From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #150 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 24 1998 Volume 01 : Number 150 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: greetings from Alberta! [ourhamster@aol.com (OurHamster)] Re: Talking Heads, and repeated band seeings (was Re: nyc!!) [zardsnod@ao] Wilbert's chatter/search for Bill... [zardsnod@aol.com (ZardSnod)] Re: Moxy Music Crosses [christi218@aol.com (Christi218)] Re: m-pact? (was Re: my Moxy Web page...) [zardsnod@aol.com (ZardSnod)] Oswego Directions [ourhamster@aol.com (OurHamster)] Tennessee [Eternal Summer Slacking ] Re: This weekend [zardsnod@aol.com (ZardSnod)] Re: greetings from Alberta! ["MTKeener" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 24 Jul 1998 01:51:27 GMT From: ourhamster@aol.com (OurHamster) Subject: RE: greetings from Alberta! >From: fruwench@aol.com (FruWench) >Date: Thu, Jul 23, 1998 20:32 EDT >Message-id: <1998072400320000.UAA08901@ladder03.news.aol.com> > >Really? Then why is it I can't stand Coke, but I like Pepsi. And I can't >stand Diet Pepsi, but I like Diet Coke? Marketing? > > >ladywench It's the same with me: I hate Coke, but love Pepsi. A slight difference, though: I dislike Diet Pepsi, but can drink Caffeine-Free Diet Pepsi. Go figure... - ---------------------------------------- '#,:#$#. ,,, $, #, ,, ,,, :# '#; .#' `, #, ,$ .# #; .#' ` $# '# ##. : #,,#' #' '# ##. ,:' ,#' '#:,,#' ;' "#,,$#,. '#:,' - ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 1998 02:31:35 GMT From: zardsnod@aol.com (ZardSnod) Subject: Re: Talking Heads, and repeated band seeings (was Re: nyc!!) fraud wrote: >also most people in the audience would not get teh >allusion to the talking heads becasue as even proved in this newsgroup very >few people have seen the video- Um... not to kneejerk or anything, but just because I haven't responded to this thread (largely because I was away, but also 'cause I didn't have too much to add) doesn't mean I haven't seen the video. In fact, I haven't seen the video, I saw the movie version when it was first on screens. So, I think there are a lot more people out there than you may think at first who WOULD get the reference... - -Zard "Veni, Vidi, Velcro" - I came, I saw, I stuck around. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 1998 02:19:16 GMT From: zardsnod@aol.com (ZardSnod) Subject: Wilbert's chatter/search for Bill... Hullo there, all - 'scuse me for bursting in for a private search, but a few weeks ago, my old boss was visiting his old hometown of Cleveland, and ended up (I believe) at Wilberts with a friend of his and another friend of that friend's. They were telling him what a great venue it is, for blues and such, when the friend of the friend said "Yeah, but the best shows here are put on by this kinda quirky little band, I'm sure you've never heard of them, Moxy Fruvous." Well, of course my boss, who's lived through a couple of years of me talking about Fruvous, crawling in exhausted and bleary-eyed after concert experiences and epic Fruvous road trips, who's had me fix headphones on his ears to listen to "I Love My Boss", etc., had CERTAINLY heard of Fruvous! He told this friend of a friend that he worked with a Fruhead, my name came up, and it turned out this friend had heard of me! (I assume through the ng). So, this is my plea - Will the real Bill Carle please stand up! and email me, or something, so we can marvel at this weird coincidence... Thanks!! - -Zard - -Zard "Veni, Vidi, Velcro" - I came, I saw, I stuck around. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 1998 02:29:55 GMT From: christi218@aol.com (Christi218) Subject: Re: Moxy Music Crosses I don't know...I think this one was my favorite: =D >AJ: Moxy Früvous and Madonna sing Laika Virgin we knew someone was going to say that! oh and this one: >ShawnHar2: Moxy Früvous and a bunch of kids sing "The Itsy-Bitsy Spiderman" *laughs* Now *that* was a productive chat. ;) Christine. - --Chrissy_K on irc *^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^ Christi218@aol.com & bh108@freenet.buffalo.edu - --Diet soda? - --No thanks. FREAKED!!!!!!!!!! - --Fiddle Faddle? Elijah to Ricky - --Alright.....delicious. 1993 *^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^ ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 1998 02:38:11 GMT From: zardsnod@aol.com (ZardSnod) Subject: Re: m-pact? (was Re: my Moxy Web page...) Ceecee wrote: > Music and massage, what else is there in life? >*snicker* Well, FOOD of course!! Silly girl! (and I know Vika will agree!) - -Zard "Veni, Vidi, Velcro" - I came, I saw, I stuck around. ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 1998 02:51:20 GMT From: ourhamster@aol.com (OurHamster) Subject: Oswego Directions As I noted before, if you're headed to Oswego for the show this Friday @ 6:30 & 8, the city is a bi-atch to traverse during the Harborfest...partly due to the city's in appropriateness for any such festival, and partly because of all the hundreds of drunken people. The River Stage is on the south side of 104, and right near the river, on the west bank. Here is an excerpt from today's Syracuse paper: "If you're driving to Oswego from out of town, follow signs to either Park & Ride lot, located at: Laker Hall or Romney Field House at the State University College at Oswego campus or the Oswego Speedway on the east side of the city off Route 104. A fee of $5 per car includes free bus transportation to and from downtown, with continuous shuttles operationg during the following times: Noon to midnight Friday [other days cut from quote]. The Fest