From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #330 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 8 2001 Volume 05 : Number 330 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: his point [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: his point [lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org] Re: jian and other musician/celebrities/his point [lightman@thwip.polyamo] Re: his point [mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth)] Re: jian and other musician/celebrities/his point ["donna hunt" ] Re: his point [mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 7 Dec 2001 21:19:27 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: his point > My pleasure. Or perhaps I was just electing myself spokesman for reasonable > human beings. Ah yes, yet another person who thinks that they have a monopoly on reasonable thinking. [snip] > No, it's not. Perhaps we should cut these people in third world countries > off completely, so that instead of living in poverty, they die of > starvation? It's called capitalism. I recommend you try it. Please tell me one government on the planet that actually practices capitalism? Yea, I didn't think so. > >It seems to me to be a rather sad state of affairs when this once > >brave newsgroup of entertaining radicals is reduced to leaden > >McCarthyite attempts to out socialists. > > Hey, watch it -- I did not attempt to out her, or to silence her, and am > quite offended that you would suggest that. I just want her to own up to > her own politics so that everyone on this newsgroup will know exactly who > they are dealing with. Isn't that fair? If it pleases you, I will tell you > that I am an ardent Libertarian. That would explain a lot of things. And who cares if Molly is a socialist or not. Does it really make that much of a difference? > Truth be told, I don't think that Molly really is a socialist. I just > thought it might interest her to know what type of propaganda she was > spewing. I am pretty certain that molly knows exactly what she is saying. And I am fairly certain that what she is saying isn't taken for "propaganda", but I suppose that is just a biproduct of our liberal educations, where we've been brainwashed, eh? > >Now, seeing as you're so clever and eloquent, Eric, maybe you could > >explain to him where the justice is in that, and I'll pass your > >message on to him. > > Sure. If his country doesn't want to listen to the IMF, then it shouldn't > take its money. I hope you are able to see my brevity as eloquency. I take it for ignorance or worse, callousness. But I won't get into it, because I have had these arguments before and I really have no stomach for it. > Oh, and by the way, a majority of the voters in the United States did not > vote for George W. Bush, but he won the election -- and even the most > conclusive studies have now shown that. If you can't accept this, then I > would guess that you don't understand how the American presidential election > system works. I would recommend reviewing your comments, and taking back > your potshot at American democracy. What gave you the strange impression that we lived under a democracy? Last time I checked the US was a republic. We elect representitives and those representitives vote for us in our stead. Beyond that, we do not really directly elect our president, the electoral college could have, and very might well have elected Gore or Mickey Mouse (although many states now have laws which require electors to vote for the choice of the majority of the vote of the state they're supposed to represent). Perhaps you might want to review the electoral system in the US. Unless you want to start calling our republic, the "american democracy". > >Just stating that Taleban are evil and hate the US out of spite or > >jealousy is rather too simplistic I'm afraid Eric. People hate for a > >reason, and what I'm hoping you may realise is that there are some > >reasons out there that can be dealt with without the need for cruise > >missiles. > > Or is it? The Taliban considers the United States "the great Satan." Why? > Because, among other things, they hate our freedoms. I'm really interested > to hear why you think why al-Qaida and the Taliban hate us. And how do you > propose we deal with the situation if not by missiles? What I'm hoping you > may realize is that some reasons can *only* be dealt with by cruise > missiles. I have a clue for you, most of the arab world looks to the US as the great Satan. Why, because they hate our hypocracy and our devotion to the almighty dollar. Something, that being a libertarian you should be able to understand. They hate us because we pretend to promote democracy (our hypocracy) but instead fund evil military rulers (like Saddam Hussein), fanatics in Afghanistan, corrupt regimes in Saudi Arabia,etc, and of course, being less than equitable in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Oh yes, and they hate our freedoms. Lets not forget our support of a military dictator in Pakistan, something we should be proud of too. Land of the free, light of democracy for the entire world. Of course, you're not interested in hearing why they hate us, because that might actually take some thought and it might actually involve having to right what would be considered wrong. So, maybe dropping a few cruise missles will stop *this* taleban regime from blowing up another WTC, what stops the next regime? Hmm? Bombing will do little if we do