From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #136 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 Tuesday, July 21 1998 Volume 01 : Number 136 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Review of 7/17 Burlington, VT show [hakmusic@juno.com (Harry A Keates] Have Fun At Falcon Ridge!!!!! [shweiss17@aol.com (SHWeiss17)] RE: Boston gig ["Demetriou, Melanie" ] Who is this guy? [hprodrig@nospam.capitalnet.com (Hugo Rodrigues)] Re: greetings from Alberta! [wahrend@my-dejanews.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 12:07:20 -0400 From: hakmusic@juno.com (Harry A Keates) Subject: Re: Review of 7/17 Burlington, VT show >Tony Esposito: > >16 seasons in the NHL, inducted to the Hall of Fame in 1988. Goalie. > >Played for Les Canadiens and the Chicago Blackhawks. > >423-306-152 record, 76 shutouts, 2.92 career goals against, 1 cup win >(which he won as a rookie with Montreal, I believe backing up >Rogie Vachon who is unexplainably not a hall of famer). Yes yes, I think this would be an excellent cause for Fruvous to take on. We need Rogie in the hall of fame and it would make for a great Fruvous song. He does have one of the best names in all of sports. - - Harry _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: 21 Jul 1998 15:38:07 GMT From: shweiss17@aol.com (SHWeiss17) Subject: Have Fun At Falcon Ridge!!!!! Well, I'm leaving in 1/2 hour to catch my flight to California for my friend's wedding on Saturday (got a great deal out of Baltimore, $200 less than flying out of Philly!), and just wanted to wish everyone going to Falcon Ridge this weekend a wonderful time! Cheer for GBS really loud and say hi to the "IIIIICCCCCEEEEE" man for me! - - Sue * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "This is our first time playing here at the coast in New Jersey - is it ever cheesy!" Jian Ghomeshi/Moxy Fruvous 7/13/98 Ocean City, NJ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 16:27:07 GMT From: "Demetriou, Melanie" Subject: RE: Boston gig On Tuesday, July 21, 1998 12:20 AM, ceelove@ibm.net [SMTP:ceelove@ibm.net] wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jul 1998 19:25:15 GMT, "Demetriou, Melanie" > wrote: > > >I checked FDC for information on the Fanueil Hall date, but found nothing. > >Could someone fill me in? I'm close enough to go; I'd hate to miss it due to > >lack of info. > > It's July 31st, 5:30, downstairs from Sam Goody's, and it's > free--that's the last info I've had, anyway. I asked Tobey about > Frumiles stamps and he says he thinks we might get them but can't > promise. It's part of an afternoon of music, sponsored by the River > (92.5?) and I believe Fruvous is doing it as a favor to them. Thanks. As it turns out, my husband has a prior commitment and I probably won't be going to Boston. Waah. OTOH, looks like I *will* be going to SoNo, possibly with aforementioned husband. Should be major. Melanie ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:45:38 GMT From: hprodrig@nospam.capitalnet.com (Hugo Rodrigues) Subject: Who is this guy? Ya ya ya... I know you're all wondering what the heck I'm doing posting something to the newsgroup when I'm supposed to be 600 kms from my own Internet hookup and only expected to return in September... Well I got fired. Woah! Just kidding. :) No firing. None at all. I actually decided to spend half my paycheque to sleep in my own bed for one night. IE: I came home to visit my mommy. :) Just wanted to let all know that the summer is going awesome, and I can't wait to show off my tanlines at Summerfolk in less than a month. Keep rockin to Fruvous and I'll be back into the regular swing of things in September. Laters! "The only monolithic view I find in Canada is that everybody outside of Ottawa dislikes Ottawa." - -- Gordon Griffin, US Ambassador to Canada *MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO* Hugo Rodrigues Hugs on the Undernet Journalism Student hprodrig@capitalnet.com http://www.capitalnet.com/~hprodrig Forever Fruvous!!! GONE-ZO after May 1, 1998 *MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO*MOO* ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:56:38 GMT From: wahrend@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! In article <3336486874.900984651@dial-174-TNT-BTVT-01.ramp.together.net>, "Stephen R. Laniel" wrote: > --On Tuesday, July 21, 1998, 1:30 AM +0000 Dot0926 > wrote: > > > the first step is to make our government truly representative of all > americans. > > it's a sad fact that many walks of american life have no representation > in the > > legislature, and therefore, your definition of democracy is not > applicable. > > until there is equal reprentation for all races, financial classes, and > > religions, as well as both genders, then we are not living in a true > democracy, > > and therefore anyone (elected or not) who tries to impress his or her > > definition of morality on the masses is perverting an already corrupt > system. > > What is your standard of whether a legislative body is representative? > Will it have to contain members of every single subgroup of the American > population? This, of course, is impossible, because subgroups can be > defined in infinitely many ways (I am a member of the curly-haired, > engineering school-attending, Pontiac Bonneville-driving, Chomsky-reading > subgroup). Or we could degenerate into the fiasco that was happening in canada, where everyone wanted to legally recognized as a separate nation. (correct me if I am wrong here.. its