Trolley follows the route shown on the map (sorry, I'm not drawing that!) at intervals of 15 minutes, traffic permitting. For a $2 donation, you receive a Harborfest Trolley Button which allows unlimited use of the trolleys throughout the festival. Trolley hours of operation are Noon to midnight Fridays." - --Novac, handler of "too much information" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 22:12:34 -0500 From: Eternal Summer Slacking Subject: Tennessee Call me crazy, because I am. I recently relocated from Michigan to Nashville, and now due to a lack of mobility I'm going crazy. Anyone know how to petition Fruvous back to this area?? I'm willing to sell my soul to the devil if that's what it takes, and I'm more than willing to donate my living room floor to anyone who wants to come see the show..... Arabel ------------------------------ Date: 24 Jul 1998 03:37:45 GMT From: zardsnod@aol.com (ZardSnod) Subject: Re: This weekend >> mike wrote: >> > the lurker who is now revealing that he's working stage security for >> > Fruvous this weekend! muahahaahahahahaah! Heehee! Stage security for Fruvous - is there a quieter job anywhere?? Never seen Fruheads rush the stage (except maybe after the show, for a setlist) - you could probably read a book during the show (except you'd miss seeing the show, plus would probably get incorporated as a prop during Authors). Seriously, my favorite stage security story was during last year's FLEADH in NYC, when myself and some other folks were leaning up against the barrier before the show (first time I'd been to a Frushow with either a barrier OR security!), and the buff security guy was chatting us up. After their set, he asked us if we wanted to get backstage and meet the guys. Well, we said sure, but then when we went back there, we ended up introducing HIM to the guys. *grin* My second favorite "stage security" item is an idea of Jason Reiser's - to name your band "SECURITY" so that everyone at your shows would be wearing that on their shirt - hee! - -Zard "Veni, Vidi, Velcro" - I came, I saw, I stuck around. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 00:01:05 -0400 From: "MTKeener" Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! >> > 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. kinda goes without sayin' > >> Could we say that a legislative body represents its people if it does what >> the people as a majority want? remember that the purpose of a democracy is to protect the views of the minority... >Being a member of the curly haired engineering types whoohoo! Irregular hair RULES!!! > you should know that >polls and statistics can be bent in anyway to support any conclusion, so >having a senator that "follows the polls" you mean, "follows the money"... >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. as you said before, there is a poll to support every opinion. > >> 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. > For sure! >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. > Right. That's why *real* campaign reform will never happen. >> > 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. >> Please don't leave this to those who apply stickers (not just for records, but for TV and the Internet). As bad as it is, it could be worse. Left to some folks, everyone on this thread would be incarcerated. >> 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..). > The Constitution guarantees the right to vote whether you educate yourself about what you're voting for or not; if it didn't, we'd still have Jim Crow. But I see your point; "educated" is the key word here. But I would ask the average voter "Honestly, do you research the record of the municipal court judge you just voted for?" (oy, I did!) My view of "unrepresentative" is that those who are running for office that represent even an approximation of my views are Independents (and therefore {unless you're in norrthern New England} unelectable). The ones *I* want (who even bother to run) never stand a chance coming out of the gate 'cause they don't have the $$$$$. >> > 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.. I won't go there either. But it's not the government's job to protect you from someone saying "f***k" (restraint, again) on a CD. If the record companies want to help inform parents (whether enlightened or not) about so-called vulgar language to cover their asses, so much the better. Better to know than not.... >> I don't know where this tangent began, I believe it was Alberta. May it never end. >>and I regret if I've swerved off the road. Off-road is legal in Alberta. Radar detectors are not. (sorry, there I go again) >> However, I think there are some more fundamental questions of >> governance here than just free-speech laws. >> >> --Steve Natch..... > >But free speach is where we started, it just seemed to suck in every other >topic under the sun Precisely! I think that may be why it was in the "First" amendment. It touches nearly every facet of all of our lives. If we didn't have free speech, it would... uhhh.... Suck. (heh heh! He said "suck!") I think we have room for everything. I would never agree with the KKK or neo-Nazis, but they *do* have the right to say it. Flynt has the right to publish sleaze. It may be taking civilization down the toilet but you never know, the definition of a "civilized" society may yet change (e.g. "Civilized 98"). .... 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) > > More to come... Matt (no tag line today either) ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #150 ********************************************