From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #128 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 Monday, July 20 1998 Volume 01 : Number 128 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: getting hit on via moxy shirt! [beetleschka@my-dejanews.com] Re: greetings from Alberta! [wahrend@my-dejanews.com] Re: greetings from Alberta! [wahrend@my-dejanews.com] Re: greetings from Alberta! [wahrend@my-dejanews.com] Re: Warning Stickers (was: greetings from Alberta!) [blinerecs@aol.com (B] Re: greetings from Alberta! [Richard Butterworth , starfox@Bacon.Eggs.And.NOSPAM.nationwide.net (Starfox) wrote: > Chris Ault wrote: > : Hmm....usually, when I wear my "Your New Boyfriend" shirt, people > : misinterpret it as some weird homosexual message or something. I am not gay, > : so this is really frustrating. Not to mention that the shirt clearly says > : "YOUR new boyfriend" and not "my new boyfriend." so, the "your" is directed > : at the reader, not the wearer. I guess I know a lot of stupid people. > > I personally love Jian's shirt of "I dig your boyfriend." Not that I like > boys, mind you, but the shirt would be great for it's shock value down > here in conservative, religious, belt-buckle-of-the-bible-belt, Texas. I really like that t-shirt meself. I thought of getting one but since I'm female it would just be a heterosexual thing & that wouldn't be any fun. Miriam Beetle Libicki "Me? I'm not thinking of anything, sir!" Diana Wynne Jones, Witch Week - -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 14:58:58 GMT From: wahrend@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! In article <3238986837.900887151@dial-243-tnt-03.btvt.together.net>, "Stephen R. Laniel" wrote: > --On Sunday, July 19, 1998, 7:06 PM +0000 Bodaceah > wrote: > > > One more point and i will leave you alone. I don't understand how we > feel > > morality is something that can be legislated. Morality is something > that is > > constantly evolving. It is no longer considered immoral for a woman to > show her > > ankles, we no longer cover up the genitals on the statue of "David". > > That only goes so far. Even though I agree with your point, it is true > that certain things remain constant in a certain body of law over time. > In the US, it is unlikely that we will ever make murder legal. Probably a > stupid example, but the general point is there. X <--- strike from the family feud, thanks for playing. ;-) For a lot of people abortion is murder(please please please please, don't open a debate on this...) and then there is assisted suicide (I'm sure if I weren't going off the cuff I'd probably be able to come with a couple others). What about the death penalty? Wars for oil? (*wink wink*) > Also, in some sense we _need_ to legislate morality. We can't simply say > "morals change constantly, so we should never put them into law". In a > democracy, laws are supposed to express the public's beliefs; they are the > public's morals, in other words. If you don't believe that we should > legislate morality, then you essentially undermine the basis of Western > law. > In the interest of constructing a positivist theory, what would you > suggest we use as a replacement for morality in law? Should people be > free to do as they please? Err.. I'd debate further, but I have to get work done today. > --Steve > > Stephen R. Laniel | "That's because he treats her like dirt. > Carnegie Mellon University | Anyone can get a girl that way." > laniel@cmu.edu | --Joseph Heller > This quote kicks butt. :-) "wild" Bill (was the guy that flipped all the right answers on the family feud) - -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 14:58:51 GMT From: wahrend@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! In article <3238986837.900887151@dial-243-tnt-03.btvt.together.net>, "Stephen R. Laniel" wrote: > --On Sunday, July 19, 1998, 7:06 PM +0000 Bodaceah > wrote: > > > One more point and i will leave you alone. I don't understand how we > feel > > morality is something that can be legislated. Morality is something > that is > > constantly evolving. It is no longer considered immoral for a woman to > show her > > ankles, we no longer cover up the genitals on the statue of "David". > > That only goes so far. Even though I agree with your point, it is true > that certain things remain constant in a certain body of law over time. > In the US, it is unlikely that we will ever make murder legal. Probably a > stupid example, but the general point is there. X <--- strike from the family feud, thanks for playing. ;-) For a lot of people abortion is murder(please please please please, don't open a debate on this...) and then there is assisted suicide (I'm sure if I weren't going off the cuff I'd probably be able to come with a couple others). What about the death penalty? Wars for oil? (*wink wink*) > Also, in some sense we _need_ to legislate morality. We can't simply say > "morals change constantly, so we