' Us Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 04:59 PM 2/28/04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:06PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and now New Paltz Huh? That made two of us . . . It is a city in New York that has been in the news. The mayor has recently presided over weddings of same sex couples. I guess I missed it. I had heard about SF, NM, and the comments from the mayor of Chicago, but not New Paltz. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet?
At 05:18 PM 2/28/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/28/2004 3:57:26 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The spiritually hyper people all left the theater before the end credits actually started, with the credit for muppet-controller.. Proof positive that both reviewers ans viewers basically see only what they want to see. Sorry. Huh?, again. -- Ronn! :) A muppet type doll was used somewhere. Either in a beating or on the cross. (Or maybe a demon.) So in the end credits you see Muppet Controller and somebody's name. There were two people in the theater when the credits ended. As someone who generally stays until the end of the credits, however, my observation is that *most* people do not stay through the credits of *any* movie, so I was wondering if your point was there was something unusual about this particular movie or a particular group of audience members . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 04:59 PM 2/28/04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:06PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and now New Paltz Huh? That made two of us . . . It is a city in New York that has been in the news. The mayor has recently presided over weddings of same sex couples. I guess I missed it. I had heard about SF, NM, and the comments from the mayor of Chicago, but not New Paltz. And Iowa City IA. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Anyone See The Passion Yet?
In a message dated 2/28/2004 4:34:06 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As someone who generally stays until the end of the credits, however, my observation is that *most* people do not stay through the credits of *any* movie, so I was wondering if your point was there was something unusual about this particular movie or a particular group of audience members . . . They left faster, they made no noise durring or after the movie, and they were almost all 20-35 yuppie looking.(A lot of feet on the seatbacks in front of them.) This was afterall a 10:50 showing. That skewed the audience right there. William Taylor Starting in on the $87 of books purchased today in Phoenix. A 10 book set for $145$75 Gale bibliography.$125 for Ulysses manuscriptetc. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Ronn! wrote: So many possible smart-aleck responses come to mind that I cannot decide on the one I like best, so I will respond by simply quoting the above-cited second amendment: 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. Shooting Off My Mouth Again Maru D'oh... I guess that's what I get for writing a serious response with a pseudofed/cough medicine buzz. I ment the 1st ammendment. -- Doug excuses r us... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
- Original Message - From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 8:25 AM Subject: Re: Tyranny At 09:24 AM 2/25/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] I agree with you here. Not one right wing source I have heard from is making as big a deal about the judges striking down the impropper order as you are, probably because it *is* an impropper order and they know it. In other words, when I present novel arguments and opinions, their lack of repetition in other sources is prima facie evidence that my arguments and opinions are not credible. On the other hand, if I present novel arguments and opinions that are present in other sources, then I am merely running with the pack. Thank you Michael and Robert for making right-wingers feel really welcome here as credible participants of Brin-L. What is your preference John? That I give an honest account of what I see or think I see. Tell you when I disagree with you and why. Discuss in an open manner. or Pretend I agree with you when I don't. or Ignore you and pretend you are not here. I know that some of the things I said might be unpleasant for someone on the receiving end, but they were not things said with the intent of being cruel, they were my personal estimation of the tone, intent, and source of your current rhetoric. Indeed, you could have turned the same questions toward me and I would have had to give some sort of answer. But what you have done is ignore the question. What I really expected was for you to tell why you believe the way you do, and why your opinions are different than Joe Homophobe Bigot on the street. (Not that I think there is any legitimate comparison between you and Joe Homophobe Bigot). I really hope i have *not* made you feel unwelcome and if you do feel that way, I hope you will give some thought to what I am saying. I realise that you have to be pretty gutsy to be a conservative on Brin-L and I hope everyone here appreciates that fact. We should be thankful that *our* conservatives do not fit any of the stereotypes of the kind that are common to ...Say USENET. I actually do hope that the order, once properly worded, does go to court, and is passed by the same judge that struck it down for being impropperly worded. Then that would demonstrate that George Bush's sudden endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment to be an