From CWarburton at OAG.COM Wed Feb 1 05:51:48 2006 From: CWarburton at OAG.COM (CWarburton at OAG.COM) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 10:51:48 -0000 Subject: BOC: remasters... Message-ID: Meant to respond before... I can never remember whether this was '76 or late '75 - I just remember it being during my solitary year at Salford University - nice to see synchronicity striking again. Definitely "What a gig!" - though I think with great bands, the first time of seeing them always glows in the memory. Cheers ChrisW ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 02:25:36 -0000 From: Cyberkrel Subject: Re: BOC: remasters... I know - I was there!!!!!!! What a gig!!!! Andy Garibaldi ----- Original Message ----- From: Tony To: Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 5:46 PM Subject: > I'm afraid you're even older and greyer than you thought. BOC played > the FTH Manchester in 1975, not 1976 ------------------------------ NOTICE: This e-mail is intended for the named recipient(s). It may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not one of the intended recipients, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail and attachment(s): you must not copy, distribute, retain or take any action in reliance upon the email or attachment(s). While all reasonable efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, OAG Worldwide Ltd and its affiliate companies cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or are compatible with your systems, and does not accept liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced. Thank you. From cea at CARLAZ.COM Wed Feb 1 05:55:39 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 10:55:39 +0000 Subject: Denial of Death - available tomorrow (29th Jan) In-Reply-To: <001201c626ad$38b288a0$0202a8c0@Laptop> Message-ID: On 31/01/2006 21:28, Charlie Grant wrote: > Although for some reason mine came up with the message: > (11) A duplicate transaction has been submitted. > I'm not sure what I did and much as I love BSNYC, one copy will suffice for > now. I'm sure I remember seeing a note on the Web site to the effect of "if you see this kind of message don't worry about it" :) Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM Wed Feb 1 08:20:52 2006 From: blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM (blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 08:20:52 -0500 Subject: Denial of Death - available tomorrow (29th Jan) Message-ID: Charlie Grant wrote: > Although for some reason mine came up with the message: > (11) A duplicate transaction has been submitted. > I'm not sure what I did and much as I love BSNYC, one copy will suffice for > now. Remember, Denial of Death also makes a great birthday or anniversary present. This year, give the one you love the gift of metal. Brian From nick at THECOMPLETESHEET.COM Wed Feb 1 11:19:49 2006 From: nick at THECOMPLETESHEET.COM (nick at THECOMPLETESHEET.COM) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 11:19:49 -0500 Subject: =?US-ASCII?B?UkU6IFJlOiBEZW5pYWwgb2YgRGVhdGggLSBhdmFpbGFibGUgdG9tb3Jyb3cgKDI5dGggSmFuKQ==?= Message-ID: Al, Is the album gonna be available on Rhapsody? --Nick >----- ------- Original Message ------- ----- >From: blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM >To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET >Sent: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 08:20:52 > >Charlie Grant wrote: >> Although for some reason mine came up with the >message: >> (11) A duplicate transaction has been submitted. >> I'm not sure what I did and much as I love BSNYC, >one copy will suffice for >> now. > >Remember, Denial of Death also makes a great >birthday or anniversary present. This year, give >the one you love the gift of metal. > >Brian From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Wed Feb 1 12:41:53 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 17:41:53 GMT Subject: Error on website Message-ID: The "Stop Internet Censorship" should really have Hawkwind committed to the "Principle of Freedom of Speech". I'm sure the Principal of Free Speech would approve, whoever that may be... FoFP From zim594j at TNINET.SE Wed Feb 1 13:24:57 2006 From: zim594j at TNINET.SE (Kenneth Magnusson) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:24:57 +0100 Subject: The Moor webshop Message-ID: I just wanted to tell You that we now have a webshop for The Moor. Available on the site is The