From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V2 #118 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Sunday, December 13 1998 Volume 02 : Number 118 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Is Your Listing A Secret? [list@listme.com] either/or: also, the ethics of pet-keeping [Srm9988n@aol.com] Re: either/or: also, the ethics of pet-keeping [lesystemed@aol.com (LeSy] Bottom Line shows [Srm9988n@aol.com] An ounce of gratitude [Juliette Lexington ] Re: Indie Tape [petit_chou@juno.com] Re: either/or [winnecke@my-dejanews.com] Re: An ounce of gratitude [lesystemed@aol.com (LeSystemeD)] Re: Indie Tape [lesystemed@aol.com (LeSystemeD)] Re: NE Weather (was: Re: either/or) ["valerie jones" ] A Fruvous Christmas Carol [gordonlew@aol.com (GordonLew)] Re: Pondering [winnecke@my-dejanews.com] Moxy Chanukkah song. [gordonlew@aol.com (GordonLew)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 00:44:20 GMT From: list@listme.com Subject: Is Your Listing A Secret? Is your web site the best kept secret on the Internet? We'll promote it to 50 search engines and indexes for $90 and complete the job in 2 business days. Satisfaction is guaranteed! If you have a great product, but are not getting many inquiries from your Web site, you may not be adequately listed on the Web's search engines and indexes. Millions of viewers daily use these facilities to find the products and services they are looking for. But if your site is not listed, no one will see it. Listings on most of these services are free. However, locating and filling out the forms required to get a listing can take several days, and most people just don't have the time to do it. That is why we offer a web site promotion service. WHAT'S THE DEAL? We will submit your site to 50 indexes and search engines for $90. We will accept the return of this E-mail, with the form below filled out, as an order. We will bill you upon completion of the promotion. Our terms are net 15 days from date of invoice. Satisfaction guaranteed! HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE? Generally, we complete the submissions within 48 hours of receiving your order. It can take any individual search engine or index up to three weeks to process your submission, although most are much faster. WHAT SEARCH ENGINES AND INDEXES ARE INCLUDED IN THE PROMOTION? The list changes from time to time. This is our current list: Alta Vista, Anzwers, AOL Netfind, BizCardz Business Directory, Bizlink, BizWeb, Black Widow Search, Excite, Galaxy, HotBot, Infomak, Infoseek, InfoSpace, InterBis, Jayde Online Directory, Jumpcity, Jumper Hot Links, JumpLink, LinkMonster, Lycos, MangaSeeker, Manufacturers Information Network, Net Happenings, Net Announce, New Page List, New Riders WWW Yellow Pages, Northern Light, One World Plaza, PeekABoo, Planet Search, Power Crawler, QuestFinder, Scrub The Web, Seven Wonders, SiteFinder, SiteShack, Super Snooper, The YellowPages.com, TurnPike, Unlock: The Information Exchange, WebCrawler, WebVenture Hotlist, WhatUSeek, Where2Go, WhoWhere, World Announce Archive, Wow! Web Wonders!, YeeHaa!, Yellow Pages Superhighway, YelloWWWeb, Your Webscout, ZenFinder. HOW WILL I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE PROMOTED MY SITE? When we have completed the promotion, we will send you an HTML file as an attachment to your E-mail bill. Save this file to your disk, and view it through your Web browser. It provides links to the search engine we submitted your site to, plus any comments we received from them when we did it. ARE THERE ANY GUARANTEES? We do not require prepayment. Your satisfaction is guaranteed or you don't pay the bill. WHO IS LISTME? We are a web site promotion company located at: ListMe, Inc. 1127 High Ridge Road - Suite 184 Stamford, CT 06905 Phone: (888) 205-5347 Fax: (800) 321-6966 Email: list@listme.com Website: www.listme.com HOW DO I ORDER? The easiest way to order is through our on-line order form at www.listme.com. Or you can order by e-mail. Just hit the REPLY button on your e-mail program and fill out the following information. (This information will be posted to the search engines/indexes): Your name: Company Name: Address: City: State/Prov: Zip/Postal Code: Telephone: Fax: Email address: URL: http:// Site Title: Description (about 25 words): Key words (maximum of 25, in descending order of importance): Contact (in case we have questions): If billing a different address, please complete the following: Addressee: Company Name: Address: City: State/Prov: Zip/Postal Code: Telephone: Fax: Email address: We will bill via Email. (A8 12/12/98) Terms: By returning this document via Email, you agree as follows: You have the authority to purchase this service on behalf of your company. Terms are net 15 days. Accounts sent to collections will be liable for collection costs. You agree to protect and indemnify ListMe, Inc. in any claim for libel, copyright violations, plagiarism, or privacy and other suits or claims based on the content or subject matter of your site. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? When we receive your order, we will acknowledge it via return email. We will then input your information into our system. When completed, we will run your promotion, capturing any comments from search engines as we go. We will incorporate these into an HTML-formatted report to you, which we will attach to your bill. ======================Web Site Promotions====================== ListMe, Inc. 1127 High Ridge Road - Suite 184 Stamford, CT 06905 www.listme.com Ph: 888-205-5347 Fx: 800-321-6966 E-mail: list@listme.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 00:42:37 GMT From: Srm9988n@aol.com Subject: either/or: also, the ethics of pet-keeping LeSysteme wrote: > But saying "Oh, la-de-da, it's water under >the bridge" is short of an ethical analysis. As I pointed out in my original >post, not allowing the present pets to breed would eliminate the problem within >a generation (yes, I know it's not that simple). Okay, good shot over the bow. I didn't mean to imply passive wringing of hands, whatever-can-we-do? But I'm not sure we want to argue that eliminating the species at large is A Good Thing either -- and how else do we *eliminate* the problem of strays, while also eliminating the exploit- ation of pet-cats (or dogs or iguanas?) The modern world we have created is not at all a friendly, nurturing environment to these creatures whose genome and traits we also have changed so much over the course of civilization. They are no longer feral animals, thriving on their own instincts. And those unfortunates which are feral are diseased, sick, desperate creatures that will never enjoy anything approaching the lifespan an ancient, pre-domesticated, freely-prowling cat might have expected. That's what I meant to imply. We can't put the toothpaste back in the tube. Our society moves forward -- and you may argue that forward is not better some or even most of the time, and I might agree with that. But we need to do more than wish our forebears hadn't made these catastrophic alterations to the way the world was supposed to be. We must take responsibility for the changes humanity has brought to these species and to the world their own ancestors inhabited. Not eliminate its excess members, try to undo the effects of thousands of years of breeding, and turn it loose again in its ancestral Asian and African home. The cat has changed as much as that ancient home has. If we could approximate its natural state, that would be super ... but in the meantime I'm just happy to see animals thriving, not disappearing, and I think our responsibility is to protect the species that remain, not eliminate them under the guise of freeing them. I really think we agree on this more than we disagree, Steve. But I think cats specifically, as well as other animals and their human companions *can* have a far more give-and-take, mutually advantageous relationship than you credit. And frequently the cat clearly has a choice, and makes it clear that it would rather be with its person -- or not. I don't want to personify or psychologize the discussion, because it starts sounding ridiculous -- we're not talking about persons, for starters, and we can't put assume our own mindset for them. But that's the jargon we're dancing around. And to put it very loosely, I don't think they're all suffering from the feline version of Stockholm syndrome or acquired helplessness. That is not to deny that humans bred dependency into the species, and taught it further dependency. But they have also taught us to give them what they want -- whether it's tummy rubs, saucers of milk, chicken cut just so, or merely being left alone. Ultimately, what I see is codependency. And I'm not going there -- because that discussion gets way too involved for me, until practically any relationship anyone has ever been in