From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V6 #7 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 Monday, January 7 2002 Volume 06 : Number 007 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: his point [darlene88@yahoo.com (Jen Meyers)] 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: his point [Kath Maheux ] Joey Jeremiah's point [Kath Maheux ] Re: his point [cfegrl@yahoo.com (Cookie)] Re: Joey Jeremiah's point ["Chris K @*_*@" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 6 Jan 2002 22:11:32 -0800 From: darlene88@yahoo.com (Jen Meyers) Subject: Re: his point "Chris K @*_*@" wrote in message news:<3C38EC65.DD507A5B@ehmail.com>... > Jen Meyers wrote: > > > I did have a test today. That wasn't bull. It's on European socialism. > > I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not European, I don't plan on > > being European, so who gives a crap if they're socialist? They could > > be fascist anarchists - that still wouldn't change the fact that I > > don't own a car. Not that I condone fascism, or any ism for that > > matter. Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe > > in an ism - he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon: "I > > don't believe in Beatles - I just believe in me". A good point there. > > Of course, he was the Walrus. I could be the Walrus - I'd still have > > to bum rides off of people. > > > > jen > > Holy Sh*t!!! > > Jen = Ferris Bueller!!!! > > And I thought she was one of the students at > Degrassi! > > She still has the hots for Joey Jeremiah, I know > it. hell ya!! even now when he's ancient and bald, he's still the ultimate Zit. whee! jen :) ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 2002 01:36:24 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth) wrote in <3af38f41.0201020350.189a6604@posting.google.com>: >I assume you mean the US constitution. Yes. In my country, Constitution (i.e., the capitalized "Constitution") refers to the US one. >Anyway, nope. Not good enough. All your other posts describe the >process of the US electoral system, not the product. Process >notwithstanding, the product of the US electoral system is a candidate >delivered to office who received less votes than another candidate. >AND a turnout of a pathetic 51%. Wrong. What is important is the electoral votes, of which George W. Bush received the majority. This is the law, this is the process, and it achieved the desired result. I am sorry if you are blind to that. Our election system delivers the result of the majority of votes of the states, not of the individual citizens of the country. Likewise, the president is a representative of the union of states. I am sorry if you lack a fundamental understanding of the United States' federal election system. >How do you justify the *PRODUCT* of an electoral system which delivers >the second most popular candidate to power? Like I said, George W. Bush was the second-most popular candidate amongst the states. It therefore only makes sense that he is their representative. >Rubbish. Switzerland is a much easier target for Islamic terrorists >(who are mostly based in Europe apparently). In the UNDP's Human >Development Report the US, Iceland and Switzerland were all in the top >10% ranking of which countries had the highest `human development >index' which relates fairly closely to standard of living. > >(US came 6th, Iceland 7th, Switzerland 11th out of 168. Interestingly >Norway was first and Canada 3rd. >) > >Facts, Eric. Garbage. The Expat Forum ranks the 'cost of living' (closely related to the 'standard of living') in the United States (100) far below Switzerland (167) (Iceland is unranked). I tried letting the UNDP report load for about an hour and it didn't get past the second page so I could investigate it for myself. The best I could pull up with the HDI report. You might notice that the United States has the highest GDP per capita, with the exception of Luxembourg. Other than that, it seems the report seems to take into account things such as life expectency, education, adult literacy and life expectancy. I think that these factors were relatively minor when Osama bin Laden decided which country to attack. >And again we hit the nub. This whole argument revolves around your >contention that the US's influence in the world is benign. Which it is >not. Sep 11th did not happen because (your words) `The Taliban >considers the United States "the great Satan." Why? Because, among >other things, they hate our freedoms.' It's funny how you try to defend Osama bin Laden against things that he himself said! >People hate the US because of their inequitable and screamingly >hypocritical foreign policies. You asked for examples of inequitable >foreign policy, which have been supplied, and alternatives. I didn't see how they were inequitable or how the alternatives would be effective. You spewed nothing. Rather, you provided *hypothesis*. >My evidence is Northern Ireland where peace was brought by >negotiation. My evidence is that all the British policy from 1968 - >1995 sought to counter the IRA by military means. That not only did >not bring peace, but it made the cycle of violence