From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #118 Reply-To: ammf@smoe.org Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Friday, July 17 1998 Volume 01 : Number 118 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: greetings from Alberta! [wahrend@my-dejanews.com] Re: greetings from Alberta! [starfox@Bacon.Eggs.And.NOSPAM.nationwide.net] Re: fruvous mix [dalevy@aol.com (DALevy)] Re: greetings from Alberta! [wahrend@my-dejanews.com] Re: greetings from Alberta! [dot0926@aol.com (Dot0926)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 19:30:11 GMT From: wahrend@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! In article <35af39d7.1270563@nntp.bu.edu>, dacilen@bu.edu wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 21:59:39 GMT, wahrend@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > >Well if the stickers don't prevent anyone from buying the records, why have > >them at all? > > Why not? Do you usually answer a question by asking a question? :-) > The stickers are an expression of someone's opinion. As has already > been pointed out, at the very least the stickers get [some] kids and > parents talking. First there is a HUGE difference between expressing one's opinion and placing that opinion on the work itself as a commentary of its material. Second, how can one justify doing something that limits someone's freedoms because it MIGHT be of some benefit. I could place a sign in your yard that says "this person might offend you" and this could have some benefit to someone because they might avoid you and thereby not be offended but it inhibits other (non-thinking individuals perhaps) from going to the fru-casa because I told them to bewary of you. > >If it were human nature then all parents would have an inherent desire to > >protect their children from the outside world, not just most. > > How do you know that they don't? Whether they act upon it or not is a > different matter - but how do you know that they don't have an > inherent desire to protect their children from the outside world, > whatever that may mean to the parent? How do you know they do? (question for question) The only things that are instinctual are survival and reproduction(or sexual attraction, don't want to offend). Everything else is environmental. If you're starving, really starving, more likely than not you'll feed yourself before your child. > This is precisely why I _like_ the idea of the warning stickers. They > get people thinking. Sure, there'll always be a percentage of the > population that will refuse to think (or is unaccustomed to it) and > just blithely prohibit their kids to buy the Evil Records. But this > is why we are split up into generations: if you are such a person, > and your kid is prompted by the outside world to start thinking, the > kid will come up to you and challenge you on this point. Then, you'll > have to face the music, and in some cases, admit that you were wrong > (and don't I know how hard that can be! my father and I have had more > conversations-turned-arguments/fights than I care to think about... in > the end, he respects me more, not less.) Oh this is a load... perhaps we should label everything then? We'll have everyone thinking. I say we first label the cigarette packs and say that cigarettes are bad for you, that will get teenagers to think about how bad smoking is and then they'll talk to their parents about it. What?? Teenage smoking is still up(gosh those warning labels just didn't do the trick)? Well then we'll ban cigarettes to teenagers. Perhaps we should label the records, that will save our kids. Funny thing about such ratings and labels are that they only encourage people to do the things that they're not "supposed" to do. Why do you think highest percentage of drunk driving fatalies is typically in the under 21 group? If we just ignore our problems, they'll go away. > My point is, it's not just up to the parent's ignorance. There's > always a cure for ignorance, and if you're lucky, you (the kid) are at > least part of it. What? I am totally not following you here. You bet there is a cure for ignorance, I say make parents take a test before they can have kids. :-) > >"wild" Bill (dr. evildude, not to be confused with dr. teeth from muppet show) > > *LOL* SillyBill. Hey, dr. teeth was the man. "wild" Bill (dances on the line of insanity) - -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 1998 20:19:27 GMT From: starfox@Bacon.Eggs.And.NOSPAM.nationwide.net (Starfox) Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! wahrend@my-dejanews.com wrote: : How do you know they do? (question for question) The only things that are : instinctual are survival and reproduction(or sexual attraction, don't want to : offend). Everything else is environmental. If you're starving, really : starving, more likely than not you'll feed yourself before your child. I'm not so sure this is entirely true. As humans, we have the unique ability to overide our instinctual drives. If you're 90 years old and stranded with someone half you age, and you are in poorer health, and there is only X amount of food left, will you go with your instincts and feed yourself? or make the sacrifice and allow the other person to live? If it were entirely instinctual, you would kill the other person and thus increase your chances of making it. Anyways, I wasn't sure if I was misunderstanding what