gets defined as codependent. I just know I'm happy being exploited by my kitties, and they seem happy to be exploited by me. Maybe we need to have all of our consciousnesses raised. But maybe we should just keep on being happy, because life could be a lot worse for all of us. >Many (most?) shelters require adopters to neuter the pets they take as a >condition of adoption. I believe in Pennsylvania this is law now, as people weren't bothering to get their pets neutered when the fee-refund policy was in place. > It's the kennel-club and cat show crowd that needs to think this over; > I reckon there's a snowball's chance in hell of that ever happening. Agreed. and while keeping species distinct is important biologically, these species have been so tinkered with, and bloodlines so narrowed, that they reflect nothing in the natural world. Imho it's the dead-wrong approach to correcting or recalibrating some of the effects we've had on natural history. > This is an esoteric notion. After all, there are still people (see the > recent news from North Carolina) who felt that the slaves in the US > were happy and better off before emancipation, and that slavery was a > natural social structure. Personally, I can't work up the moral fervor > about this issue that I could about slavery. I just have to shake my > head when I see a "moral vegetarian" (one who won't eat > meat for compassionate reasons) keeping a pet. If the alternative is euthanizing the animal in an overcrowded shelter, or having it die out on the street of illness or injury or abuse, I'd not think it was hypocritical in the least. If, on the otherhand, they've got this purebred Burmese that they paid $600 for and have a pedigree on, well, that's just ridiculous. >Again, this isn't something I'm even settled about myself. I just think it > bears discussion. Thanks for discussing. Oh, you're quite welcome! - -- Lori ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 1998 01:27:43 GMT From: lesystemed@aol.com (LeSystemeD) Subject: Re: either/or: also, the ethics of pet-keeping In article <241658b7.36730bfe@aol.com>, Srm9988n@aol.com wrote: > But I'm not sure we want to argue that >eliminating the species at large is A Good Thing either -- and how else >do we *eliminate* the problem of strays, while also eliminating the exploit- >ation of pet-cats (or dogs or iguanas?) Who said that a "species" is sacrosanct? This is the logical fallacy behind the "endangered species" acts. Why do we care if the evolutionary development of homo sapiens entails the elimination of hootowlus wintermuffus? The conservationist paradigm makes no analysis and assumes it's a bad thing. I disagree. The Dutch in the seventeenth century decided that the Dodo was an abomination, a mistake by God, that should be eliminated. Dodo hunting became a holy crusade. The Dodo is the first species known to be "extincted" by humankind. Was this a mistake? was this a sin? Are you or any fish worse off because there are no dodoes? > >But we need to do more than wish our forebears hadn't made these >catastrophic alterations to the way the world was supposed to be. We >must take responsibility for the changes humanity has brought to these >species and to the world their own ancestors inhabited. Not >eliminate its excess members, try to undo the effects of thousands of >years of breeding, and turn it loose again in its ancestral Asian and >African home. The cat has changed as much as that ancient >home has. If we could approximate its natural state, that would be super > ... but in the meantime I'm just happy to see animals thriving, not >disappearing, and I think our responsibility is to protect the species >that remain, not eliminate them under the guise of freeing them. I don't want to turn anything loose. I'm exploring the notion of stopping the propogation of species that can exist only as pets. I'll keep my cat, and play with her and brush her and pet her, 'til she dies, and do what I can to make her last days comfortable. I won't let her reproduce, however. > >I really think we agree on this more than we disagree, Steve. Me, too. >But I >think cats specifically, as well as other animals and their human >companions *can* have a far more give-and-take, mutually >advantageous relationship than you credit. And frequently the cat >clearly has a choice, and makes it clear that it would rather be with its >person -- or not. Really? She can be a bitch, but she can't