worse by offering >the IRA martyrs and entrenching the loyalist beliefs that the >republicans were a bunch of murdering madmen. And negotiation only comes about when you have a partner for peace. Do you believe that in, 1968, the IRA was prepared to sit down at a table and seriously talk about peace? The Israelis made the foolish assumption that Yasser Arafat wanted to make peace with them and signed the Oslo Accords. They gave him autonomy and even weapons and in return received a piece of paper. Needless to say, almost every agreement was violated, and Arafat continues to violate agreements -- even up until this past week when the Israelis thankfully seized a PA owned and operated ship with 50 tons of war-grade weapons aboard. But I suppose all of this is hypothesis, right? >Total rubbish again. The US will not liquidate by military means the >terrorists cells that intend to harm them. The terrorist cells are all >over the world, in the most unlikely places, planning I should think >very surprising forms of attack. That's true; the United States will not be able to liquidate every terrorist. However, they will send a clear message to terrorists that it's not worth their while to attempt to terrorize the United States. Deterrents are effective. >Let's give you another chance to offer evidence over hypothesis: name >one terrorist conflict where the terrorists have been subdued by >military force alone. Sure. To jump back to my previous example, between 1996 and 1998, things in Israel were calm and life was normal (as normal as it gets there). That is because hard-line Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu made it very clear that his administration would not put up with terrorist attacks and would act harshly against perpetrators (as they did). It was not until the dovish Ehud Barak took over as Prime Minister that the intifada (called by some "The Oslo War") broke out. It is only now that PM Ariel Sharon is taking it upon himself and his administration to stop terrorism at its roots that it is finally beginning to settle down again. I don't see how you could make a clearer case than this. >And even if you can name one, for each one you name, I'll name ten >where countering military force made the situation much worse. That's because sometimes military operations are not carried out correctly. They're not measured, appropriate, and decisive (among other things). One "military situation" (or even ten) doesn't necessarily prove a point about military situations in general. >So why do all major faiths and philosophies promote charity and the >redistribution of wealth? Coincidence? Or because it leads to giving >individuals a sense of responsibility to the societies we live in, >improved cohesion of those societies and more equitable treatment of >all people? Because, in the eyes of those faiths and philosophies, charity is the right thing to do, and most people agree with that. Unfortunately, you will have to, at some point, realize that those faiths and philosophies are not representative of everyone on this planet. "Most people" is not "all people," and you will have to acknowledge the will of those people who are not "most people" to do what they like with their money and time, so long as it doesn't hurt others. >Oh Eric, that's total bollocks. People get paid 87c an hour, not >because they are unproductive, but because they live in countries with >zero labour laws. They work in so called `swallow factories' because >the factories, like swallows, move so fast, hopping from country to >country abusing the cheap labour force until the people start >organising unions, or threatening revolutions against the governments >that allow the abuses on their own citizens. > >How the hell can third world labour be `unproductive'? The majority of >our goods are made in the third world. The first world predominantly >does not produce anything material anymore: we make money selling >intangible services off the back of the goods made for us dirt cheap >in the third world. Oh my G-d, you are so wrong! Firstly, plenty of quality goods are made in the US (for example). My car was assembled here. Secondly, it's very easy to be "unproductive" -- it has to do with skills, labor base, work ethics, business models, specialization, etc. Thirdly, read an economics textbook! Or should I quote for you? Fine, I'll go upstairs and get it for you: On the issue of "cheap foreign labor: "But actually, the facts are not consistent with this story. For one thing, wages in industrialized countries that export to the United States have risen spectacularly in recent decades. [Table showing the increase between 1970 and 1997 of various countries.] "By 1997, labor costs in Seden, the Netherlands, western Germany, and Japan exceeded our own, and costs in France were about equal. Yet, American imports of Toyotas from Japan, Volkswagens from Germany, and Volvos from Sweden grew as wages in those countries rose relative to American wages. "By comparison, when European and Japanese wages were far below those in the United States in the 1950s, American industries had no trouble marketing our products abroad. In fact, the main problem then