From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #251 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 Saturday, September 15 2001 Volume 05 : Number 251 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Fwd: A TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES [LilacGirl1002@aol.com] Re: Fwd: A TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES [Lori Martin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:57:15 EDT From: LilacGirl1002@aol.com Subject: Fwd: A TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES In a message dated 9/13/01 4:33:54 PM US Eastern Standard Time, kmcdfan@optonline.net writes: << > Thank you Chad, and also Amanda, for exposing this "expression of support" as a > recycled and outdated piece that has nothing to do with current events. > > -- > Lori >> Maybe it is from the 70's. Who cares? Is what it says any less true? Does the American people by way of the officials they elect not try to do good deeds internationally, and dont we get burned for it almost every single time. Maybe we should take this as a lesson in keeping our noses out of other people's business. But maybe that is just an equal or worse sin. Sure, the people we aid will take our money, our volunteers, our supplies, our time, but then they call us names and try to make fools out of us. If we stopped sharing what we have though, that's a shame, it's a terribly cynical way to look at life. By no means is our government clean, and because it's not clean neither are we. But one has to believe that the people in charge are generally not a morally reprehensible bunch. If reading something from the 70s that is still true today makes someone feel better, make someone proud, then by all means let them use it. There's all kinds of examples like this floating around that are even older than this essay, so oh, the Bible, et al. So come on... if you didnt like it... delete and move on. Don't say it doesnt have relevance. Betsy... Return-Path: Received: from rly-xa02.mx.aol.com (rly-xa02.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.71]) by air-xa04.mail.aol.com (v80.17) with ESMTP id MAILINXA46-0913173353; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:33:53 -0400 Received: from smoe.org (jane.smoe.org [66.89.201.78]) by rly-xa02.mx.aol.com (v80.21) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXA22-0913173345; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:33:45 -0400 Received: from smoe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16) with ESMTP id f8DLWLv1013330; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:32:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16/submit) with SMTP id f8DLWKZ7013329; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:32:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by smoe.org (bulk_mailer v1.10); Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:32:19 -0400 Received: from smoe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16) with ESMTP id f8DLWHv1013315 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:32:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16/submit) id f8DLWG6f013311 for ammf-outgoing; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:32:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thwip.polyamory.org (thwip.polyamory.org [64.28.85.50]) by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16) with ESMTP id f8DLWBv1013299 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:32:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by thwip.polyamory.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 5E13D12E1B; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:32:05 -0400 (EDT) To: ammf@fruvous.com Path: news.shore.net!feedme.ziplink.net!newsie2.cent.net!netnews.com!fee d2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!usenetserve r.com!news01.optonline.net!news02.optonline.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Reply-To: "Ben" From: "Ben" Newsgroups: alt.music.moxy-fruvous References: <3BA0A4DD.68DC3B58@xpnonline.net> <3BA104B6.118C326B@pobox.com> <3BA11A4C.F21D0187@xpnonline.net> Subject: Re: Fwd: A TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES Lines: 20 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:10:54 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.44.231.131 X-Trace: news02.optonline.net 1000415454 24.44.231.131 (Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:10:54 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:10:54 EDT Organization: Optimum Online Xref: news.shore.net alt.music.moxy-fruvous:39909 Sender: owner-ammf@fruvous.com Precedence: bulk X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, as I read Amanda's full version of the article here, I see it was written in the 70s... I think that radio station is broken. I'll have to call them and tell them they got the date wrong, it wasn't made in 1965. "Lori Martin" wrote in message news:3BA11A4C.F21D0187@xpnonline.net... > Chad Maloney wrote: > > > The article is from the 1970's from when the U.S. was pulling out of > > Vietnam I believe. Mr. Sinclair has been dead for quite some time. > > Thank you Chad, and also Amanda, for exposing this "expression of support" as a > recycled and outdated piece that has nothing to do with current events. > > -- > Lori ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:38:31 -0400 From: Lori Martin Subject: Re: Fwd: A TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES LilacGirl1002@aol.com wrote: > Maybe it is from the 70's. Who cares? Is what it says any less true? > If reading something from the 70s that is