say, "Listen, Steve, it isn't working out." We have not provided any alternatives, and it is up to us to do so, if there are to be any. > >I don't want to personify or psychologize the discussion, because it >starts sounding ridiculous -- we're not talking about persons, for starters, >and we can't put assume our own mindset for them. But that's the >jargon we're dancing around. And to put it very loosely, I don't think > they're all suffering from the feline version of Stockholm syndrome or >acquired helplessness. That is not to deny that humans bred >dependency into the species, and taught it further dependency. But >they have also taught us to give them what they want -- whether it's >tummy rubs, saucers of milk, chicken cut just so, or merely being >left alone. Cats are hard to fit emotionally into this argument, because they look so much like they are enjoying this or that. Learning what makes them purr, though, is like learning that feeding the slaves a little more cornmeal makes them more productive; it's a management issue, not a sympathy thing. >Ultimately, what I see is codependency. And I'm not going there -- >because that discussion gets way too involved for me, until practically >any relationship anyone has ever been in gets defined as codependent. Yep. >Agreed. and while keeping species distinct is important biologically, why? >these species have been so tinkered with, and bloodlines so narrowed, >that they reflect nothing in the natural world. >If the alternative is euthanizing the animal in an overcrowded shelter, >or >having it die out on the street of illness or injury or abuse, I'd not >think >it was hypocritical in the least. The alternative is deciding that we won't breed kitties; that seems simplistic, but it works, eventually. No need to kill anybody's pussums or turn any cat out into the street. It will take a while, as unenlightened persons die off, but let's work to persuade everyone that universal neutering is the right way to go. If, on the otherhand, they've got this >purebred Burmese that they paid $600 for and have a pedigree on, well, >that's just ridiculous. Sure is. Regards, Steve ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 01:51:44 GMT From: Srm9988n@aol.com Subject: Bottom Line shows LeSysteme asked: >s it the case that Moxy Fruvous is opening for Dan Bern at the Bottom Line? My understanding is that they are switching off on who is opening act and who is main act; each set reverses order from the previous. >I've never heard of Dan Bern, so I looked around on the web and listened to a >few lo-fi clips from his first album. Kind of sounds like Dylan. I don't know >if I'd enjoy too large a dose of Dylan himself. He is kind of Dylan-y, now that you mention it. Although his diction is :) He's also fairly humorous. I found his set quite enjoyable a couple of weeks ago, although the crowd was anything but enjoyable. See you New Years Day! - -- Lori ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 01:54:24 GMT From: Juliette Lexington Subject: An ounce of gratitude Thank you, Steve, for clearing up that Tommy Hilfiger thing. *hugs* Sorry about all that. Heh...that's what I get for not listening to my intuition, which told me not to include that. Ah, well. I hope everyone is having a smashing weekend! I am home once again....glad beyond belief that exams are over (especially that Greek history one! Oy.). :) Love and Fru-lollipops, Juliette ~~~~~Of course I drink like a fish! I'm a Pisces.~~~~~ == "...it's a hell of a responsibility to be yourself. It's much easier to be somebody else or nobody at all." - Sylvia Plath "The truth will set you free, but, first, it will piss you off." - Gloria Steinem _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 01:45:04 GMT From: petit_chou@juno.com Subject: Re: Indie Tape Vika the Bold said: >No, but if he's trying to make money off of someone else's art, I say >let the f***er suffer. Hee hee hee! You make me laugh, Vika Zafrin! Then Steve asked: >So, what about Tobey? Does he earn a living? What about him? He's an all around great guy? He has good taste in shoes? What are you looking for here? Of course he's making money off of someone else's art, but the difference it that it's sanctioned by the lads. >What about record-store employees, managers, club owners? They are in direct contract with either the band or the band's record company. It's okay for them. This is just some joe-shmoe trying to sell