From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #320 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, December 1 2001 Volume 05 : Number 320 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: his point [frute_pie@hotmail.com (Molly Hathire)] Re: his point [SugarFly26@aol.com] Re: jian and other musician/celebrities [SugarFly26@aol.com] Re: jian and other musician/celebrities ["Chris K @*_*@" ] Re: his point [Lori Martin ] whoops, wrong FAQ URL :) [Lori Martin ] Re: whoops, wrong FAQ URL :) ["Chris K @*_*@" ] Re: jian and other musician/celebrities [SugarFly26@aol.com] Re: jian and other musician/celebrities [SugarFly26@aol.com] Re: jian and other musician/celebrities ["Chris K @*_*@" ] Re: An antiwar question ["A.J. LoCicero" ] Re: ...my point. ["A.J. LoCicero" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 1 Dec 2001 04:40:37 -0800 From: frute_pie@hotmail.com (Molly Hathire) Subject: Re: his point Lori Martin wrote in message news:<3C07B71F.44B2C2F2@xpnonline.net>... okay Lori you accuse me of bad etiquette on this group. that is the least of my worries, but I'll return to it at the end, because its the least important of my arguments. Angela and Eric's opinions offend me and make me angry and I make no apologies for displaying that anger. it would be hypocritical of me not to show that. if I write a polite response to Angela and Eric then that's a lie, cos I don't feel any duty to be polite to either of them. if someone makes me angry then I don't see why they shouldn't know that. stating that someone, anyone, is not human is not an error of logic, is not an acceptable starting point in a debate, is not a post-modern element the truth of which is merely a social construct. it is wrong, blind and offensive. and that needs saying. i don't wanna stifle Eric. I wanna know exactly why he thinks it appropriate to be offended by Jian's opinions but not to walk out of the show, not to even go see Jian after the show and discuss it (cos I think that Jian would have welcomed and accepted that), but to post sniffy comments on an internet group that Jian probably doesn't read weeks after the event. does that show courage in convictions? no, it doesn't. and that needs saying. you seem to be happy to accuse americans as a generality of not being able to spell 'taleban' or even 'taliban' on Sep 10 or pinpoint Afghanistan on a map. well I'm happy to accuse Eric of that specifically. I insulted (justifiably) one person; you insulted (justifiably?) a whole nation. I don't believe Eric could pinpoint Lebannon on a map and he certainly knows nothing about the US involvement in the Lebannon if he thinks (as he seems to) that all US foreign policy is benign. do i need to list all of the third world countries that the US has bombed since 1945? do I need to tell you the (much smaller) list how many of those operations were successful? do I need to say Somalia? do I need to point out that you, I and Eric are all sitting in front of computers made by third world workers on piss poor wages, educated enough to build computers but not enough to use them? you know that; you're involved in free trade organisations. Eric doesn't seem to know that. that's ignorance. and that needs saying. and I'm not just american bashing. you and I know that america puts the most money in the world into third world aid, for which many are grateful. and that, Ln (sorry -- don't know your name) is the alternative. you can go into a foreign country with a stick or you can go in with a carrot. history shows that only carrots work long term. I'm angry cos I need to be. and really Lori I think you are too. so why not drop the mask and show it? I've just finished reading No Logo by Naomi Klein (apologies if you've read it; I'm not trying to be patronising and say I'm better read than you). In it Klien asks why american universities and schools became completely taken over by branding megacorps in the space of a decade, when everyone (except the ad men) opposed it. Klein says it was cos the liberals who should have opposed it were too busy arguing political correctness this and debating identity politics that and completely missed the big picture. if you're angry about the US in Afghanistan, but too busy being polite and liberal and not angry enough to display that to others, then I think we're in danger of spending our time arguing the semantics of 'the Taleban are not human' and missing the big picture here too. there is opposition to this war as this list shows, from virulent opposition, through careful argument to weary resignation. i make no apologies for being virulently opposed. and i make no apologies for showing that. but where is the media representation of that (at least) considerable minority who question this war? its not there and I wanna know why. where is the media representation of the foreign opinion who question this war? this is, in one sense at least, a world war. i'll argue polite issues in a polite way. I'll argue serious issues that make me