Moor's two albums, a Chrome tribute album and the first album by Simon Says (lead by The Moor's bassist Stefan Renstr?m). I finally got the PayPal thing to work (which honestly wasn't very hard if You just read the manual. . . but I never read manuals, manuals are for wimps! ). The price is the same for all whether You live in New Zeeland (antipode of Sweden) or happens to be my neighbour! Nik is playing on the album Flux and the album Eery Pixie Sells a Story sports a version of Angels of Death. The webshop is under the Diskografix link in the menu! http://web.telia.com/~u51502055/ Kenneth P.S. Speaking of manuals, do anyone have a pdf-copy of the AKS Synthi manual? From dkuznick at ALUMNI.BRANDEIS.EDU Wed Feb 1 14:15:07 2006 From: dkuznick at ALUMNI.BRANDEIS.EDU (David Kuznick) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 14:15:07 -0500 Subject: The Moor webshop In-Reply-To: <43E0FCF9.2060301@tninet.se> Message-ID: Quoting Kenneth Magnusson : > The webshop is under the Diskografix link in the menu! > http://web.telia.com/~u51502055/ Classic. The firewall at work blocked this URL because of "porn". -- David Kuznick dkuznickATalumni.brandeis.edu "Train set and match spied under the blind, shiny and contoured the railway winds. And I've heard the sound from my cousin's bed, the hiss of the train at the railway head. Always the summers are slipping away." Trains - PORCUPINE TREE From ir004728 at MINDSPRING.COM Wed Feb 1 21:46:29 2006 From: ir004728 at MINDSPRING.COM (Albert Bouchard) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:46:29 -0500 Subject: Denial of Death - available tomorrow (29th Jan) In-Reply-To: <200602011619.k11GJomd083875@mmm1503.boca15-verio.com> Message-ID: Yes but these things take a little time. We get it to them through CDBaby and they probably won't have the CD for another month. All the other records (except BHOS) are available on Rhapsody. Al On Feb 1, 2006, at 11:19 AM, nick at THECOMPLETESHEET.COM wrote: > Al, > > Is the album gonna be available on Rhapsody? > > > --Nick > >> ----- ------- Original Message ------- ----- >> From: blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM >> To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET >> Sent: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 08:20:52 >> >> Charlie Grant wrote: >>> Although for some reason mine came up with the >> message: >>> (11) A duplicate transaction has been submitted. >>> I'm not sure what I did and much as I love BSNYC, >> one copy will suffice for >>> now. >> >> Remember, Denial of Death also makes a great >> birthday or anniversary present. This year, give >> the one you love the gift of metal. >> >> Brian From nick at THECOMPLETESHEET.COM Thu Feb 2 11:56:13 2006 From: nick at THECOMPLETESHEET.COM (nick at THECOMPLETESHEET.COM) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:56:13 -0500 Subject: =?US-ASCII?B?UkU6IFJlOiBEZW5pYWwgb2YgRGVhdGggLSBhdmFpbGFibGUgdG9tb3Jyb3cgKDI5dGggSmFuKQ==?= Message-ID: I knew the others were there, that's why I was hoping the new one would be, too. thanks! --Nick >----- ------- Original Message ------- ----- >From: Albert Bouchard >To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET >Sent: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 21:46:29 > >Yes but these things take a little time. We get it >to them through >CDBaby and they probably won't have the CD for >another month. All the >other records (except BHOS) are available on >Rhapsody. >Al >On Feb 1, 2006, at 11:19 AM, >nick at THECOMPLETESHEET.COM wrote: > >> Al, >> >> Is the album gonna be available on Rhapsody? >> >> >> --Nick >> >>> ----- ------- Original Message ------- ----- >>> From: blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM >>> To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET >>> Sent: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 08:20:52 >>> >>> Charlie Grant wrote: >>>> Although for some reason mine came up with the >>> message: >>>> (11) A duplicate transaction has been >submitted. >>>> I'm not sure what I did and much as I love >BSNYC, >>> one copy will suffice for >>>> now. >>> >>> Remember, Denial of Death also makes a great >>> birthday or anniversary present. This year, give > >>> the one you love the gift of metal. >>> >>> Brian From grinningboy at NTLWORLD.COM Thu Feb 2 16:23:40 2006 From: grinningboy at NTLWORLD.COM (Charlie Grant) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 21:23:40 -0000 Subject: