From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V6 #8 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 Tuesday, January 8 2002 Volume 06 : Number 008 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: something totally innocuous [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] Re: his point [fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill)] Re: his point [darlene88@yahoo.com (Jen Meyers)] Re: Joey Jeremiah's point [darlene88@yahoo.com (Jen Meyers)] Re: something totally innocuous [Jordan McClure snuggywuggy Bill wrote: > > It's plainly obvious that Mother Nature is a tinkerer and not very > > serious about her work either. No consistancy, rain one day, snow the > > next, rain again, some sun. What is that? I'll tell you what it is, > > sloppy, random, crazy. If mother nature picked any kind of logical > > scheme, this whole weather prediction stuff would be a snap and you > > wouldn't need a professional like Jian to help you to determine > > whether or not it was cold. > > If Mother Nature is doing all this work, is she > getting paid for it? Sure she gets paid for it. She just gets paid fair market value for her work, which is about 87 cents on the dollar for the same job that father nature does. But that's not my problem, if mother nature doesn't like being paid that economy driven wage, thats not my problem. She has options. She can quit. She can start her own weather company. Economic forces dictate her salary, so again, I reiterate, not my problem. > What about Father Nature? What about father nature? > Does he just lay on his a$$ while Mother Nature > brings home the paycheck(cheque for you > foreigners). Of course not, father nature is the boss, the big cheese. He doesn't bother with the day to day happenings in the world, he's busy plotting out the weather futures and entertaining executives of companies that would like to use the biproducts of weather inc. Create snow? make it rain? Jeesh. "wild" Bill ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 2002 13:35:15 -0800 From: fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) Subject: Re: his point Eric wrote: > > Yes. In my country, Constitution (i.e., the capitalized "Constitution") > refers to the US one. Cause in the US, as George Bush says (paraphrased) "Americans come first, we'll do nothing to hurt our economy". > >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. Huh? What do you mean wrong? The result was that a candidate that received less than a majority of the votes was put into office AND the turnout was a pathetic 51% of the eligible voting population. What part of "process notwithstanding" did you not understand? The result of the election should make anyone that believes in democracy and fair elections sick. > 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. And as I have said in many follow on posts, this is an idiotic system that's only real benefit is making it more difficult to have successful third party candidates (oh and electing rich white southern people as pointed out in one of the articles in the weblinks I offer as suggestions for further reading material later in this post). And even your first statement is incorrect because a. there are states which do not require their electoral college representitives to vote with the majority population of the state they're supposed to represent and b. there are states which split their electoral votes based on the vote of the state (i.e. don't just vote on straight majority). Because I felt like it: according to http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/elctcoll/ States that have no requirement the electoral college vote the way the majority of the popular vote of their state: "No Legal Requirement. Electors in these States are not bound by State Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate: ARIZONA - 8 Electoral Votes ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes GEORGIA - 13 Electoral Votes IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes ILLINOIS - 22 Electoral Votes INDIANA - 12 Electoral Votes IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes KANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes KENTUCKY - 8 Electoral Votes LOUISIANA - 9 Electoral Votes MINNESOTA - 10 Electoral Votes MISSOURI - 11 Electoral Votes NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4 Electoral Votes NEW JERSEY - 15 Electoral Votes NEW YORK - 33 Electoral Votes NORTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes PENNSYLVANIA - 23 Electoral Votes RHODE ISLAND - 4 Electoral Votes SOUTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes TENNESSEE - 11 Electoral Votes TEXAS - 32 Electoral Votes UTAH - 5 Electoral Votes WEST VIRGINIA - 5 Electoral Votes" Don't you feel better? For more information about the relative unfairness of the electoral college, please point your browsers to: http://www.globalexchange.org/democracy/electoralCollege.html http://www.fairvote.org/ And I too am very