unneccessary knee-jerk reaction based in fear. Unfortunately, there is no hope of the atrocious ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Court being struck down. Which is why we need a FMA. Especially since this phenomenon has also sprung up in New Mexico and now New Paltz, and who knows where else in the two years or so at *minimum* it would take to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Personally, I think that it is instructive that it has been how many days now that this semicolon delay has lasted, and San Francisco is *still* handing out faux marriage certificates. Well: news http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040228/D810BC3G0.html Calif. Court Refuses to Stop Gay Weddings In yet another setback to conservatives opposed to same-sex marriage, the California Supreme Court declined a request to immediately stop San Francisco from marrying gay couples and to nullify the weddings already performed. /news xponent It Continues Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
empire time: a bedtime story
[This goes against conventional wisdom on the Orion's Arm world building list. Why?] Once upon a time there was a place called Origin, a ship called Relative, and a cute little wormhole with two terminii called Wormy. One day Origin on a whim asked Relative to take one terminus of Wormy on a trip around and around Origin at very high speed. Relative being very nice and having nothing better to do, agreed. The trip would take 1000 years for Origin, but Relative would be traveling *very* fast so it would seem like only 10 years to Relative. However, for Wormy all time had to be the same. Since only 10 years could pass for Relative, Wormy would also see the passing of only10 years. It would be like Origin had a bubble of Relative's time inside itself. This is called empire time. So Relative set off. All the while it watched what was happening on Origin. In effect, Relative would get to watch over 1000 years of Origin history in just 10 years. In the ninth year of the trip, Relative time, Relative saw a Terrible Disaster happen to Origin. Not to worry, Relative used its end of the wormhole to call home and tell Origin that in the future (for Origin) there would be a Terrible Disaster. Naturally, Origin prevented the Terrible Disaster. This changed the past for Relative which is a Bad Thing. Poof went Wormy. Poof went Empire Time. - Let's try that again. Relative agreed to go on the trip, but instead of Origin having a bubble of Relative's time, Relative had a bubble of Origin's time. That is, Wormy kept Origin time instead of Relative time for the duration of the trip. This turned out to be a Good Thing because now Relative could not tell Origin about her future. Too bad about the Terrible Disaster though. - Moral: If there is a wormhole and one extrinsic observer experiences 10 years of subjective time and another extrinsic observer experiences 1000 years of subjective time then the wormhole must experience no less than 1000 years of subjective time. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
Doug Pensinger wrote: Ronn! wrote: So many possible smart-aleck responses come to mind that I cannot decide on the one I like best, so I will respond by simply quoting the above-cited second amendment: 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. Shooting Off My Mouth Again Maru D'oh... I guess that's what I get for writing a serious response with a pseudofed/cough medicine buzz. I ment the 1st ammendment. -- Doug excuses r us... Reminds me of the advice not to attempt calculus while drunk. Don't drink and derive. Guess this would be a PUI (Posting Under the Influence)? Julia whose brain is working well for this sort of thing, but not for much else ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
I realise that you have to be pretty gutsy to be a conservative on Brin-L and I hope everyone here appreciates that fact. We should be thankful that *our* conservatives do not fit any of the stereotypes of the kind that are common to ...Say USENET. I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. It doesn't take guts to be conservative in a discussion forum like this. I mean, so someone yells at you - so what? It's just talk on either side. No one's going to suffer anything other than maybe a bit of embarrassment. Guts is living as a gay person in a homophobic world, for example, or trying to be a liberal in a country where conservatives have turned it into the l-word and question our very loyalty to our country. Maybe it's uncomfortable to be the only conservative here, but so what? That's not our fault - anyone can join this list, and if conservatives don't, well, tough. I think you'd find that fandom as a whole tends to be pretty liberal - are we supposed to go out and recruit some right-wingers to balance things out? I thought conservatives didn't believe in affirmative action.l Tom Beck I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last. - Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thru out Gov't