been awhile since I have been up on my canadian politics) > Could we say that a legislative body represents its people if it does what > the people as a majority want? Then we certainly have a representative > legislative body. Polls acheive representation. In fact, many complaints > about the US Senate in recent years have said that senators overuse polls > -- that is, that they are overly representative. Being a member of the curly haired engineering types you should know that polls and statistics can be bent in anyway to support any conclusion, so having a senator that "follows the polls" doesn't mean a thing. Plus, its a benefit to have an individual who has his own mind when making decisions upon laws and doesn't get caught up in the heat of the moment per se. Like with flag burning, a consitutional ammendment to prohibit it, come on. But if I remember correctly there was a majority of people in the polls who favored it. > I would suggest that what we need is a legislative body which is only > representative to a point. When we elect representatives, rather than > running a direct democracy like the Greeks did, we assume that someone > else can do a better job of legislating than we can. I suggest that we > thoroughly read each candidate's platform, elect the person with whose > platform we agree, and then let them do as they will for their term in > office. If they fail to act as they stated they would, we vote them out > of office. But while they're in office, it is their job to do what the > rest of us cannot do: govern. They should be given the freedom to do so. And when they don't do what they were elected to do? Campaign reform, anybody remember that little tid bit? Candidates past and previous have promised the world and delievered little. You cannot judge by the platform whether or not a candidate will govern or just take up space. I am totally against leaving a legislators "alone" for their term. Allow them to govern, yes, but let them do as they please, take bribes from big businesses and special interest groups. I don't think so. > > perhaps the basis of western law needs a bit of undermining, if it is > comprised > > of a small unrepresentative representative (how's that for an > oxymoron??) body > > that wishes to preach personal morality, while providing little to no > example > > of this morality. > > Again, in what sense is our legislative system unrepresentative? In a > sense I agree with you that the system is unrepresentative (cf. Chomsky, > and start with "Manufacturing Consent"), but I don't think you're being > clear about how you think it is unrepresentative. > > Direct democracy is probably the only truly representative system -- the > only one which represents each voice with 100% accuracy. But it comes > with its own problems. If we commit to a representative democracy, we > commit to its problems. One of these is that it does not represent all of > its people clearly. When we take positions according to the beliefs of > the majority, we exclude the minority. Can you suggest a way of > simultaneously representing everyone and committing to representative > democracy? I don't believe it's possible, but I'm open to suggestion. Not to mention the logistical nightmare of attempting to get everyone to make educated votes on some issues (or getting enough of the population to turn out to get a decent representive). Heck, I don't think we break the 50% mark for presidential ellections, what type of turnout would you get on raising minimum wage or something like that. ( I was attempting to come up with something that wasn't controversial or high visibility, unlike raising/lowering the speed limit or drinking age..). > > i don't understand the connection between the government instituting > laws to > > protect people from bodily harm, which is an objective thing, to > legislation > > about "morality", which is clearly subjective. > > Do you believe in minimalist government? Should the government only > protect against physical harm between two people? This is weak protection > indeed. Sexual harassment is a much more subtle crime, and much harder to > prove than physical assault, but I think you would agree that the > government has a right to legislative against harassment. Similarly, it > has a right to restrict _some_ speech; Holmes and Brandeis, for instance, > made it clear that even the most relaxed free speech laws would never > permit someone to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. Oh no.. not a sexual harassment thread. (I fold). I don't think it was ever stated that government was to protect the indviduals from just physical harm. I think most people agree that your rights as a member of a society end when they infringe upon the rights of another member of the society. This covers the physical, mental, psychological, blah blah blah infractions. Where these lines are drawn IMHO are why you have government in the first place. But, poly-sci, not I. > I don't know where this tangent began, and I regret if I've swerved off > the road. However, I think there are some more fundamental questions of > governance here than just free-speech laws. > > --Steve But free speach is where we started, it just seemed to suck in every other topic under the sun... Albertan black hole..... (and I've done more than my fair share of wandering off the topic) "wild" Bill (has no nifty tag line today) - -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #136 ********************************************