was to raise their imports up to the level of our bountiful exports. Ironically, our position in the international marketplace deteriorated as wage levels in Europe and Japan began to rise closer to our own. "Clearly, then, cheap foreign labor must not be a major obstacle to U.S. sales abroad, as a 'common sense' view of the matter suggests. In this chapter we see what is wrong with that view." And from later in the chapter: "Given the ... productive efficiency of American labor, and the inefficiency of Japanese labor, we would expect wages to be much higher in the United States. Indeed, they were unit recent years. ... "The principle of comparative advantage shows us that both fears are unjustified. As we have just seen, when trade is opened between Japan and the United States, workers in both countries will be able to earn higher real wages than before because of the increased productivity that comes about through specialization" (Chapter 14, _Macroeconomics_, Baumol & Blinder). You have to understand the principle of "comparative advantage," which you obviously don't. Some countries have a comparative advantage in labor, and others don't. I recommend you check out the rest of the chapter, and the rest of the book for that matter. As I previously stated, if you inflate the wages in a foreign market, you will raise the price of the good. It will then make it all the more easier for the domestic market to pick up the slack. Gee, and you say that you have to tell me everything three times! This isn't even something that is up for debate in the economic community; comparative advantage is a principle tenet of both micro and macroeconomics. >Please supply evidence for the above statement. Prior to the 1950s (with the exception of the Great Depression), the country was on a trend away from poverty. In 1962, governments on all levels in the United States spent $62 billion on social welfare and insurance programs. In 1991, $1,165 billion was spent. So you tell me, has the US government's social welfare program, despite all the money it has spent ($2.5 trillion over 30 years), done any good? Take a look around. >Government funding to charity ensures: > >1. Consistency of funding. Governments can provide long term funding >so that short term economic fluctuations do not have an adverse effect >on charity work. > >2. Equity of funding. Governments can ensure funding to low >visibility, or controversial, or in some ways unpopular charities, >like in this country medical research. > >3. Global strategies. Many problems addressed by charities are global >and need co-ordinated, long term efforts to deal with them, that are >beyond the scope of individual charities relying on individual >donations. All of these things were handled very well by private charities before the government got into the charity business. And what's more, they did it efficiently -- and without wasting tons of taxpayer money. The welfare system here is a mess. For example, when charity was private, if someone needed help, they could go to their local organization or church, and receive the help the needed not only to put immediate money in their pockets but to get them back on their feet. These organizations would monitor their dependents with the aim of eventually making it so that they wouldn't have to rely on charity, and instead become contributing members of society. It worked. Needless to say, the government's "fill out this form and get food stamps or child support" approach achieves the exact opposite -- it makes it so that people will stay at home and use the government's money, knowing that it will likely never go away as long as they continue to fill out the form. The only ones who ultimately benefit are the politicians. >No you haven't. Tell me which piece of evidence I supplied that's >weak. Don't just tell me its weak. Tell me what is weak and why. Sure. Your minimum wage argument. It has no basis, and it completely wrong. I could go through this thread and point out every single argument like this that you have made, but I've already spent way too much time on this. >And >supply actual real world evidence of why its weak, don't just counter >with your empty, untried theory of utopianised deregulated economics. I did (as in the example above). And you chose to discount what is proven, undisputed and logical as "weak." >You have asked for examples of inequitable US foreign policy. >Supplied. You asked for alternatives. Supplied. You have not countered >anything other than throw a completely untried and utopian economic >theory at those supplied facts. And I've countered your theory. All >you are doing now is trying to make out you're winning the argument >(without evidence, of course). Which you are not. You supplied me with what you thought was "inequitable," and I told you why I thought it wasn't. You supplied me with what you thought were "alternatives," and I told you why they're not. What you considered "untried and utopian" is actually textbook fact. You simply fail to understand that just because you think it does not make it so. Oh, and I so am winning this. Maybe not amongst the crowd in this newsgroup, but in