nothing to "fix" the problems that exist in the areas that allowed this sentiment to fester. And how do we fix those problems? WE FIGURE OUT WHY THEY HATE US. Something you obviously don't care about, because, cruise missles solve this problem. So, perhaps you have a better way of stopping the next al-Qiada? You know the next regime that won't be running planes into buildings but will be wearing nuclear backpacks or walzing into our country with small pox? Hmmm? "wild" Bill ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 2001 02:03:44 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point Hey, I'm confused, because I think that my news server is having propogation problems. In any case, to defend my argument -- which wasn't really an argument, but more of an example... I did not say that "argument A leads to argument B" or "if you believe A, then you must believe B." I was not trying to connect the two arguments, but rather point out that they follow the same logic. In essence, I suppose that I was saying "believing A is just as bad as believing B" -- in an attempt to point out to the people that believe A the sort of logic they have engaged in. I hope this makes some degree of sense. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 2001 02:31:58 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point OK, I think that this is the post I want to respond to. >Molly said calling people not human is morally offensive (statement A) She did? If so, I never responded to this argument. Statement A should be, as said by Molly (although not to me), "you advocate the killing of the Taleban and therefore you deny their right to life. by your own argument you are inhuman." It was this to which I posted my first response. >Eric said Molly believes that killing the Taleban and civilians is >morally equivalent (statement B) Right. The quote from Molly is above. She is therefore, in my opinion -- and of course, she can clarify her own words if she would like -- putting the killers of the Taliban and the killers of civilians on the same moral ground, as they are both "inhuman." >Eric then said that if you believe statement B then you must believe >sex and rape to be equivalent (statement C). Now this I never said. Here is the quote by me: "Do you really believe that these acts, although perhaps achieving the same end result (the loss in human life), are they same? Are rape and making love consentually the same, since the end result of both is sexual intercourse?" I do not imply that you "must believe" anything -- but rather propose a question for your consideration. >Statement B clearly implies statement C, no-one denies that. Statement >B however clearly has nothing to do with statement A. And seeing as >Eric later went on to accuse Molly of setting up straw man arguments, >one might be tempted to charge Eric with mild hypocrisy. Unless of >course Eric wants to explain the logical step from statement A to B, >but I'd much rather he spend his time deciding whether to say yes or >no to the inequity question. I think that this is all based on the assumption that I ever responded or based an argument on your supposed statement A, but I seriously can not find where I did. I now notice that the first time you accused me of this, I let it slip through because I didn't realize that you had put words in my mouth. I could very well be wrong about this, but I have searched high and low and simply do not understand what you are talking about. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 2001 02:45:54 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) wrote in <9b12aec3.0112072119.27449054@posting.google.com>: >Ah yes, yet another person who thinks that they have a monopoly on >reasonable thinking. Don't you think the same of yourself? Come on, there's nothing wrong with a little sarcastic arrogance. >Please tell me one government on the planet that actually practices >capitalism? Yea, I didn't think so. Maybe none practice true capitalism, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't consider the United States to be capitalistic. If you would like to debase me for this technicality, I understand. >That would explain a lot of things. And who cares if Molly is a >socialist or not. Does it really make that much of a difference? I think it would save us (or at least me) a lot of time. >I am pretty certain that molly knows exactly what she is saying. And >I am fairly certain that what she is saying isn't taken for >"propaganda", but I suppose that is just a biproduct of our liberal >educations, where we've been brainwashed, eh? Well, you're entitled to your opinion. >I take it for ignorance or worse, callousness. But I won't get into >it, because I have had these arguments before and I really have no >stomach for it. Again, you're entitled to your opinion. >What gave you the strange impression that we lived under a democracy? You're very right about this. I am very aware that we live in a republic, and I guess was thrown off by Richard's statement: "pressure from the world bank and the IMF to move to a more 'American form of democracy'" I suppose I was trying to defend our "form of democracy," which, as you state, is a republic. My apologies for my mistake. [snip] >So, perhaps you have a better way of >stopping the next al-Qiada? As I have previously stated, I do not by any means support most of the United States' foreign policy. But I nonetheless feel the need to distinguish between correct arguments and inane ones. I don't have a better way of stopping the next al-Qaida, do you? And do you think that the next al-Qaida will not exist if we stop supporting this regime or that regime? Do you think that Sept. 11 would not have happened if we hadn't conducting this foreign policy or that one? Hell, we even supported the Taliban, and they still allowed this attack to take place under their auspices -- do you really believe that it was our foreign policy that angered them? In the meantime, I think that it is a good strategy and policy to eliminate current threats against our country and citizens. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 2001 02:47:59 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities/his point lynne@zeal.net (lynne) wrote in : >Since you are wondering... I think that I share some beliefs. That >makes me comfortable. I share a lot of beliefs with Jian and with some >people on this list. I dunno if we are right, but it makes me feel good >to know that others are thinking along the same lines. Well, you're certainly not "right"! (please please please get the pun and don't take this the wrong way!!) - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 2001 05:34:57 -0800 From: mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth) Subject: Re: his point lightman(at)tmbg.org (Eric) wrote in message news:... > The IMF does not force anyone to do anything. Eric sugarplum, I'm trying to keep this lovely and polite, because I'm a lovely and polite person. So you must take it in highest spirit of international co-operation and communication when I feel it my bounden duty to tell you as politely as possible that your opinions are spectacularly naive. Eric, dear, your opinions are spectacularly naive. Third world countries need to trade with the outside world to survive and god knows, even prosper. The IMF and WTO will not allow that trade unless economic regimes are put in place that are not *as* laisse faire as the first world's regimes, but *more* laisse faire than the first world's. Third world countries have two choices: starve or comply with subsistence. Why do you believe that economic coercion is any more equitable than military coercion? Basically you're saying that the rest of the world can do what ever it wants, but if it doesn't do what we tell them then they can starve. My forefathers told your forefathers that the colonies could do whatever they want, but if they didn't do what they were told they'd get shot. Equal morality. Different means. My forefathers wanted to bring the God of Christ to the rest of the world. We want to bring the God of money to the rest of the world. Equal morality. Different justification. We the west are the new empire, America leads it and America has become what it was set up to oppose; the antithesis of itself. And it doesn't even know it. Amazing. Congratulations. > would have to abide by. It should not be expected that countries go giving > away money to other countries without any guarantee of stability, progress, > etc. The need for some more facts arises. The economic regimes that the IMF puts in place do not ensure stability, progress or even etc. Most of the countries had a boost on the injection of western capital and the building of mass sweatshops to build western consumer goods. After that the currencies of those countries quickly collapsed -- mostly because the money brought in by the sweatshops quickly vanished when the western companies moved the sweatshops rapidly onto to any other third world countries that they could find with cheaper labour. So since western intervention, for example, the economies of Thailand, South Korea, the Phillipines and Indonesia have gone straight down the pan, leaving those countries economically in a worse state than when they started. And with a huge debt burden to western banks which they can't even finance the interest payments of, never mind repay. So not only are your morals colonial, but your economics are rather suspect too Eric, sweetheart. > It is not the responsibility of the United States or any other country > to give charity money to the rest of the world. No, its not our responsibility. Its our duty. Mine. Yours. > Regardless (in responding to your argument that the IMF represents > inequitable foreign policy by the United States), it should be noted that > the IMF is not owned by the United States and, furthermore, the head of the > IMF has traditionally been a European. So? I've followed Molly's example and kept this as far as possible away from US policy bashing and looked to the bigger picture of western policy bashing. As I said elsewhere the US was probably attacked as a totem of western imperialism. If London was seen as that totem (as it used to be) then my country would probably have been attacked on 11th September. And just to clear up another couple of points: I do think it funny that you describe my stating facts about last year's US election as taking a potshot. If the statement of facts implies a potshot, what does that tell you about your electoral system. Hmm? Take a potshot at my electoral system if you want; its a right load of old pants, but at least I know it and actively campaign to change it. As I child of the 80s I was amazed and moved to see the American and Soviet leaders talking and shaking hands in the late 80s. I never thought I'd live to see the day. I also never thought I'd live to see the day when the Russian and American presidents shook