The Fool wrote: I gave it up when my kids learned that a simple reset would remove the screensaver :-) Login. in NT / 2000 / XP / 2003 the login password is the same as the screensaver password (the screensaver 'locks' the computer and you have RE-login to get back in). (1) my kids only use Windows to play games, they use Linux for everything else (2) I don't want to restrict the use of the computer to them Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Erik Reuter wrote: Within a few decades, this will almost certainly be proved false. Then you would have no reason for restricting the rights of gay couples anymore, JDG, huh? But children that are not produced by a mother and a father [like, for example, clones or twins] don't have a soul, so they should not have human rights :-))) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: Within a few decades, this will almost certainly be proved false. Then you would have no reason for restricting the rights of gay couples anymore, JDG, huh? But children that are not produced by a mother and a father [like, for example, clones or twins] don't have a soul, so they should not have human rights :-))) What about twins that *are* produced by a mother and a father? :) And I understand about JDG's dislike of IVF, but IVF could lead to weirdness like trying to implant 2 or 3 embryos from different sets of parents in the same womb. So you could have a twin you weren't related to. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
Erik Reuter wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:06PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] and now New Paltz Huh? That made two of us . . . It is a city in New York that has been in the news. The mayor has recently presided over weddings of same sex couples. Yeah, I work in New Paltz. I was toying with stopping by to throw rice, just to show my support, but then other things got in the way. Calm down, John, the marriages might well not be valid. But they are a way to show support for gay marriage, which I believe is a valid thing for localities to do. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 09:34 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: Children don't know where children come from until they are told, therefore, it is not the child's expectation, but yours. Nevertheless, we can reasonable deduce what a child capable of rational thought would reasonably expect. After all, every child is produced by a mother and a father. Are stable homosexual parents better than abusive parents? Of course. But ceteris paribis, every child can reasonable expect to have a mother and a father, and we should do our best to meet that expectation. Should we try to provide every child with a mother and father? Maybe, but should that effort neccessarily exclude the possibility of same sex parents when a good set of parents in with both genders is not available. As I have said previously, no, that possibility should be excluded. All I am arguing is that ceteris paribis, we should attempt to meet that reasonable expectation of the child - and that attempt should guide the incentives implemented by society. Should we deny a child a good family simply because that family isn't everything that you think the child expects? The way you have stated your case, you have made it seem that no same sex couples should be able to adopt, ever. Again, I have previously rejected that in my post entitled Federal Marriage Amendment. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 04:50 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 Ronn!Blankenship wrote: If other states are affraid of judicial activism, they can amend their own constitutions a lot faster than you can amend the US Constitution. I think the argument is that without a national amendment in place, any State law or amendment to the constitution of an individual State is likely to be immediately overturned by the Federal courts, so any effort expended to pass a State law or amendment first is likely to be wasted. Correct. An activist Supreme Court, that at some point in the future that rules that the US Constitution requires the implementation of same-sex marriages would nullify all such amendments to the State Constitutions. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Catholicism RE: Domestic Terrorism: was Great Britain
At 12:39 AM 2/28/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote: - The political differences between Catholic Church leadership and most Protestant leadership these days are rather small, leaving them mostly on the same side of the political aisle. Well, the leadership of the Catholic Church leans very strongly towards the Democratic Party on many issues. The leadership of most evangelical Protestatns, of course, leans very strongly towards the Republican Party. Also, there's Catholic politicians like Ted Kennedy who is strongly pro-choice, drawing a line between his faith's doctrine and his political vote. Of course, there is a very reasonable argument to be made that Ted Kennedy is no longer Catholic, since assisting someone in the procurement of an abortion carries the penalty of automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 11:13 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: You mean, the same Supreme Court that decided Roe vs. Wade and Casey vs. Pennsylvania? No, it is not the same supreme court that issued Roe v. Wade. As for Casey v. Pennsylvania, I am simply unfamiliar with it. There are many judges on the court now that were not there for Roe v. Wade. That is why I chose the example of the ballots in Florida. It's the same judges then that would rule if the case were to go to the Supreme Court now. If they issued what I would dare say that you considered a fair ruling in the Florida Ballots case, why would they suddenly lend themselves to liberal judicial activism now? I will repeat again. I would not have signed the Bush vs. Gore majority opinion had I been on the US Supreme Court. I do not consider the Bush vs. Gore ruling to be one that inspires confidence for me. Anyhow, Casey vs. Pennsylvania was heard before essentially our current Court, and basically upheld Roe vs. Wade. This is also the same court that just