sorry that Richard, a non-US citizen in London, lacks a fundimental understanding of the US election system. Because, as most people will point out, that having a basic understanding of the US election system is important to all peoples of all nations. Since as any good american will point out, it really doesn't matter how you get to an outcome, as long as you get to the outcome, that's what matters. Who cares if the election system is flawed, outdated and doesn't reflect the will of the people (just the will of rich, white, slave owners from the 1700s), we elected somebody! Its a success! All hail the thief! > >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. If GWB was the second most popular candidate amongst the states, he'd be sitting in his texas ranch right now, trying to figure out why all the days of the week end in a "y", like he should be. Instead, he through the support of the supreme court and subtle help of his brother suddenly became the first-most popular candidate of the states, thereby giving him an electoral college majority with no mandate, keys to the whitehouse and a pulpit to mangle the english language in ways that makes even myself cringe. "wild" Bill ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 2002 15:10:13 -0800 From: darlene88@yahoo.com (Jen Meyers) Subject: Re: his point > > 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. hehe, thanks kath! Actually though, i had to recite a monologue as part of my audition for a musical the other day so i search "movie monologues" and came up with this cool site that has lots of monologues from different movies and that was one i was thinking of doing.(1) And i posted it because well, it would give me a reason to actually keep reading this thread. - -jen (1) i ended up doing a monologue from arlington road... and i didnt make the call backs... about 7 million people ended up auditioning and they took the people that have worked with this particular company before... GRRR... ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 2002 15:11:54 -0800 From: darlene88@yahoo.com (Jen Meyers) Subject: Re: Joey Jeremiah's point Kath Maheux wrote in message news:<3C3964E1.80402@nospam.rogers.com>... > 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)? ahahaha yes, and i think joey's a little too excited about vegetables there... jen ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 23:11:31 -0000 From: Jordan McClure Subject: Re: something totally innocuous In article <3C377861.895D8113@ehmail.com>, Chris K @*_*@ wrote: > > Just because you *enjoyed* Burk's Hell and all > that heat, I'm gonna question it. You don't like > the cold and I know it! You prefer 100F degrees > and humidity. Hey the festival may have been hot and sweaty, but the drive up, not that was fun, and in a nice air-conditioned car. And let's not forget that evening's lodging. - -- Jordan McClure (jordan@fnordia.com) http://fnordia.com - -- ------------------------------ Date: 7 Jan 2002 20:22:05 -0800 From: isis@apk.net (donna) Subject: Re: something totally innocuous fru_manchu@hotmail.com (wild Bill) wrote in message news:<9b12aec3.0201061120.67fc3d8f@posting.google.com>... > I'm sorry Richard, but I will not call you Smoochysnogs or > Snoogiewoogie or Snuzzlewuzzle or any other sorta affectionate term > you can come up with. Now, Bill, sweetie, I think that Richard asked very nicely for you to refer to him by another name. I think it would be very mature if you would simply respect his wishes. > How dare you even think to suggest to question the founding principles of > proper naming? Well, Bill, sweetie, we all have a right to ask people to help us be more comfortable. I think that's all Richard, Snoogiewoogie, really wants, is for people to just be warmer and friendlier. I mean, that's part of why the newsgroup is here. For us all to get along together. And talk about candy. > > Speaking on behalf of the vast majority of the people on this > > newsgroup I think its best if you tell us what your meteorological > > position is. Nimbus? Light precipitation? Mistral winds sweeping over > > the Azores? Hmm? Richard, Smoochysnogs, I think that you're really making people uncomfortable by talking about things we cannot understand. Please simplify your posts, for the good of us all. > I don't care. I never liked weather anyway. Oh, Bill. You know that's not true! Everyone likes weather! It's one of the things we all have in common! > And where the hell are the Azores anyway? Some place outside the U S of A, no >doubt, you filthy foreigner! Bill, sweetums, for the sake of the newsgroup, I have to ask you to tone down your language, and please don't call names! That's not very mature! > Speaking of posting, you know that I once sent a letter to Santa claus > and he responded to it. Did you know that if you eat raw cookie dough, you could get salmonella? ciao, donna ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V6 #8 ******************************************