reality.. yeah. >Certainly. In fact, here's two. > >> By the way: Pakistan -- oppressive dictatorial regime with nuclear >> weapons, currently supported by the western alliance. > >Well, America also considered allowing terrorist states such as >Lebanon and >Iran into their coalition. I never said I agree with everything the >US >government does. > >> You, of >> course, knew all about that, and vocally opposed it at the time I >> assume? > >I'm opposed to pretty much all of the United States' foreign policies How is this shuffling off? You seem to enjoy drawing loose associations between things that aren't necessarily related. >Eric, for once, will you please stop trying to make out that you speak >for the rest of this newsgroup? I wasn't speaking for the newsgroup. I was speaking for anyone with any knowledge of economics. >If I'm embarrassing myself, I'll get >people emailing me and telling me, and I'll get people posting here >and telling me. And, I have to tell you, that as of this moment I have >received no such communication. Thus I remain unembarassed. Post your economic thoughts to an economics newsgroup, and I'll pay you $1 for each day that goes by before you get an e-mail or follow-up. >How blind is that? You argue for its right to exist and operate. Fine. >It goes off and acts completely inequitably. Buts that's okay; Eric >doesn't care. Bully for Eric. The IMF is seen as a tool of >economically agressive western imperialism, but that's okay, you just >demand its right to exist. You don't care about what it actually does >while it exists. Crazy. Yes, crazy that people or organizations should be able to operate freely! Crazy freedom! You have truly shown me the faults of freedom! >No, nothing is your problem, is it Eric? (Other than being busy.) What >a bizarre fantasy you live in. I have plenty of problems. Thankfully, none of your problems are my problem. - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 2002 02:10:41 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point >I'm sad that you find this argument tiresome, and if I were Eric I'd >no doubt tell you that isn't my problem and suggest you find the off >switch of your computer, but I'm not Eric, so I wouldn't dream of it. It's true that this argument has become tiresome. That's why I (and apparently you, too) only check back to this newsgroup occasionally to see what the other says. Of course, if anyone else finds this argument tiresome, I wholeheartedly encourage them to filter out the thread or, if they'd prefer, to turn off their computers. >But you say that Eric and I are arguing from effectively our own set >of (equally valid) beliefs and its stalemate. I'm afraid that's not >the case. To put it simply, Richard, you are full of shit. I will explain: >Eric is arguing on the basis of his libertarian >*hypothesis*, whereas I am arguing on the basis of *empirical >evidence* of what effect globalised free markets have in the third >world. You have yet to offer a single piece (or related pieces) of evidence from which you have drawn a logical conclusion. You simply think that because you will it, it must be true. >I keep asking Eric for evidence, because I know he has none, >because libertarianism has never been tried out on a substantial >scale, so he can have no evidence for his theory. Actually, libertarianism is basically how the government of the United States operated up until the Civil War. And it worked. >Eric is obviously >never going to admit this, but I'm going to keep asking because then >Eric won't have to admit to this fact, it'll just be readily apparent >by his repeated failure to respond. Then the readers can draw their >own conclusions about the veracity of Eric's arguments. You are obviously never going to admit that you are wrong, and are just going to keep making baseless replies until you've sufficiently bored everyone on this newsgroup into filtering out the thread. >Eric has admitted that people hate America because they have got the >shitty end of America's stick. I don't think that I've ever said that. They might have gotten the shitty end of the stick, but I don't think it's America's stick. If anyone's, it's G-d's. >Eric apparently believes that there are >living breathing sentient people on this earth who are only worth 87c >an hour. I think that's dispicable and I'm going to say so. And you apparently think that everyone on this earth is born in the same environment with the same skills. I think that's ignorant and I'm going to say so. >Eric knows he is losing this argument and in his last post tried to >cover that by tiresomely slinging my accusations back at me. Right, because you never sling accusations at me. But I suppose you're allowed to sling accusations and I'm not, right? Of course that's right, Richard, because you're right about everything. >I'm >afraid I'm not going to let him tell me that I've shirked his >arguments in any way, because I haven't. You've shirked almost alll of them. When I disagree with your arguments and tell you why, it's unacceptable and theoretical. When you disagree with mine, it's empirical. Get real. And then there's the things that you just didn't reply to at all, pretending