a few years ago struck down Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion in Stenberg vs. Carhart. This is also the same Court that very recently ruled that anti-sodomy laws are unconstitutional, and did so in a way that many Court-watchers took as a signal that the Court was ready to strongly support homosexual marriages. Suffice to say, I have very real worries that Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and O'Connor will find homosexual marriage right next to the right for partial birth abortion when a mother's mental health is in danger in the penumbra of the Constitution. Sorry Michael, but if the Supreme Court rules against us, as Massachusetts has learned, it is already too late. How is it too late in Massachusetts? There is still the possiblity of a state amendment. I dare say, that has a far better chance of passing than a federal amendment. That amendment will only take effect after at least two years of homosexual marriages have been handed out. That is what I mean by too late. I don't think it's redundant. I never said it was. I think it's like using a bazooka to kill flies. Why are you comparing the institution of homosexual marriages to flies? Is this subject a small thing for you? Really, John, why does same sex marriage bother you so much? If homosexuals marry each other, that won't affect you or your life in the slightest. I disagree. These court decisions are effectively redefining the fundamental building block of *my* civilization, without any democratic input. In other words, it is not only changing the building blocks of my civilization, but it is also undermining my faith in our republican form of governance. What about gay marriage is so disturbing to you that you can only think of forbidding it rather than having a live and let live attitude about it? Au contraire, I very much have a live and let live attitude about this. I have no problem with the Unitarian Universalist Church marrying homosexual couples, and those couples living happily ever after. I do have a problem when my government starts incentivizing those unions by interposing them with traditional marriages as the basic buidling blocks of my civilization. And if my civilization *is* going to be altered in a fundamental way, then by golly I want to at least be able to participate in the governing process of that decision. FWIW, I would also support a Federal Marriage Amendment that reads: Neither the provisions of this Constitution, nor the provisions of any State Constitution, having been in effect on or before 1/1/2004 shall be construed as requiring any government to grant marriages or the benefits thereof to any couple or group. Congress shall have the power to pass appropriate legislation governing the interstate recognition of marriage and other civil unions; and to implement the provisions of this Amendment It isn't pretty, but the text of the above Amendment would effectively take this debate out of the hands of the activist judges, and place it in the hands of the Legislatures, where this debate firmly belongs. Nevertheless, I do also support the (soon-to-be-modified, IMHO) Musgrave Amendment for the reasons previously stated as well. Don't give me that cornerstone of society and radical redefinition BS you have been dishing out, what really bothers you about it so much? This is asking for a personal opinion, not neccessarily something based in sound argument. If you want to discuss that off list so you won't get flamed on-list for your personal opinions, I will gladly discuss it off-list and keep everything you say off-list private. I just think there is more too this reaction of yours than simple disagreement with gay marriage if you want to make gay marriage banned in the whole USA and by means of the most powerful tool available. I'm sorry to disappoint you on that, but my position is what it is. JDG ___
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
At 12:08 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote: One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. I can just imagine the outrage if I ever said that one of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that the opinions of homosexuals should be respected Kind of puts it in a different perspective, eh, Kneem? JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
At 08:11 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] In other words, when I present novel arguments and opinions, their lack of repetition in other sources is prima facie evidence that my arguments and opinions are not credible. On the other hand, if I present novel arguments and opinions that are present in other sources, then I am merely running with the pack. Thank you Michael and Robert for making right-wingers feel really welcome here as credible participants of Brin-L. What is your preference John? My preference is that people recognize the irony of my predicament when I am being criticized on Brin-L *simultaneously* for being insufficiently original in thought and also for being too original in thought. Likewise, my preference is that you recognize that my arguments on this subject are self-evidently original-enough for your charge of running with the pack to have been utterly laughable. And likewise for Michael to recognize that originality of thought should certainly be no sin, on this List of all places. But what you have done is ignore the question. What I really expected was for you to tell why you believe the way you do, and why your opinions are different than Joe Homophobe Bigot on the street. (Not that I think there is any legitimate comparison between you and Joe Homophobe Bigot). You again continue to amaze me. I have written what, 20? 30? posts on this subject in the last week or so? How can you *possibly* accuse me of not telling you why I believe the way I do To quote Julia, its Inconceivable! In fact, in responding to numerous requests, I laid out my positions on this subject area in *substantial detail*, in a post entitled Federal Marriage Amendment.Again, how can you POSSIBLY accuse me of not telling you why I believe that I do. I honestly don't know what else I can do for you. JDG ___ John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. - George W. Bush 1/29/03 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
- Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 10:36 AM Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:14:15 -0600 If it's relevance has diminished over time, then it can't be that important. As opposed to the likes of Iron Man or Paranoid of course, which have not faded in any way. Those have faded in relavence also. You must not be exposed to people who are really into Zepplin. If you mean that they don't get as much radio play as Justin Timberlake, then I can't disagree with you. But musicians, particularly of the Heavy Metal ilk, cite those songs along with others as being very influential to themselves. Whereas Communication Breakdown is lost in translation so to speak. Zepplin had influence over a broader spectrum of musicians for sure. Thats why one would say that Zepplin was more influential than Sabbath. But Sabbath does hold a special place with the Metal crowd, not because Sabbath was specifically Metal, but because most Metal bands desired the dark sound that Sabbath epitomized. I have noticed what you mention. I have a question however. Is change a static thing? I don't know that that is the proper way to phrase the question, to be honest. But I know what you mean. I would have to say that change is a constant thing. The only thing that really changes about change is the rate of change. (What a weird sentence!) And over the past century, the rate of change has increased significantly. You can see this in almost every mode of human endevour. I agree. Travis? Are familiar with the term The Singularity? It is an important concept and one it would help to be familiar with, just in case such an occurance pops up during our lifetimes. (No snide remarks! We all know it is a possibility) Do you mean (A) singualarity? If so, I saw one the other night on TNG. If not...then could you explain? I probably am familiar with what you speak of, but it's not exactly rolling of my tongue. I haven't read the messages yet, but it looks as if others have answered for you. Supertramp Blah. Ever try Crime Of The Century or Crisis What Crisis? Actually no. But blah. Give them a chance someday. There is some really good stuff in there.G Perhaps I will. Understand however, that I will hold you personally responsible for the content of that music!! I'd love to be responsible for that! G Aerosmith One of the greatest Rock bandsever. Tyler is an amazing vocalist. Joe Perry is one of the best at inventing guitar hooks. Really oustanding at times. Ok, Perry himself admits that he's not a guitarists guitarist, but to brand him as one of the best at inventing guitar hooks...ah...no... Guitar hooks have very little to do with a players quality. Perry is a good guitarist, but not a great one. What he does have is an exceptional ear for a catchy guitar phrase, hence my comment. I dislike the use of the word exceptional. I don't think it applies to Joe in the least. I refer you to virtually *all* of Toys In The Attic. Horslips Heard of, I think, but never heard. You like Tull? I had a mind to look them up but I never. Seriously, I love Tull, but have never heard Horslips. Care to tell me a little? Absolutely on of my all time favorites. What Tull did with Scottish music, Horslips did with the Irish. The early albums are very energetic Irish folk rock, but the later albums are just great. Almost every album is a concept album. My favorite is Aliens, which is about refugees from the potato famine coming to America. Cool. I check them out when I get the chance. -Wings Beatles part 2 Do you say that as a good or bad thing? A good thing. xponent Bluebird Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
- Original Message - From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 8:41 AM Subject: Re: A few new words of which this list is in need Andrew said: You are calling Jan Jane, like its somehow sub-optimal to be a women. Actually, he isn't. He's calling Jan Jane because Jan keeps calling Erik by variants of his name with additional or alternative letters. Those two have a real alternate lifestyle going of late. xponent Transnomites Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 10:51 AM Subject: Re: A few new words of which this list is in need On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:39:22PM +, Richard Baker wrote: Erik said: You do go on like a doofus, don't you? I don't know if Andrew does, but I know I do! Occasionally, everyone does I think. But your S/N is quite high. So far as I have seen, his is very low. Andrew? Jeez Erik, you don't even know the guy. Andrew's a damn good fellow and not prone to noise. I can understand you not agreeing with him, but these knee-jerk retorts are just plain silliness on your part. I know you think you can fly under the radar forever, and perhaps you will, but I truly wonder how long it will be before you see how absolutely opaque you are to everyone. xponent Rob Is A Insert Putdown Here Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