Denial of Death - available tomorrow (29th Jan) Message-ID: Thanks for the reassurance Al, as you say, technology is getting scary. Sorry the Brian - no spare birthday present nfor you then. :-) ( >Remember, Denial of Death also makes a great birthday or anniversary present. This year, give the one you love the gift of metal. Brian) .......CtGB. > My credit card portal caught the duplicate and I only got one order. > Some of this tech stuff is so cool it's scary. > Al > PS I think if the dupe is less than 5 minutes it rejects it. > > On Jan 31, 2006, at 4:28 PM, Charlie Grant wrote: > >>> but my _Denial of >>> Death_ CD is on order :) >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Carl >>> >> >> Yeah - mine too, can't wait. >> >> Although for some reason mine came up with the message: >> (11) A duplicate transaction has been submitted. >> I'm not sure what I did and much as I love BSNYC, one copy will >> suffice for >> now. >> >> .......CtGB. From blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM Thu Feb 2 16:57:27 2006 From: blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM (blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 16:57:27 -0500 Subject: Denial of Death - available tomorrow (29th Jan) Message-ID: Charlie Grant wrote: > Sorry the Brian - no spare birthday present nfor you then. :-) > ( >Remember, Denial of Death also makes a great birthday or anniversary > present. This year, give the one you love the gift of metal. Brian) That's okay. I ordered my own. Plus, I already had my birthday last week. ;-) Brian Still rocking at the age of 31. :-) From neiltoyne at NTLWORLD.COM Thu Feb 2 17:06:20 2006 From: neiltoyne at NTLWORLD.COM (Neil Toyne) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 22:06:20 -0000 Subject: Denial of Death - available tomorrow (29th Jan) Message-ID: young snapperwhipper............ Cheers, Neil ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:57 PM Subject: Re: Denial of Death - available tomorrow (29th Jan) > Charlie Grant wrote: > > > Sorry the Brian - no spare birthday present nfor you then. :-) > > ( >Remember, Denial of Death also makes a great birthday or anniversary > > present. This year, give the one you love the gift of metal. Brian) > > That's okay. I ordered my own. Plus, I already had my birthday last week. ;-) > > Brian > Still rocking at the age of 31. :-) > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.0/249 - Release Date: 02/02/2006 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.0/249 - Release Date: 02/02/2006 From swann at PLUTONIA.COM Thu Feb 2 20:26:46 2006 From: swann at PLUTONIA.COM (Stephen Swann) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:26:46 -0500 Subject: Deb Frost is metal Message-ID: I just had to say that. There are so few women in metal these days (or were at any other time, for that matter), and of those few, too many have just been poster kittens with no interest in music. At the Delancey on Saturday, Deb was TOTALLY ROCKING OUT to some of the heaviest new tracks I have heard in years. Damn, the Brain Surgeons are good these days. Around the time of the trio, I was kind of wondering what the future of the band was. Now I know: their future is to *kick my ass all around the room*. Holy shit that was a great show. Steve From swann at PLUTONIA.COM Thu Feb 2 20:39:09 2006 From: swann at PLUTONIA.COM (Stephen Swann) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 20:39:09 -0500 Subject: Denial of Death Message-ID: Picked it up at the show Saturday, it's been in constant rotation in my CD player since then. Everything on there rocks, but these are my early favorites: "1864" (tell 'em what your grandpa did in the war!) "Tomb of the Unknown Monster" (had the chorus stuck in my head for days) "Dark Secrets" "Rocket Science" Steve From cea at CARLAZ.COM Fri Feb 3 05:10:36 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:10:36 +0000 Subject: Denial of Death In-Reply-To: <20060203013909.GB12129@plutonia.com> Message-ID: On 03/02/2006 01:39, Stephen Swann wrote: > Everything on there rocks Damn it, I only order it a few days ago, so it'll be next week at least before it arrives even if Al hurled it straight out the door on receipt of my order. But I need it *now*! :) Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From jswartz at MITRE.ORG Fri Feb 3 07:59:29 2006 From: jswartz at MITRE.ORG (John Swartz) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 07:59:29 -0500 Subject: Deb Frost is metal In-Reply-To: <200602031000.k13A03wq027032@www.ispnetinc.net> Message-ID: >>>>I just had to say that. There are so few women in >>>>metal these days (or were at any other time, for that >>>>matter), and of those few, too many have just been >>>>poster kittens with no interest in music. At the >>>>Delancey on Saturday, Deb was TOTALLY ROCKING OUT to >>>>some of the heaviest new tracks I have heard in years. >>>>Damn, the Brain Surgeons are good these days. Around >>>>the time of the trio, I was kind of wondering what >>>>the future of the band was. Now I know: their future >>>>is to *kick my ass all around the room*. Holy shit >>>>that was a great show. Hmm...beats your one line review of *Eponymous* over a decade ago (s**t, has it been that long?)... John From swann at PLUTONIA.COM Fri Feb 3 09:11:16 2006 From: swann at PLUTONIA.COM (Stephen Swann) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:11:16 -0500 Subject: Deb Frost is metal In-Reply-To: <43E353B1.7090206@mitre.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 07:59:29AM -0500, John Swartz wrote: > >>>>I just had to say that. There are so few women in > >>>>metal these days (or were at any other time, for that > >>>>matter), and of those few, too many have just been > >>>>poster kittens with no interest in music. At the > >>>>Delancey on Saturday, Deb was TOTALLY ROCKING OUT to > >>>>some of the heaviest new tracks I have heard in years. > >>>>Damn, the Brain Surgeons are good these days. Around > >>>>the time of the trio, I was kind of wondering what > >>>>the future of the band was. Now I know: their future > >>>>is to *kick my ass all around the room*. Holy shit > >>>>that was a great show. > > Hmm...beats your one line review of *Eponymous* over a decade ago (s**t, > has it been that long?)... Hey, Al told me personally that he thought my one-line review of Eponymous was a classic. And Deb personally did not stab me in the eye with an oyster fork! ;-) Anyway, I retracted that first-impression review years ago. I *still* wish they would put Name Your Monster and/or Time Will Take Care of You back into their concert setlist. :) I harrassed the band a bit after the show about how they now have so much great much Brain Surgeons material that, after all, isn't it time to start doing all-BrainS concert sets...? Like, even if it means cutting some of the BOC material? Al's response was that he was thinking about doing longer concert sets to fit more material in! w00t! Steve From cea at CARLAZ.COM Fri Feb 3 09:40:51 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 14:40:51 +0000 Subject: Deb Frost is metal In-Reply-To: <20060203141116.GA21054@plutonia.com> Message-ID: On 03/02/2006 14:11, Stephen Swann wrote: > I *still* wish they would put Name Your Monster > and/or Time Will Take Care of You back into their > concert setlist. :) Amen, rock brothers! > I harrassed the band a bit after the show about how > they now have so much great much Brain Surgeons > material that, after all, isn't it time to start doing > all-BrainS concert sets...? Like, even if it means > cutting some of the BOC material? There is indeed enough tBS material that no crutches are needed. > Al's response was > that he was thinking about doing longer concert sets to > fit more material in! w00t! ... though that would be even better! I mean, "Dominance & Submission" is a great song, and I've never enjoyed it more than hearing tBS do it live when I saw them last year. The "Malpractice" cover of "Baby Ice Dog" blows away the original, IMO. And I will never give up my belief that the current band would do a blindingly ripping version of "I Am the One (You Warned Me Of)"! :) Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM Fri Feb 3 09:45:44 2006 From: blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM (blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:45:44 -0500 Subject: Deb Frost is metal Message-ID: Stephen Swann wrote: > I just had to say that. There are so few women in > metal these days (or were at any other time, for that > matter), and of those few, too many have just been > poster kittens with no interest in music. At the > Delancey on Saturday, Deb was TOTALLY ROCKING OUT to > some of the heaviest new tracks I have heard in years. I like to think of her as the band's middle finger. ;-) [...] > Hey, Al told me personally that he thought my one-line > review of Eponymous was a classic. Could you