that they never existed. For example: "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." "How is threatening with murder and threatening with not giving aid of equal morality? Last time I checked, human beings have the undeniable right to not be murdered, but don't have the undeniable right to economic aid." "So perhaps what you are saying is that the American military has done an excellent job *preventing* attacks on their citizens over the years by preventive defensive operations." "This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard, and it shows your continued ignorance towards my beliefs. One of the main tenets of libertarian thought is to get the government out of giving handouts and cut taxes to give money back to the people, so that they can then give to their favorite charities, etc., where it can be put to the best use. Only then will people really be better off." ">And just to dispell that jarring note of agreement you introduced: who >pays for nationwide civil defense? Who are you planning on taxing for >it and by how much? My country's government, if it limits itself to its Constitutional responsibilities, will only cost about $100 billion per year. The excise taxes and tariffs that are already being collected here, which bring in over that cost, are more than sufficient." Shall I go on? >I'm not going to lie down no >matter how much Eric blusters at me and I rather suspect Bill isn't >going to either. Eric may think that he can win debates by bluster, >but he can't with me. And you apparently think you can! >Oh, and just another quick example: Eric asserted that third world >countries were better off because of IMF intervention, I countered >with *emprical evidence* of several third world countries that were >not, and then Eric moved the goal posts and claimed he didn't care >what the IMF did anyway. You're completely right. Both of those statements are true. I do think that people have the potential to be better off because of the IMF. You think that it's the IMF's fault that a country is in shambles, but fail to realize that the same leaders that sign shamble agreements with the IMF are the same leaders who would have otherwise made an even worse wreck of the country. I guess it's easy to make your arguments if you only want to see what you want. And yes, it's also true that I don't care what the IMF does. I don't see how these two things are related. I could likewise not care what you do, but still agree that you are better or worse off for having done it. >In exactly the same way as when confronted >with myriad evidence of inequitable western foreign policy, he shirked >and told us that he didn't agree with everything the US government >did. Actually, I said from the offset that I disagree with most of the US's foreign policies. I actually individually addressed each piece of "evidence" that you proposed. But I suppose you're not counting on people remembering that or checking up on it. Also, from the offset, you seem to continue to not understand the difference between disagreeing with something because WHY it is being done, and disagreeing with something because of its result. I think that the scrupulous readers of this thread picked up on the former long ago, yet you still improperly use the latter as a weapon against me. >That is the debating strategy of the rogue and rascal, and he's >not going to get away with that on any newsgroup I happen to be >involved in. The only thing that is "rogue and rascal" is you trying to put words in my mouth, trying to manipulate the facts, and continually trying to degrade my arguments by calling me names, accusing me of doing things I haven't done, and trying to cause so much message clutter that it confuses people into agreeing with you. Instead of trying to tell everyone what I say and how I say it, why not let them read my words for themselves and make their own decisions? Your debating strategy seems to be based on attacking me in an attempt to tell people not only what to think but also how to think. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but I do have a problem with you trying to manipulate people into doing so. >Not least because I think there may be impressionable >young people here who might be mistaking Eric's arguments for anything >that equates to reality. And I fear that there may be impressionable young people here who might be mistaking your social agenda for reality. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 2002 02:20:17 -0500 From: lightman@thwip.polyamory.org, tmbg.org@thwip.polyamory.org (at) (Eric) Subject: Re: his point mrsfillyjonk@hotmail.com (Richard Butterworth) wrote in <3af38f41.0201050331.39b6d070@posting.google.com>: >The difference is you see, whereas I naturally feel a sense of >responsibility to Eric, and therefore naturally want to help him to >lighten up a bit and slip into a dress occassionally, I am blocked >from doing so by the simple fact of geography. If Eric lived around >the corner I would be on his doorstep now with a couple of off the >shoulder numbers and something black velvet and swooshy for evening >wear. Mais non. And I'd be calling the police. I don't see why you continually feel the need to try to push your lifestlye on me, or even just use it as a piece of conversation. I don't try to push mine on you. >But on the other hand Eric has every opportunity to post humorous >things here that we can all read and all have a good hearty laugh >about. But no you see, speaking purely for myself of course, my ribs >remain untickled by anything Eric has said. But he doesn't care >because that's not his problem. The people who make the disk drive on >his computer get paid 87c per hour. He doesn't care, that's not his >problem. I do care. I care that they get paid a fair wage. A fair wage will be a wage at the equilibrium market level. If that level is 87c, then that's the fair wage. It seems that _you_ have a problem -- that you are unable to distinguish what exactly a "problem" consists of. >Eric has every opportunity to be humorous, but feels no responsibility >to do so. And you have every opportunity to find me humorous, but apparently feel no responsibility to do so. >Unfortunately I left my developmental psychology book at work, but I >do believe that the stage of moral development characterised by such >assertions as `I'm going to do such and such, and if you don't like it >that's your problem, not mine.' is stage four out of six. And indeed >many people never actually progress out of stage four into more mature >levels of moral development, but most inteligent people do and they >tend to do it at about the age of twelve or thirteen. > >I know that sounds like academic theory, but I do remember it being >based on extensive empirical tests and if you'll suffer waiting until >Monday I'll dig out the reference for anyone interested. Yeah, Karl Marx also had a theory about the progress of society. (Not another intentional blow to communism, just the best example I could come up with.) I am quite glad that the West never "moved on to the next stage." I believe that everyone should be allowed to live freely, in the way that they choose, being able to make their own decisions, so long as it does not impose on the liberties or freedoms of others. If I choose to spend my money buying candy, and you don't like that choice, I fail to see how that is my problem. - --Eric - -- lightman at wam dot umd dot edu http://www.his.com/lightman ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 09:01:37 GMT From: Kath Maheux Subject: Re: his point Jen Meyers wrote: >>Whoa, whoa, whoa. Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Paganism, nihilism, >>existentialism, need I continue? >> > > > I did have a test today. That wasn't bull. It's on European socialism. > I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not European, I don't plan on > being European, so who gives a crap if they're socialist? They could > be fascist anarchists - that still wouldn't change the fact that I > don't own a car. Not that I condone fascism, or any ism for that > matter. Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe > in an ism - he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon: "I > don't believe in Beatles - I just believe in me". A good point there. > Of course, he was the Walrus. I could be the Walrus - I'd still have > to bum rides off of people. See? This is why Jen rocks the big one. I would have thought of this, but I would never have taken the time to write it down, much less memorize it. I might now, though! Kath ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 09:05:38 GMT From: Kath Maheux Subject: Joey Jeremiah's point Jen Meyers wrote: > hell ya!! even now when he's ancient and bald, he's still the ultimate Zit. whee! Dood, have you seen him in that nutrition mini-infomercial (or whatever it is)? He's hilarious. Although if you still like Joey, I have a half-suggestion for you. See Jeepers Creepers. There's a dude in it who looks like Joey. But... well... if you care A LOT about Joey, maybe you shouldn't see Jeepers Creepers after all. ;) And thanks for the Zits earworm, by the way... my next six months of earworms are now spoken for. o/~ Everybody wants something, they'll never give up o/~ Or some lyric like that. Kath ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 2002 03:37:46 -0800 From: cfegrl@yahoo.com (Cookie) Subject: Re: his point darlene88@yahoo.com (Jen Meyers) wrote in message news:<86a11418.0201061626.37ef7947@posting.google.com>... >I quote John Lennon: "I > don't believe in Beatles - I just believe in me". A good point there. > Of course, he was the Walrus. Actually, the Walrus was Paul. ;) Cookie ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 17:30:31 GMT From: "Chris K @*_*@" Subject: Re: Joey Jeremiah's point Kath Maheux wrote: > And thanks for the Zits earworm, by the way... my next six months of > earworms are now spoken for. o/~ Everybody wants something, they'll > never give up o/~ > > Or some lyric like that. and I'm going to earworm you some more. :) http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/9/headboard.html scroll down until you see "Everybody wants Something" with all the degrassi references. :) Christine. ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V6 #7 ******************************************