hands, and only the Russian was elected by a majority of his citizens. What strange times we live in. Also the verb to `out': I meant it in the sense of, for example, `outing a transvestite' or similar, so you can calm down a bit about that and not tell me to `watch it'. Apologies if my alternative sexuality lingo confuses you. You should hang out with more gay people, do some bench presses, slip into a dress perhaps, pretend you're a girl occasionally, loosen up a bit -- do you good. I passed your message on to my student from Ghana and his reply was `Fucking typical. Well you can tell him that he's an arrogant ignorant arsehole from me.' How impolite, but in such a nice accent. So, finally, you want things specific to the US foreign policy? How about this, from those happy people you'll probably try and label as communists and revolutionaries at ? In the past fifty years there have been two direct foreign attacks on US soil: Pearl Harbour (death toll 2400) and the WTC (death toll 3-4000). Assignment: List direct American military intervention on other nations' soil from World War II to the present day. Do not include: indirect military involvement such as arms sales, however significant (e.g. Israel); nuclear threats or nuclear testing (e.g. Marshall Islands); establishment of controversial bases or defense systems (e.g. Western Europe, Saudi Arabia); humanitarian missions that did not involve combat; or the geopolitical impacts of military treaty development, acceptance or rejection. Discuss. WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Fought Axis forces for three years; first nuclear war, against Japan. GREECE 1947-49 Supports and directs extreme right in civil war. PHILIPPINES 1948-54 CIA directs war against leftist Huk Rebellion. PUERTO RICO 1950 Nationalist insurrection challenges American occupation; US command operation puts down rebellion. KOREAN WAR 1950-53 Joins South Korea and other allies to fight China and North Korea. IRAN 1953 CIA directs overthrow of elected left-leaning government, installs Shah. GUATEMALA 1954 CIA directs exile invasion and overthrow of leftist government; military junta installed. LEBANON 1958 US occupation ends under UN Observer Group. VIETNAM WAR 1960-75 Fought South Vietnam rebels and North Vietnam forces; 1-2 million killed. CUBA 1961 CIA-directed "Bay of Pigs" invasion. LAOS 1962 Green Berets active in training, military buildup, support of rightist forces during guerrilla war. PANAMA 1964 Control of Panama Canal Zone challenged; rioting against US forces. INDONESIA 1965 Army coup assisted to an unknown degree by CIA; left-leaning elected government toppled; between 250,000 to 1,000,000 lives lost. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops invade during election as pre-emptive action against leftist rebellion or communist government. GUATEMALA 1966-67 Command operation; Green Berets aid in combat against leftist rebels. CAMBODIA 1969-75 War against leftist forces; intense bombing; up to 2 million killed. OMAN 1970 US directs Iranian invasion in support of Omani government against Marxist "Dhufar rebellion." LAOS 1971-73 US directs South Vietnamese invasion. CHILE 1973 CIA-backed coup ousts elected leftist president; rightist dictator installed. ANGOLA 1976-92 CIA assists South African-backed rebels. EL SALVADOR 1981-92 Advisors aid government forces against leftist rebels. NICARAGUA 1981-90 US directs guerrilla exile invasion ("Contra war") against revolutionary government; US forces plant mines. LEBANON 1982-84 Marines help police negotiated evacuation of Palestine Liberation Organization; US forces combat Muslim and Syrian fighters in support of Christian government. HONDURAS 1983-89 Military bases established for US-backed "Contra war" with Nicaragua. GRENADA 1983-84 US troops topple pro-Cuban government. LIBYA 1986 Air strikes against nationalist government with terrorist links. BOLIVIA 1986 Operation Blast Furnace; US troops and Bolivian police face peasant resistance in cocaine-producing regions. IRAN 1987-88 Intervention on side of Iraq in war against Iran. U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops restore order after civil unrest spurred by Hurricane Hugo. PHILIPPINES 1989 Armed US aircraft support constitutional government against failed coup. PANAMA 1989-90 Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 US soldiers; more than 2,000 people killed. GULF WAR 1990- Operation Desert Storm drives Iraq out of Kuwait; 200,000+ killed. No-fly zone ongoing; periodic bombing. SOMALIA 1992-94 US-led United Nations occupation during civil war. YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 US troops in NATO operation to enforce sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro. BOSNIA 1993-95 Operation Deny Flight patrols civil war no-fly zone; air combat, Serbs bombed. HAITI 1994-96 Troops restore elected leftist president to office threeyears after coup. CROATIA 1995 American and NATO forces attack Bosnian Serb airfields prior to Croatian offensive. SUDAN 1998 Pharmaceutical factory with terrorist links bombed; retaliation for terrorist attacks on US embassies in Africa. AFGHANISTAN 1998 Bombing of Islamic fundamentalist military camps; retaliation for terrorist attacks on US embassies in Africa. YUGOSLAVIA 1999 US aircraft play the key role in heavy NATO air strikes against Serbian forces in Kosovo. COLOMBIA 2000 Special Forces train anti-narcotics and anti-rebel battalions, supply combat aircraft. MACEDONIA 