should never put them into law". In a > democracy, laws are supposed to express the public's beliefs; they are the > public's morals, in other words. If you don't believe that we should > legislate morality, then you essentially undermine the basis of Western > law. > In the interest of constructing a positivist theory, what would you > suggest we use as a replacement for morality in law? Should people be > free to do as they please? Err.. I'd debate further, but I have to get work done today. > --Steve > > Stephen R. Laniel | "That's because he treats her like dirt. > Carnegie Mellon University | Anyone can get a girl that way." > laniel@cmu.edu | --Joseph Heller > This quote kicks butt. :-) "wild" Bill (was the guys that flipped all the right answers on the family feud) - -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 15:09:43 GMT From: wahrend@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! In article <35B32D63.B5E42553@mdx.NONASTYSPAM.ac.uk>, r.j.butterworth@mdx.NONASTYSPAM.ac.uk wrote: > wahrend@my-dejanews.com took out a big brush and made the following sweeping > statement.... > > > The only things that are > > instinctual are survival and reproduction(or sexual attraction, don't want to > > offend). Everything else is environmental. > > Woooof! Where's your evidence for this? I'm not saying I do or do not agree with > this statement, but for every eminent psychologist you can quote as asserting > that everything is environmental I can find an equally eminent one who asserts > that everything is instinctual. Anyway you could (if you were an atheist > biologist, for example) argue that *all* behaviour is determined by survival and > reproductive urges, leaving `everything else' as a rather small set. I'd quote Freud, but its seems so passe. I tend to take his take on this topic,(in other words, I plagurize (whoof! my spelling sucks!) since I cannot come up with anything fresh on the topic) but there are good arguments for the biologist case that we're just here to reproduce (but that definitely leaves same sex relationships kind of hanging in the wind) which was why I attempted (and rather poorly I might add) to be careful with my wording. > And if I was wanting to start another thread even more off topic than this one > (no I don't!) I could always question the equating of reproductive urges with > sexual attraction, and where that leaves homosexuality... I wasn't trying to equate the two (actually I was thinking about replacing reproduction with sexual atttraction due to above concern). Its also a hit on the biologist point of view that we're just here to "make babies". Gotta stop watching south park. I don't want to start a thread on this, really, I don't. "wild" Bill (parenthesis-man, lord of type-os and mispellings) - -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ------------------------------ Date: 20 Jul 1998 15:58:13 GMT From: blinerecs@aol.com (BLineRecs) Subject: Re: Warning Stickers (was: greetings from Alberta!) Okey doke, time to chime in. The copies of "Live Noise" without a Parental Advisory Sticker were from the first printing; the sticker was left off in error. Subsequent pressings have all had the sticker. The album is stickered due to the use of some specific words. The band did not wish to remove the words (nor did we ask them to), and understand that the album should therefor be stickered. As previously mentioned, there are currently no laws regarding the sale of "stickered product" to anyone. As a practical matter, however, there are some de facto prohibitions, namely that several retail chains will not sell any "stickered product". Furthermore, most stores will not play stickered albums in their stores, and some stores will go so far as to not put stickered albums in listening posts! Also, I think, but I'm not sure, that US military PX's won't stock stickered albums. Kevin, TBLRC ps Susan, I think that Black Crowes album is "Amorica" pps sorry of the lack of Albertan content.... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 16:48:43 +0100 From: Richard Butterworth Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! wahrend@my-dejanews.com wrote: > I'd quote Freud, but its seems so passe. Oh, how true. :) > I wasn't trying to equate the two Fair enough, I was only being pedantic anyway. > Gotta stop > watching south park. I don't want to start a thread on this, really, I don't. Let's start a thread on Southpark instead. It only just managed to get across the Atlantic and onto national telly here two weeks ago. Who is Kathy Lee, who awards Cartman the environmental writing prize in episode 2, and why is she famous? Pip pip Richard - ------------------------------------------------ Who knows what mystic thoughts may be whispering among the mossy groves of his crutty shins? (Spike Milligna -- the well known typing error.) - ------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #128 ********************************************