angry in an angry way. and if you wanna allow me to be really pretentious i'll quote dylan thomas and tell you that I'm going to rage, rage, rage against the dying of the light. and I don't really care who sees me do it. finally, you accuse me of stifling dissent here. I promise you I'm not. I wanna argue with the Erics of this world. i never explicitly told anyone to shut up and keep their opinions to themselves and i wouldn't. you, however, have just explictly suggested that my behaviour is not acceptable and I should modify it. are there rules on this newsgroup? your rules? welcome to the Blessed of Order of the Self Righteous Pots and Kettles. long may we argue. :) Molly ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 08:46:24 EST From: SugarFly26@aol.com Subject: Re: his point Molly said: <> I think a large part of this debate was on what has worked long term, and that something close to an agreement has us saying that nothing has really worked long term because of this component to foreign policy or that, and that is what we as a nation need to be able to realize. First, to say Oh my God...We were wrong. And then fix things we fucked up royally, especially in people's lives we may or may not have had justifiable moral reason to be in. <> No. More like little codelets. :) There's a difference between being angry and arguing angry with strong points, etc. than arguing and presuming to know someone based on something you disagree with and taking scathing shots at them, which sometimes don't even have to do with the initial argument. Personally, Christine's post about Jian and other celebrities just pissed me off incredibly. Off to respond. :) Ln (which is my name:) Pronounced Ellen.) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 09:06:54 EST From: SugarFly26@aol.com Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities <> To some extent, I see where that feeling comes from. If you were, say, a volunteer firefighter in New York City that day, and you really didn't want to help out for whatever reason, you'd would probably get something remarkably like hate displayed toward you. There are some things that people are expected to do, and I think in the case of celebrities they are not as inextricably woven to it as the firefighter, but if they want to make a statement that's a good thing provided they are really serious about what they advocating. <> There were several benefit concerts. I don't oppose them. I'm an artist, and for me, playing music can seriously be a big step in getting over grief, anger, etc. If it is for any of them, and they want to help out, then why not? <> Yes, just as equally as I care what Lori or Molly or even you think. <> No. But that doesn't mean you can't respect his opinion and try to understand where it's coming from. <> Yes, but I find it much more productive if I know the other person's side. My big debate with Lori here has been very helpful. I haven't changed my stance on the bombing, so we still disagree, but we've found there are many spots we agree on as weak points of the US, etc. Disagreements can lead to finding other spots of agreement, and in some cases bringing up points that hadn't crossed your mind. <> I would be willing to make a guess that he hasn't forgotten that. And from the sound of it, the people who disagreed with him were in the minority. If you'd like his shows to be just songs and that's it, that's your view. Personally, one of the reasons I enjoy Fruvous shows so much is because of audience interaction, and because they have opinions, and are willing to share them with us. Don't underestimate the courage that takes, to share your opinion (particularly if you think it might be unpopular) to a crowd of people, some who you know, some you don't. If it bothers you, don't listen. If it bothers you too much, leave. <> Um, excuse me. If you're referring to my post, *I* was waiting for what Jian had to say throughout *reading his article.* *I* give a fuck about his opinions (and other people's) because I'm not sitting around arrogantly thinking my opinion is the only right one, and I've come to appreciate the fact that this person voices a lot of interesting ideas, often in ways I hadn't thought of. It was far from keeping me up at night, but being part of a newsgroup for a band he's in, reading an article he wrote, going to a website of his, and discussing current events in several other places IRL, I personally wondered what he had to say. <> > Fuck off. It's too early to deal with people assuming they know the thoughts and motivations of the rest of the world. Ln ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 17:55:02 GMT From: "Chris K @*_*@" Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities SugarFly26@aol.com wrote: *snip* >Fuck off. It's too early to deal with people assuming they >know the thoughts >and motivations of the rest of the world. Hey Ln! Thanks so much! That's the first time in the 4 years I've posted on this NG that someone told me to 'Fuck off.' That completely made my day! You should be proud. :D That last statement is such a great addition to the thread. It shows that you also have an opinion and do not like someone else posting theirs. So, in the end, you tell them to 'Fuck off' and basically keep their opinions to themselves. Bravo! Christine. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 18:02:38 GMT From: "Chris K @*_*@" Subject: Re: his point SugarFly26@aol.com wrote: *snip* >Personally, Christine's post about Jian and other celebrities >just pissed me >off incredibly. Off to respond. :) Thanks Ln! I feel so *in* with the close-knit Fruvous NG community now that I'm getting flamed on the NG! :D I'm sorry but I don't put Jian and other celebrities on a pedestal like others do. Christine. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 13:03:15 -0500 From: Lori Martin Subject: Re: his point Molly Hathire wrote: > Angela and Eric's opinions offend me and make me angry and I make no > apologies for displaying that anger. it would be hypocritical of me > not to show that. Absolutely. > if I write a polite response to Angela and Eric then > that's a lie, cos I don't feel any duty to be polite to either of > them. if someone makes me angry then I don't see why they shouldn't > know that. And when someone makes me angry they know it as well. I don't see any need to demean them however; that only adds to the carnage. > stating that someone, anyone, is not human is not an error of logic, > is not an acceptable starting point in a debate, is not a post-modern > element the truth of which is merely a social construct. it is wrong, > blind and offensive. and that needs saying. Then perhaps you could have said exactly that, or something similarly calm and unsnippy, not: > it like (sic) sorta sounds like (sic) you deserve being deeply offended. would you care to like (sic) change your argument? which does nothing to explicate your own point and gratuitously insults Angela's intelligence. She didn't throw garbage words into her post; you paraphrased them in what I can only imagine was an attempt to portray her as not just someone you disagree with, but an airhead. Maybe I was too generous with Angela, but I let her words slide and substituted for them what I thought was her intent: The Taliban's *behavior* and *policy* has been inhuman. I agree with that completely. Much as I agree that a lot of the US' behavior internationally has been inhuman. That doesn't mean I as an American, or George W. Bush or Donald Rumsfeld for that matter, are not human, and that doesn't mean Mullah Mohammed Omar or Osama bin Laden isn't human. It does mean that we're all, directly or indirectly, part of political and economic machinations that strip us of individuality -- and of our higher natures. I am part of the corporate-military-industrial complex. I loathe that, because yes, it DOES dehumanize me. And you. > i don't wanna stifle Eric. I wanna know exactly why he thinks it > appropriate to be offended by Jian's opinions but not to walk out of > the show, not to even go see Jian after the show and discuss it (cos I > think that Jian would have welcomed and accepted that), but to post > sniffy comments I didn't see his comments as particularly sniffy, but that's just me. > on an internet group that Jian probably doesn't read > weeks after the event. does that show courage in convictions? no, it > doesn't. and that needs saying. hmm. Or maybe it's just something he's been kicking around in his head for awhile, trying to come to terms with it, and now the opportunity came up to express it and he did. Not everyone makes snap decisions to spew forth on their passion at a moment's notice. Thank goodness; otherwise imagine what the US would have done by circa 10 am on Sept 11. > you seem to be happy to accuse americans as a generality of not being > able to spell 'taleban' or even 'taliban' on Sep 10 or pinpoint > Afghanistan on a map. well I'm happy to accuse Eric of that > specifically. I insulted (justifiably) one person; you insulted > (justifiably?) a whole nation. I don't believe Eric could pinpoint > Lebannon on a map and he certainly knows nothing about the US > involvement in the Lebannon if he thinks (as he seems to) that all US > foreign policy is benign. You believe. Big question there. You didn't ask him specifically before you took him to task on Lebanon (or Northern Ireland). I otoh could cite reams of data to back up my position that Americans as an aggregate (although obviously not all individuals) are clueless on international geopolitical matters. It does intrigue me that you're spelling "Taleban" in the European way, but that's hardly the first time I've seen it so. > you know that; you're involved in free trade organisations. Eric > doesn't seem to know that. that's ignorance. and that needs saying. And do you prefer to try to educate this supposed ignorance, or simply insult it so that won't bother listening to you? It seems like the latter. > I'm angry cos I need to