repeat that review for those of us with deteriorating memories? > Anyway, I retracted that first-impression review years > ago. I *still* wish they would put Name Your Monster > and/or Time Will Take Care of You back into their > concert setlist. :) Time was made to be played live. It's pumped up the crowd every time I've seen it performed...even when there were only four people in the room! [...] > isn't it time to start doing > all-BrainS concert sets...? Like, even if it means > cutting some of the BOC material? Al's response was > that he was thinking about doing longer concert sets to > fit more material in! w00t! Excellent. Although you could say that the Surgeons have taken over ownership of Vera Gemini, Tattoo Vampire...even (blasphemy) D&S, TR&TB and CoF. Brian From oystrgal at BELLSOUTH.NET Fri Feb 3 09:47:27 2006 From: oystrgal at BELLSOUTH.NET (Jean Lansford) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 09:47:27 -0500 Subject: Deb Frost is metal In-Reply-To: <20060203141116.GA21054@plutonia.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Stephen Swann wrote: >On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 07:59:29AM -0500, John Swartz wrote: >> >>>>I just had to say that. There are so few women in >> >>>>metal these days (or were at any other time, for that >> >>>>matter), and of those few, too many have just been >> >>>>poster kittens with no interest in music. At the >> >>>>Delancey on Saturday, Deb was TOTALLY ROCKING OUT to >> >>>>some of the heaviest new tracks I have heard in years. >> >>>>Damn, the Brain Surgeons are good these days. Around >> >>>>the time of the trio, I was kind of wondering what >> >>>>the future of the band was. Now I know: their future >> >>>>is to *kick my ass all around the room*. Holy shit >> >>>>that was a great show. >> >> Hmm...beats your one line review of *Eponymous* over a >> decade ago (s**t, has it been that long?)... > >Hey, Al told me personally that he thought my one-line >review of Eponymous was a classic. I can still see your face when you learned the list had a couple of members you didn't know about. 4x4 upside the head. >And Deb personally >did not stab me in the eye with an oyster fork! ;-) For which you should still be on your knees in gratitude. -- Jean Lansford oystrgal at bellsouth.net Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self. - Cyril Connolly From cea at CARLAZ.COM Fri Feb 3 10:05:13 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 15:05:13 +0000 Subject: Deb Frost is metal In-Reply-To: <200602031445.k13EjidJ009815@mail24.atl.registeredsite.com> Message-ID: On 03/02/2006 14:45, blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM wrote: > Excellent. Although you could say that the Surgeons have taken over ownership of Vera Gemini, Tattoo Vampire...even (blasphemy) D&S, TR&TB and CoF. And, I would argue, "Death Valley Nights"! Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM Fri Feb 3 12:01:13 2006 From: blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM (blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 12:01:13 -0500 Subject: Deb Frost is metal Message-ID: Carl wrote: > On 03/02/2006 14:45, blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM wrote: > > Excellent. Although you could say that the Surgeons have taken over ownership of Vera Gemini, Tattoo Vampire...even (blasphemy) D&S, TR&TB and CoF. > > And, I would argue, "Death Valley Nights"! Of course! > > -- > Carl Edlund Anderson > mailto:cea at carlaz.com > http://www.carlaz.com/ > From js3619 at ACMENET.NET Fri Feb 3 18:17:33 2006 From: js3619 at ACMENET.NET (Jason Scruton) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 18:17:33 -0500 Subject: Deb Frost is metal In-Reply-To: <200602031701.k13H1Ge8018081@mail21.atl.registeredsite.com> Message-ID: >Carl wrote: > > On 03/02/2006 14:45, blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM wrote: > > > Excellent. Although you could say that the Surgeons have taken over > ownership of Vera Gemini, Tattoo Vampire...even (blasphemy) D&S, TR&TB and CoF. > > > > And, I would argue, "Death Valley Nights"! > >Of course! Um, Hi. I just put the disc in my CD player 5 minutes fter I got home from work. The BOC/Brain Surgeon connection songwise is interesting, 'cause I've wrestled over it in my head too. The Brain Surgeons can Out-BOC BOC on ANY of the songs that Albert wote because they're Albert's songs, With the One True Drummer behind the kits, with the lens from the Black Telescope as their focus, they have the rhythm and ferocious jazz that the tunes require. BOC hasn't owned those songs (performance-wise) since '81. THey play Cities so g-d slow in concert now I feel like I could tall asleep. Argh! Furthermore, the other assembled Surgeons (always have) locked in with the grace dancing beasts of tunage from those many years ago because they WANT AND NEED TO ROCK AND ROLL. This incarnation moreso than before! 