2001 US forces in NATO's Operation Essential Harvest partially disarm Albanian rebels. AFGHANISTAN 2001 In retaliation for terrorist attacks in US, forces oust Afghanistan's Taliban government, attack bases linked to Islamic militant Osama bin Laden. - -- Richard ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 10:20:55 -0500 From: "donna hunt" Subject: Re: jian and other musician/celebrities/his point "lynne" wrote in message news:cbe1b58d.0112071838.65c49d44@posting.google.com... > Jian's a pretty decent person. Chrissie would I be >misinterpretting the use of the word f*ck as anger? I'm >pretty positive that Jian has no desire to alienate his >fans. *snip* > Keep in mind, as was pointed out to me, that the piece >was written by a Canadian, in a Canadian paper for a >largely Canadain audience. (Not just for fruvous or jian >fans) Maybe I'm too optimistic but would it be such a > bad thing if the canadians ho Canadian ho? Who's expressing a little anger now? Geez! I'm shocked! Of course, it's probably not the first time jian was called a ho on this newsgroup. ciao, donna Yeah, yeah... I'm kidding. Lecture me on the pointlessness of joking about a typo later. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 11:17:59 -0500 From: Marie-Claude Danis Subject: Re: Following the road... Phiiiiiiiiiiiil! > "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" Soundtrack Excellent choice. - -- Marie-Claude http://verticalcrawl.com http://fangy.net "It's from the crotch rabbits." - Alex ------------------------------ Date: 8 Dec 2001 08:34:25 -0800 From: mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth) Subject: Re: his point lightman(at)tmbg.org (Eric) wrote in message news:... > >That would explain a lot of things. And who cares if Molly is a > >socialist or not. Does it really make that much of a difference? > > I think it would save us (or at least me) a lot of time. Here's another little clue to add to your burgeoning collection Eric. This is a newsgroup to discuss Moxy Fruvous. Now, heaven forfend that I would want to be accused of speaking on behalf of the band, (because I've seen some of the arguments that has caused in the past, and phew! I've never seen Bill type such insults) but I sort of get the impression that they are somewhat left wing and a teensy bit liberal. And so I would assume that at least one or two of the people on this group share those convictions to a certain extent. So, if I were you, until you find out otherwise, I'd assume you're talking to people who are somewhat left wing and a teensy bit liberal. Even AJ. And every time I've seen Fruvous I've heard them express opinions that are somewhat left wing and a teensy bit liberal, and the one who usually does that is none other than Jian. So next time you go to see him, don't be surprised, eh? > I do not by any means support most of the > United States' foreign policy. Why not? Don't tell me, after all this, that you actually do find it inequitable? Gosh, wouldn't that have been a waste of all our time? > I don't have a better way of stopping the next al-Qaida, do you? Yep. What you do is look at history and say to yourself `what causes terrorism?' and you look at the rise of the Nazi party through the desperate poverty of Germany in the 1930s. And you look at Northern Ireland and you see the inequities between the treatment of Catholics and Protestants there and you notice that all the most revolting bits of sectarian hatred takes place in the slums of Belfast, not the richer more privileged areas. And you look at the quality of life of the average Palestinian and you look at the quality of life of the average Isreali. And you look at the injustice felt by Pakistanis who received huge amounts of funding when it suited the US during the cold war and then none after. And you think to yourself: poverty and inequity causes hate. And hate festers and breeds and all it takes is someone charismatic to come along and focus that hate somewhere, anywhere, and you get terrorism. And if that leader is a Saudi millionaire and trained by the CIA, so much the more dangerous. So you deal with the poverty and you deal with the inequity. You pay the person who makes the disk drive in your computer more than 87c per hour, for starters. Then you stop selling arms to dictators or anyone with bad human rights records. And you only support `freedom fighters' if they have demonstrable commitments to implementing democracies if they win out. Then you organise your domestic policies around the possibly that you may be prey to terror attacks, so people can't walk onto planes armed, like they can't here. And you reinforce the glass in your public buildings, like NY did in the weeks after the WTC. Like London did 20 years ago. > Do you think that Sept. 11 would not have happened > if we hadn't conducting this foreign policy or that one? Yes. Yes. And yes again. > In the meantime, I think that it is a good strategy and policy to eliminate > current threats against our country and citizens. The IRA have been bombing the city I live in for thirty years. They bombed it three times this summer. I can't count the number of bomb scares that have shut down Oxford Street while I've been trying to do my shopping. The IRA predominantly gets its funding from the US. Can I launch cruise missiles at `Irish' theme pubs in Boston and Chicago then? Richard ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V5 #330 ********************************************