his stuff to the highest bidder. Usually this is totally fine (to me), except that in the same way I wouldn't buy the late Princess Diana's bed sheets in an auction, I won't buy this - it just doesn't seem right to profit off of said person or band in this way. >What about MF themselves when they cover "Message to >You", aren't they making money of the BeeGees' art? Yup, with full on support from the Brothers Gibb. Let's "make some sense," Steve dear. All the examples you mentioned are contractual issues, not some poor slob selling his stuff. In order to sell copies of "Message," they need permission. Which undoubtedly they have. Which signals, if not an emotional approval, a civil approval of the lads' recording. >What's more reasonable than to let people bid? That's all well and good, Steve, except that the general policy on gemm.com (as to my understanding) is that the seller sells the merchandise to the first asker. NOT the highest bidder. If this guy gave a cut of the profit to Moxy Fruvous, maybe it'd be a different story. But he ain't so it isn't. My dear Steve, you seem to be taking this quite seriously. Really, am I going to spend my time finding porn and flooding this man's mailbox with it? Frankly, I have far better things to do with my time. It's funny to talk about. It's funny to think about. Hell, I'd laugh if someone else did it. But you know what? I can say in full honesty that I continued this thread in a humorous vain, and I am saddened that you seem unable to understand my kind of humor. Caroline chimed in with: >Ugh. Let's preserve some >semblance of civility, shall we? Please? Always, Caroline. Have a divine evening Steve. And to the rest of you, may your panties not get in a bunch, and may your hair be ever shiny and full of life. : ) >If I said you were crazy, would you have to fight me? Only if you stepped on my blue suede shoes. Heather Moore ___________________________________________________________________ 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/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 02:06:14 GMT From: winnecke@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: either/or In article <74svvk$2q3$1@winter.news.rcn.net>, "KatieWow" wrote: > okay, i'm a dork. those both were written by christopher durang. > i _love_ david ives. "foreplay and the art of the fugue"? that one about > the monkeys typing hamlet? > quality stuff. > ~~kate I find it hilarious that you mention monkeys typing Hamlet! Yesterday in my Physics class we were (I'm being perfectly honest with you) discussing the same concept! But of course this was in the context of the probability of a certain number of monkeys typing for a certain amount of time on typewriters that were invincible. The chances ARE astronomically small, even if you changed "Hamlet" to "See Spot Run." Sorry to sound like even MORE of a dork, but I just had to respond! Julie Herrick (Smithie) -- "I never exaggerate. I just remember big."- Chi Chi Rogdriguez - -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 1998 02:40:19 GMT From: lesystemed@aol.com (LeSystemeD) Subject: Re: An ounce of gratitude In article <19981213015048.7684.rocketmail@send206.yahoomail.com>, Juliette wrote: >glad beyond belief that exams are over (especially that Greek >history one! Oy.). :) Just remember that the Carthaginians...ooops, no, that's Roman...umh, that Ilion was Turkish and their taffy was what kept Helen in Paris; she couldn't stand the damned taffy, so spent her time in France. Menelaus was pre-menstrual, and the House of Atreus had a big mortgage. Regards, Steve ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 1998 02:40:21 GMT From: lesystemed@aol.com (LeSystemeD) Subject: Re: Indie Tape In article <19981212.173913.-286917.0.petit_chou@juno.com>, petit_chou@juno.com wrote: >But you know what? I can say in full honesty that I continued >this thread in a humorous vain, and I am saddened that you seem unable >to >understand my kind of humor. It's nopt a matter of failing to understand your humor. Rather it's a matter of your humor failing to register as humor where it counts. Spamming is not an uncommon thing on the net. This guy does not deserve it, in spite of your jejune analysis. You may have been humorous, but the original poster was not. Don't patronize me, and I won't patronize you, ok? Regards, Steve ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 02:41:39 GMT From: "valerie