still > true today makes someone feel better, make someone proud, then by all means > let them use it. There's all kinds of examples like this floating around > that are even older than this essay, so oh, the Bible, et al. > So come on... if you didnt like it... delete and move on. Don't say it > doesnt have relevance. Betsy, I'm not saying the selected American good acts, or sometimes indiscriminate America-bashing, that Mr. Sinclair cites don't have relevance. What I'm saying is that whoever dug up and edited this piece, then circulated it sans URL or date, presenting it as recent commentary, is dishonest and manipulating our emotions. It should not be circulated without appropriate full-context attribution. In the interest of fuller context, let me add that through conversations with older Canadian friends who remember Mr. Sinclair's work I have learned enough to safely say that Mr. Sinclair's full ideology likely would make most Fruheads blanch. This man was indeed a parallel of Limbaugh, Buchanan and other ideological extremists who fan the flames of combativeness and divisiveness. The comment about the draft dodgers and his contemptuous attitude toward non-North-American nations gives him away. Maybe in the edited version he appears to have nailed a few isolated instances of unjustified America-bashing. But remember, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. It doesn't mean it's a good tool to rely on, or advise others to count on as well. Peace, - -- Lori ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 17:12:51 -0500 From: Chad Maloney Subject: Re: Fwd: A TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES LilacGirl1002@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 9/13/01 4:33:54 PM US Eastern Standard Time, > kmcdfan@optonline.net writes: > > << > Thank you Chad, and also Amanda, for exposing this "expression of > support" > as a > > recycled and outdated piece that has nothing to do with current events. > > > > -- > > Lori >> > > Maybe it is from the 70's. Heh. There's no maybe involved. It's IS from the 70's. > Who cares? Is what it says any less true? Yes? Or no? I really don't know. Mostly because I haven't done the research to back up whether or not what some commentator said in 1973 is still true right now. I don't have the means or the will to research it. > Does > the American people by way of the officials they elect not try to do good > deeds internationally, and dont we get burned for it almost every single > time. I assume that's a question. And it's a question I don't know the answer to. I don't think I can rightfully count us involvement in Vietnam as a "good deed". I don't know much about our involve in the middle east, but I'd guess that not everything done is a "good deed", unless you count protecting US oil interests as a good deed. But when we do donate money or relief funds, send workers or educators or medicines or whatever, we get burned "almost every single time"? I didn't know that. What counts as getting burned? > Maybe we should take this as a lesson in keeping our noses out of > other people's business. You know, this is EXACTLY the point of a lot of people in other counties around the world who are trying to fight their own wars and work up their own history, only to see the other side supplied with arms or troops by counties half way around the world. > Sure, the people we aid will take our money, our volunteers, our supplies, > our time, but then they call us names and try to make fools out of us. If we > stopped sharing what we have though, that's a shame, it's a terribly cynical > way to look at life. Examples! Examples Please! We sanction places. We put embargos on places. Isn't that nothing more than "stopping sharing what we have"? I'm confused here. Maybe every time we sanction or embargo someone, it's for the most altruistic reasons possible I guess. > By no means is our government clean, and because it's not clean neither are > we. But one has to believe that the people in charge are generally not a > morally reprehensible bunch. If reading something from the 70s that is still > true today makes someone feel better, make someone proud, then by all means > let them use it. Just because something makes you feel good and proud and a bit trodden upon when you read it doesn't make it true at all, you know? I understand that everyone is trying to use whatever they can to band together and stay strong, but really there are much better things to rally around than an old piece written by some commentator. I sure hope people don't take things George Will says as gospel either. > There's all kinds of examples like this floating around > that are even older than this essay, so oh, the Bible, et al. You just compared a short radio speech from a Canadian commentator that has filtered around the internet for years, has been touched up, and modified to fit different situations with no references or whatnot to the Bible. Come to think of it, that applies to the Bible too if you take out the internet part *grin* > So come on... if you didnt like it... delete and move on. Don't say it > doesnt have relevance. It just doesn't sit right with me. False relevance created through the internet isn't the kind relevance that makes me feel better I guess. Heh. I wonder how inappropriate all that sounded. Oh well. I'm sorry if I rained on anyones patriotism parade at a bad time. Maybe now isn't the time for examples. But to me, it's always time for being rational. Ironically, I'm pretty proud of my country for the most part, even if this whole thing sounds like I'm a horribly evil