be. and really Lori I think you are too. so > why not drop the mask and show it? I'm not wearing a mask. I'm angry and showing it. But I'm not angry at Eric and Angela for piping up with their views, wrong or not, and I'm not going to scapegoat them for what is wrong here. I'm going to focus my anger on the political reasons for Sept 11, on the atrocity and futility of papering over it with bombing run , and on the myriad (but mostly corporate) reasons the American people *as an aggregate* still don't really have a fucking clue why anyone would act against us in such a way. > there is opposition to this war as this list shows, from virulent > opposition, through careful argument to weary resignation. i make no > apologies for being virulently opposed. and i make no apologies for > showing that. But it seems to me you're verbally attacking the wrong people. It's as if you're screaming at Pakistani citizens for believing their press who claim the WTC and Pentagon attacks were an Israeli plot, instead of calling the press to task. > but where is the media representation of that (at least) > considerable minority who question this war? On the internet. And in the alternative press, which unfortunately tends not to be a daily outlet, but there's always MotherJones.com. Or you could try European news sources, which you've probably already done. > that make me angry in an angry way. and if you wanna allow me to be > really pretentious i'll quote dylan thomas and tell you that I'm going > to rage, rage, rage against the dying of the light. and I don't really > care who sees me do it. Fine. Rage away, girlfriend. Just watch out for your own collateral damage. I think that's what Eric and Angela are here. > finally, you accuse me of stifling dissent here. I promise you I'm > not. I wanna argue with the Erics of this world. i never explicitly > told anyone to shut up and keep their opinions to themselves and i > wouldn't. ahem: > > leave Jian's opinions to those of us who > > think that the richest country in the world bombing the poorest is > > morally objectionable; those of us who know that extreme terrorism > > breeds in poverty and that the price of solving that poverty is about > > the same as the price of one cruise missile. let us have our say. that comes pretty damn close. ;) > you, however, have just explictly suggested that my > behaviour is not acceptable and I should modify it. I didn't say you should leave this discussion to those of us who could be civil to each other. I do however think your scorched-earth tactics are unlikely to convince anyone you have points worth considering. They'll just filter you out when they get tired of the vitriol -- especially when the vitriol is directed at people who've actually posted and made reasoned arguments before this thread. Ever hear of the School of Making Friends And Influencing People? ;) > are there rules on > this newsgroup? your rules? RTF. ;) http://www.fruvous.com/FAQ > welcome to the Blessed of Order of the > Self Righteous Pots and Kettles. long may we argue. :) And how! I've been a member for a long time. Leos tend to be. (Oh dear. Now it's revealed that Ln's a Capricorn and I'm a Leo. Next thing you know we'll need a separate thread for astrology. ;) ) Speaking of Ln, I'll get back to her post later. First, a road trip for Susan Werner and Erin McKeown. Yee-ha! - -- Lori ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 13:10:09 -0500 From: Lori Martin Subject: whoops, wrong FAQ URL :) In a reply to subject: his point I wrote: > RTF. ;) http://www.fruvous.com/FAQ Instead try http://www.fruvous.com/news/FAQ.html - -- Lori ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 18:27:14 GMT From: "Chris K @*_*@" Subject: Re: whoops, wrong FAQ URL :) hey lori, no caps girl. ;) http://www.fruvous.com/news/faq.html Christine. Lori Martin wrote: > > In a reply to subject: his point > > I wrote: > > > RTF. ;) http://www.fruvous.com/FAQ > > Instead try http://www.fruvous.com/news/FAQ.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 14:00:57 EST From: SugarFly26@aol.com Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities <> No. It shows that you were trying to make others feel less than yourself in your initial post and assumed that because I'm curious as to what Jian thinks I have no ideas of my own. But it was a very nice troll post on your part. Not to basically keep your opinion to yourself, but don't expect everyone to roll over when you're taking shots with more sarcasm and less actual point than is warranted. Ln ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 14:02:50 EST From: SugarFly26@aol.com Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities <> No problem. Any time. And by the way, I completely appreciate you ignoring the rest of the valid points I tried to make earlier in the post, which you only felt deserved a for a mention. Ln ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 19:06:51 GMT From: "Chris K @*_*@" Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities SugarFly26@aol.com wrote: > No problem. Any time. And by the way, I completely > appreciate you ignoring > the rest of the valid points I tried to make earlier > in the post, which you > only felt deserved a for a mention. No, I felt it was "too early to deal" with them. Christine. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 19:17:43 GMT From: "Chris K @*_*@" Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities SugarFly26@aol.com wrote: > No. It shows that you were trying to make others feel less > than yourself in > your initial post and assumed that because I'm curious > as to what Jian thinks > I have no ideas of my own. But it was a very nice troll > post on your part. Who said I was trolling? This idea of "what jian thinks" has been going on since September 11 with the posting board on the web page and then rolling over to here. Stop thinking I'm singling you out because I'm not - you're not the first person to come up with that thought and post it. Scroll back to the earlier posts on the web page and see how many others posted that and expanded on it. > Not to basically keep your opinion to yourself, but don't > expect everyone to > roll over when you're taking shots with more sarcasm and > less actual point than is warranted. I have seen sarcasm in every post since whenever this NG started with different topics. Should we start the thread of 'jian scents' or 'sexonastick.jpg' again? Lori, wanna start it? ;) Who misses the good ol' days with Chad's sarcastic posts and advertisements? Christine. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 14:11:18 EST From: SugarFly26@aol.com Subject: Re: his point <> Considering your first post that I saw to this particular thread was basically attacking me for wondering what Jian thinks and taking his opinions/article seriously, how would you expect me not to flame you? (Perhaps I missed some other posts, I'm sure I don't get them all, and if so, I apologize.) <> I don't either. But there's a vast difference between putting someone on a pedestal/idolizing them as a marble statue, or admiring/respecting someone who has talents you appreciate and respecting their opinions, while understanding that they are a flesh and blood person. Ln ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 15:09:42 -0500 From: "Nathan Werner" Subject: Re: his point "Molly Hathire" wrote in message > ...with a stick or you can > go in with a carrot. history shows that only carrots work long term. Wise words. Might they apply elsewhere? Nathan Werner wernerna_at_msu_dot_edu ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 04:17:51 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: Re: An antiwar question Molly Hathire wrote: > > SugarFly26@aol.com wrote in message news:<89.f9aa01c.29385d78@aol.com>... > > > In Jian's article, I didn't really notice any suggestion of what alternative > > he would support. I kept waiting for one, perhaps I missed it? I'd be very > > curious. Up until now, following through Fruvous, I've agreed with nearly all > > his political views about issues I had knowledge of both sides on. Apparently > > not this one, and I'd be curious to know his alternative and reasoning. Did > > he perhaps go into it more at a show that someone was at, and could tell me > > about? Thanks. > > i can't speak for Jian, but here are two points: > > 1. no-one has convinced me that the 'war on terrorism' will solve the > problem, if the problem is America being attacked. in fact the more we > bomb, the more we alienate, the more we allow killing and the more we > participate in the killing then the more reason we give alineated > people whose families are killed to get in trucks full of explosives > and drive them into american bases. that isn't hypothesis, it happened > in Lebannon (for Eric, Lebannon is a country in the Middle East). it > will probably happen in Afghanistan. it will probably happen in > America. It didn't happen in Korea, it didn't happen in Germany, it didn't happen in Japan, it didn't happen in Italy. Why are you so sure? > why is there peace (of a sort) in northern ireland? (northern ireland, > Eric: northern bit of island to the west of britain, europe.) because > the opposing parties started talking to one another, making > concessions to one another and stopped thinking that each other were > inhuman. or was it because the American airforce bombed the crap out > of the protestants, herded them into a prison camp and stood by while > the catholics slaughtered them? And Britain has used no force at all in the last 80 to defend itself there? I'm all for dialog. What is happening in Germany is dialog. The Taliban weren't interested in listening, though. Only talking, and only as a way of buying time for themselves. If they believed in talk they wouldn't have banned radios and TVs. > 2. if you find something morally offensive, it is not up to you to > suggest an alternative. if I see someone beating a dog (even a dog > that has biten them) I ask them to stop. And if they STILL won't stop, you bloody well stop them. That is what we are doing now. - -- "I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport."--G.W. Bush, Arlington VA, Oct. 2, 2001. Email:aj@locicero.org ICQ: 13117113 AIM: locicero For some of the best Long Distance and Calling Card rates around visit http://www.ld.net/?sensible. Cheap rates and *I* get a commission! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 04:08:55 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: Re: ...my point. Lori Martin wrote: > > Eric wrote: > > > Nathan, > > How do you propose that we bring Osama bin Laden and the rest of his Al- > > Qaeda network to justice if not through violence? Did George W. Bush not > > say prior to the invasion that we might be able to avoid an invasion if the > > Taliban handed over bin Laden? Gee, that didn't work, what a surprise. The > > Taliban is not interesting in adhering to any international laws or > > treaties; I think that is obvious. > > I'm not Nathan, but I'll ask anyway: is it? > > They offered to hand over bin Laden to third-party courts if we ceased bombing. > That wasn't good enough for the Bush administration to consider, much less make > a counter-offer. Counter-offer????? Lori, with those people, you are going to negotiate?? What are you talking about? The taliban have violated human rights right and left, they supported terrorists who attacked the US. They wanted non-muslims to wear patches on their clothing for god sakes. They are intolerant in the extreme. Their existence is an affront to civilization in my opinion. YES, we have dealt with and even supported many awful regimes in the past, but does that mean we should continue to do so? The fact is that in this case we actually had a choice, and we had the ability, for once, without starting world war III, to get rid of some awful awful people. And you want to negotiate for Osama to be handed over to a 3rd party???? They were stalling for time, that is all. This war was necessary. There was no reason whatever to give them more time to prepare. In fact I was worried for a while there that the taliban would actually give us Osama and then we wouldn't have been able politically to get rid of them and Al Qaida. > Yes, maybe they were stalling. Yes, maybe they wanted to hand him over to a > "third party" like Libya or Syria that would be unlikely to restrain him much > less punish him. BUT ... > > Did anyone at the White House or Pentagon even take into consideration that it > is one of the highest cultural values within various Afghan tribes to protect a > guest with one's life if necessary? Yes you can bet they did. The people Bush has in place are bastards, but unlike him, they aren't stupid. > While the Taliban, in the opinion of many, > does not represent true Afghan culture, clearly they could only lose further > credibility and control within their own country had they delivered one of their > own "honored guests" on *ultimatum* -- not negotiation or diplomacy -- to a body > clearly inimical to that guest and likely to pursue his death. What we have learned is that exactly the opposite is true. In fact most Afghans view Osama and the other "Foreign Taliban" not as guests, but as invaders. We will be lucky to get our hands on the guy in one piece. THEY will more than likely kill him on sight. It is partly because of his support that the Taliban were able to run their reign of terror. > Don't ignore, either, that in the minds of many in the middle east and Asia > there is little evidence that bin Laden had anything to do with Sept 11. So are we supposed to act based on the opinions of those on the other side of the world who do not share our culture or values? We convinced our allies, and a bunch of other countries. Evidence continues to mount. Nobody anywhere has offered a credible alternate theory. I'm sorry. That is good enough for me. > Their > own media are spinning the story in much the same way CNN and the networks are > spinning it here. And make no mistake about it our media ARE > spinning it, with personalities and bad guys and rumours (also called > "unconfirmed reports"). Furthermore, whether any media, US or Pakistani or > British or Russian, is telling the story accurately, without editorialising or > selectively editing, isn't nearly as relevant as the buzz the coverage generates > among the public. The news media always spins the story. You have to listen critically. I do listen critically. I STILL think we needed to defend ourselves in this case. You haven't offered me anything like a decent alternative yet. A.J. - -- "I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport."--G.W. Bush, Arlington VA, Oct. 2, 2001. Email:aj@locicero.org ICQ: 13117113 AIM: locicero For some of the best Long Distance and Calling Card rates around visit http://www.ld.net/?sensible. Cheap rates and *I* get a commission! ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #320 ********************************************