jones" Subject: Re: NE Weather (was: Re: either/or) LeSystemeD wrote in message <19981212161421.12925.00000658@ngol04.aol.com>... > > >In article <74i03f$lr8$1@excalibur.flash.net>, "valerie wrote: > >> or whatnot > >This proves, if nothing else does, Valerie's Baltimorean credentials! > >Regards, >Steve Hey dere hon! What are youse tryina say bout Bawlmer anyways? :) And speaking of Bawlmer, anyone watching Jay Leno last week is aware that my historic town is #1 on the country's list of most cases of gonorrhea! I'm so damn proud. An old-fashioned STD for an old-fashioned town. ("And we do have great crabs . . . but they're *hard crabs*." -- Kurt Schmoke, Mayor of Bawlmer, on the Leno show) Valree, hon :) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 03:18:51 GMT From: winnecke@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Finally ... a photo gallery! In article <74svnn$11o$1@winter.news.rcn.net>, "KatieWow" wrote: > actually, lori, the only way to get to your page is to go to > http://members.aol.com/srm9988n/index.html Thank you so much for noting that! I tried to get to the page directly from her link, and in desperation I almost felt impelled to accept the rest of the AOL cookies that were being thrown at me because I was being told that the server couldn't be found! Julie Herrick (Smithie) - -- "I never exaggerate. I just remember big."-Chi Chi Rodriguez - -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 03:08:16 GMT From: nicole.the.wonder.nerd.is@ana.ng.at.tmbg.org (Nicole the Wonder Nerd) Subject: Re: California Dreamline In article <36702618.5193@passport.ca>, Moxy says... > >Attention LA Frufans! > >We have a California date on January 7, 1999 at The Roxy in Los Angeles! >... >Thur Jan 7 Los Angeles, CA The Roxy Hail Californians! (Hail to the rest of you, too, but this is primarily for them. Us. Whatever.) A couple of questions: When does the show start (doors, opener, Fruvous)? How long is the drive from LAX to the Roxy? From Burbank Int'l to the Roxy? Please take traffic into account. Thanks in advance. - --nicole twn - -- "It's up to you now if you sink or swim--just keep the faith that your ship will come in!"--Great Big Sea Visit Nicolopolis! http://wwwcsif.cs.ucdavis.edu/~carlsonn Reply-to address is modified to escape the spammers... sorry for the inconvenience. spam trap: postmaster@localhost admin@localhost abuse@localhost root@localhost ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 22:16:02 -0500 From: Chris Ault Subject: HELP! Check your caches! Well, folks, I have a sad story to tell. For some reason, my web site has disappeared into the blue. My ISP can't figure it out. And unfortunately, my hard drive failed (again!) and none of my Website files are on my computer anymore. So, as it stands, Spidey the Fun-Licker's Moxy Früvous Page is no longer in existence. Perhaps in the future it will be rebuilt. But for that I need your help. Please, please, please examine your caches and saved files for any remaining scraps of my once-great neo-Roman empire. And as always, keep sending submissions for the site, and it may one day again be a reality and no longer a colorful memory of days gone by. - -Chris spideythefun-licker@usa.net ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 1998 03:58:43 GMT From: gordonlew@aol.com (GordonLew) Subject: A Fruvous Christmas Carol I wish you a Moxy Christmas; I wish you a Moxy Christmas. I wish you a Moxy Christmas, And a Fruvous New Year. Feanole ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 03:53:39 GMT From: winnecke@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Pondering > kevin@mail.research-inc.com () wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 16:45:38 -0500, KatieWow wrote: > >the best ever though-- > >"alright brain, but can you wear the tutu this time?" > "I think so brain, but will the pope do that for $100?" Hmmm, where have I seen this before? Julie Herrick (Smithie) - ---------------------- "I never exaggerate. I just remember big." -Chi Chi Rodriguez - -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 1998 04:06:11 GMT From: gordonlew@aol.com (GordonLew) Subject: Moxy Chanukkah song. I had a little Moxy I bought their tape today, And when its on the tapedeck Then Moxy I will play. Moxy Moxy Moxy I bought their tape today Moxy Moxy Moxy Moxy I will play. ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V2 #118 ********************************************