person. Oh well again! Lori's reply is a lot better than mine. I don't know if I'm looking for discussion here or not. I guess I am. I know there are many many people more knowledgeable than I on US foreign policy past and present. - Chad ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 21:43:43 -0500 (CDT) From: Lynne Subject: Fwd: A TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES (fwd) Lilacgirl Are you aware of the unbelieveable amount of support the rest of the world is giving to the US? - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:57:15 EDT From: LilacGirl1002@aol.com To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Newsgroups: alt.music.moxy-fruvous Subject: Fwd: A TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES In a message dated 9/13/01 4:33:54 PM US Eastern Standard Time, kmcdfan@optonline.net writes: << > Thank you Chad, and also Amanda, for exposing this "expression of support" as a > recycled and outdated piece that has nothing to do with current events. > > -- > Lori >> Maybe it is from the 70's. Who cares? Is what it says any less true? Does the American people by way of the officials they elect not try to do good deeds internationally, and dont we get burned for it almost every single time. Maybe we should take this as a lesson in keeping our noses out of other people's business. But maybe that is just an equal or worse sin. Sure, the people we aid will take our money, our volunteers, our supplies, our time, but then they call us names and try to make fools out of us. If we stopped sharing what we have though, that's a shame, it's a terribly cynical way to look at life. By no means is our government clean, and because it's not clean neither are we. But one has to believe that the people in charge are generally not a morally reprehensible bunch. If reading something from the 70s that is still true today makes someone feel better, make someone proud, then by all means let them use it. There's all kinds of examples like this floating around that are even older than this essay, so oh, the Bible, et al. So come on... if you didnt like it... delete and move on. Don't say it doesnt have relevance. Betsy... Return-Path: Received: from rly-xa02.mx.aol.com (rly-xa02.mail.aol.com [172.20.105.71]) by air-xa04.mail.aol.com (v80.17) with ESMTP id MAILINXA46-0913173353; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:33:53 -0400 Received: from smoe.org (jane.smoe.org [66.89.201.78]) by rly-xa02.mx.aol.com (v80.21) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINXA22-0913173345; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:33:45 -0400 Received: from smoe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16) with ESMTP id f8DLWLv1013330; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:32:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16/submit) with SMTP id f8DLWKZ7013329; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:32:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: by smoe.org (bulk_mailer v1.10); Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:32:19 -0400 Received: from smoe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16) with ESMTP id f8DLWHv1013315 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:32:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16/submit) id f8DLWG6f013311 for ammf-outgoing; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:32:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from thwip.polyamory.org (thwip.polyamory.org [64.28.85.50]) by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16) with ESMTP id f8DLWBv1013299 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:32:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: by thwip.polyamory.org (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 5E13D12E1B; Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:32:05 -0400 (EDT) To: ammf@fruvous.com Path: news.shore.net!feedme.ziplink.net!newsie2.cent.net!netnews.com!fee d2.onemain.com!feed1.onemain.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!usenetserve r.com!news01.optonline.net!news02.optonline.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Reply-To: "Ben" From: "Ben" Newsgroups: alt.music.moxy-fruvous References: <3BA0A4DD.68DC3B58@xpnonline.net> <3BA104B6.118C326B@pobox.com> <3BA11A4C.F21D0187@xpnonline.net> Subject: Re: Fwd: A TRIBUTE TO THE UNITED STATES Lines: 20 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 21:10:54 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.44.231.131 X-Trace: news02.optonline.net 1000415454 24.44.231.131 (Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:10:54 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:10:54 EDT Organization: Optimum Online Xref: news.shore.net alt.music.moxy-fruvous:39909 Sender: owner-ammf@fruvous.com Precedence: bulk X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, as I read Amanda's full version of the article here, I see it was written in the 70s... I think that radio station is broken. I'll have to call them and tell them they got the date wrong, it wasn't made in 1965. "Lori Martin" wrote in message news:3BA11A4C.F21D0187@xpnonline.net... > Chad Maloney wrote: > > > The article is from the 1970's from when the U.S. was pulling out of > > Vietnam I believe. Mr. Sinclair has been dead for quite some time. > > Thank you Chad, and also Amanda, for exposing this "expression of support" as a > recycled and outdated piece that has nothing to do with current events. > > -- > Lori ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #251 ********************************************