you were saying here, but either way, it illustrates a point. :) : Why do you think highest percentage of drunk driving fatalies is typically in : the under 21 group? If we just ignore our problems, they'll go away. *gasp* You mean they don't? :) : Hey, dr. teeth was the man. : "wild" Bill (dances on the line of insanity) Don't look now, but I think you missed a step and landed on the other side. :) Starfox "Welcome to my presence." - -- Starfox starfox (at) nationwide dot net "We each pay a fabulous price, for our visions of paradise." - Rush "Mission" ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 1998 20:37:55 GMT From: dalevy@aol.com (DALevy) Subject: Re: fruvous mix >Perhaps, a mix tape and >not a whole album is the way to go, though. Right. The point that I was trying to make is that if you make a complete copy of an artist's entire work, you are taking away their right to earn royalties on their product. You at least can make a good argument that a mix tape to demo a group to a friend is "fair use," which the copyright law says is OK. (Generally it means that you can make copies of excerpts of a larger work for certain purposes, usually private use.) I certainly want to see the music of Fruvous and others spread around. I just don't like the idea of "bootleg" copies of their CDs in circulation for any reason, because that isn't fair to the band. But I don't really want to be sounding like a lawyer or anything. : ) Doug Levy San Francisco DALevy@NOSPAM.aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 20:19:58 GMT From: wahrend@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! In article <35af3651.367730@nntp.bu.edu>, dacilen@bu.edu wrote: > Richard said: > > >>Neither do I believe that a *falsefied* system of security via censorship is > >>worth > >>sacrificing freedom. But neither do I believe that freedom of expression is a > >>Good > >>Thing in all circumstances. I just get uncomfortable when anyone puts > >>themselves > >>in an absolutist position on anything, be it something I agree with or > >>something > >>or don't. I believe freedom of expression is a Good Thing. But freedom to > >>agressively express a belief that hetrosexual Caucasians are the pure > >>master-race > >>and everyone else should be exterminated? > > And nora said: > > >but that is the whole point of freedom of speech. the very basis of free speech > >is protecting unpopular views. if all anyone ever said was nice or pleasant, > ..... > >should they be saying such ignorant and terrible things? of course > >not, i wish that they would all just shut up and learn something, but are they > >protected under free speech? yes they are. the only way to counteract their > >power of speech is to have the opposition (aka us) be even louder. > > I don't think that was Richard's point. He said that what he didn't > like was an _agressive_ way of expressing your views - the example he > gave, I believe, alluded to the Nazis. He wasn't talking about > freedom of speech. Sure it was. He thought that the Nazis point of view was a dangerous one and should be silenced. Who defines what is an _agressive_ way of expressing your views? Do I believe in what the Nazis say? Of course I do not. Do I believe that have the right to say it? You bet I do. Freedom of speech is not only for the moderate... A lot of people used to think that the world was flat, and saying that it wasn't got galileo excommunicated and some rather nasty torture. Just because most people believe something is true doesn't make it so. Ai! (perhaps Vika and I should just drop the gloves... *wink wink wink*) "wild" Bill (has no point, rambles and hopes that something profound appears) - ----- Garbage in garbage out. -- my AI prof. - -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ------------------------------ Date: 17 Jul 1998 21:02:53 GMT From: dot0926@aol.com (Dot0926) Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! >dacilen@bu.edu (Vika Zafrin) wrote: >Exactly. But I'm confused: you're pro-freedom of speech but >*against* someone expressing their views on an artist's work via >warning stickers? > > > exactly, i am pro free-speech, but disagree with the message of the labels. if we are talking about buisnesses ( which at this point im not sure where the jurisdiction of the labels is) do i believe that they have the same rights to free speech as i do? yes. do i believe that they should use this freedom to place labels? no. as i mentioned in a previous post, there is a difference between believing in the righ to free speech, and believing in the message. for example, do i believe that neo-nazis have the right, under freedom of speech, to spout horrible racist and anti-semitic stupidity? yes. do i believe they should? no, no,no!!! >Especially if we're talking about a merchant who >has his/her business' integrity (whatever he/she perceives that as) to >protect? yeah, some integrity... " this is obsense, and to protect our buisness integrity, we'll slap a label on it....but make sure to pick up your own copy... $$$$" - -nora ************************************************************************** ******* " there's something exciting about the failure of modern technology to create a real looking fake human." - john linnell nora cohen (dot0926@aol.com) **************** ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #118 ********************************************