2. I will forever be impressed by any band that performs a GOOD song about Potsdam, NY. I'm in no condition right now to write more because I just recovered from a stomach bug. More this weekend after my stereo plays the alb another 20 or so times. Viva la revolution! Jason From swann at PLUTONIA.COM Sat Feb 4 00:50:29 2006 From: swann at PLUTONIA.COM (Stephen Swann) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 00:50:29 -0500 Subject: Deb Frost is metal In-Reply-To: <200602031445.k13EjidJ009815@mail24.atl.registeredsite.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 09:45:44AM -0500, blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM wrote: > Stephen Swann wrote: > > > I just had to say that. There are so few women in > > metal these days (or were at any other time, for that > > matter), and of those few, too many have just been > > poster kittens with no interest in music. At the > > Delancey on Saturday, Deb was TOTALLY ROCKING OUT to > > some of the heaviest new tracks I have heard in years. > > I like to think of her as the band's middle finger. ;-) LOL, if you had been at the pyramid club gig 10 years ago, you would never doubt that statement. ;-) But seriously, it just suddenly struck me during the gig on Saturday that Deb is one of the few women heavy metalists I have ever seen who is actually *all about the music*. Watching her laying down those bone- crushing guitar riffs with no posturing or bullshit-- it was just all about "Let's drive this song home like a 10 inch spike". Wow. The only other woman I've seen who was as obviously music-obsessed was Helen Wheels, who I saw at the Cellsum music show years ago. I don't know what I was really expecting from her, especially since she *did* have a bit of that silly leather-kitten look about her, but she fucking blew me away with her songs. Now it's not hard to see what Deb found in common with her. > > Hey, Al told me personally that he thought my one-line > > review of Eponymous was a classic. > > Could you repeat that review for those of us with deteriorating memories? Errrr... ... I believe it went something like: "It's jazzy. It's funky. It's rappin'. It sucks." Like I said, that was based on first impression, and has long since been retracted. I really love a bunch of songs from the first album ('Time', 'Monster', 'Tomorrow'), and wish that some of them would make it back into concert rotation. Steve From cea at CARLAZ.COM Sat Feb 4 07:29:00 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 12:29:00 +0000 Subject: Deb Frost is metal In-Reply-To: <20060204055029.GA8560@plutonia.com> Message-ID: On 04 Feb 2006, at 05:50, Stephen Swann wrote: > But seriously, it just suddenly struck me during the > gig on Saturday that Deb is one of the few women heavy > metalists I have ever seen who is actually *all about > the music*. Watching her laying down those bone- > crushing guitar riffs with no posturing or bullshit-- > it was just all about "Let's drive this song home like > a 10 inch spike". Wow. No arguments there. Deb should get a T-shirt that says "I am a mother and rock like one too!" Respect. That said, I have to put in a word for the ladies in Girlschool. OK, they're more lke Grannyschool these days, but let no one hold their age against them! I've seen them two or three times in the last couple of years, and they do not mess about but get on with kicking your ass. Top-notch straight-up rock band. Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson http://www.carlaz.com/ From jkranitz at AURAL-INNOVATIONS.COM Sat Feb 4 17:47:40 2006 From: jkranitz at AURAL-INNOVATIONS.COM (Jerry Kranitz) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 17:47:40 -0500 Subject: OFF: Aural Innovations: New Space Rock & Drool Trough Radio shows + Mail Order Goodies Message-ID: http://Aural-Innovations.com February 4, 2006: NEW RADIO SHOWS + MAIL ORDER GOODIES We've just uploaded new shows from Aural Innovations Space Rock Radio (show #143), and Drool Trough Radio (show #43). See the playlists below. Aural Innovations broadcasts 24 hours a day in hi and lo bandwidth Mp3 and RealAudio editions. You can go directly to the Radio shows page at: http://aural-innovations.com/radio/radio.html MAIL ORDER NEWS: New in stock this week is the just released ?resund Space Collective CD. Check out Aural Innovations Space Rock Radio show #141, which is an all ?resund Space Collective show. I've also got the new CD by Australian Space-Prog-Hard Rockers Brainstorm, and I've restocked the Drahk von Trip CD which sold out so quickly. Get all the details at http://www.aural-innovations.com/store. Aural Innovations Space Rock Radio (show #143) Earthling Society ? ?Kosmik Suite No. 1? (from Plastic Jesus + the Third Eye Blind) Kaabel ? ?Other Phases? (from Space Attack!) The Pancakes - "Flying" (From SpaceCow) Electric Orange ? ?Sonnenbart? (from fleischwerk) SIANspheric ? ?I Like the Ride? (from RGB) Tripwave ? ?Psilocybe? (from Tripwave!) Laughing Sky ? ?The Slip? (From Free Inside) Blacklight Chameleons ? ?Fired Up? (from A Field Guide to ) Etherfysh ? ?Orbit? (from Stasis) Mahamudra ? ?Buscando? (from Mahamudra) The Future Kings of England ? ?Silent and Invisible Converts? (from The Future Kings of England) Drool Trough Radio (show #43) Drool Trough is an all genres show featuring cool music from the underground. Anything is game for Drool Trough, and from one track to the next you will hear completely different sounds and styles, all from homemade musicians and teeny weeny but ultra fiesty labels. Yanka Kozyr?s Orchestra - "Oy ne budu kavu pyla" (from web site download) InAdaze ? ?Witch? (from Finding Time) Kamakura ? ?Mental Anguish? (from Mental Anguish Open Loops Vol. 4) Daylight Basement ? ?Godspeed Girl? (from Any Kind of Pretty) JAG ? ?Rollercoaster? (from JAG) Mastermind ? ?Weak & Powerless? (from Broken EP) Joshua Charles ? ?Constant Motion? (from A Positive Flow) Temp Sound Solutions ? ?Pixel Fedora? (from I Yobot) Bo Lee Da ? ?The Dandy? (from Smut) Shelly Blake ? ?My Apocalypse? (from What a Queer Thing, Democracy) Vopat ? ?Pique? (from Vopat) The Synthetic Dream Foundation ? ?How Love Remembered Lavender? (from Tendrils of Pretty) Albatros ? ?Badger? (from Demo 2005) M.C. Ear ? ?Laid to Rest? (from Timber Shivers) The Editors ? ?Clones Can?t Dance? (from Persistence of Memory) Stabilizer ? ?Run Between the Rain Drops? (From A Project Called Red) People ? ?Man of Men?s Men? (from People) Murk?dee ? ?Good Words? (from From A Spectral View) Miminokoto - "Tokedasu" (from Orange Garage) Caroline ? ?Everylittlething? (from Murmurs) http://Aural-Innovations.com From tony.orourke at TALK21.COM Sat Feb 4 18:44:31 2006 From: tony.orourke at TALK21.COM (Tony) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 23:44:31 -0000 Subject: Deb Frost is metal In-Reply-To: <2D281BF2-0B4F-47E7-A718-E64A3F0C915F@carlaz.com> Message-ID: Is Kelly still in Girls/Grannyschool? She was a hottie! -----Original Message----- From: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List [mailto:BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET] On Behalf Of Carl Edlund Anderson Sent: 04 February 2006 12:29 To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET Subject: Re: Deb Frost is metal On 04 Feb 2006, at 05:50, Stephen Swann wrote: > But seriously, it just suddenly struck me during the > gig on Saturday that Deb is one of the few women heavy > metalists I have ever seen who is actually *all about > the music*. Watching her laying down those bone- > crushing guitar riffs with no posturing or bullshit-- > it was just all about "Let's drive this song home like > a 10 inch spike". Wow. No arguments there. Deb should get a T-shirt that says "I am a mother and rock like one too!" Respect. That said, I have to put in a word for the ladies in Girlschool. OK, they're more lke Grannyschool these days, but let no one hold their age against them! I've seen them two or three times in the last couple of years, and they do not mess about but get on with kicking your ass. Top-notch straight-up rock band. Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson http://www.carlaz.com/ From jswartz at MITRE.ORG Sun Feb 5 09:10:47 2006 From: jswartz at MITRE.ORG (John Swartz) Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 09:10:47 -0500 Subject: Deb Frost is metal In-Reply-To: <200602051000.k15A03AB026471@www.ispnetinc.net> Message-ID: > Is Kelly still in Girls/Grannyschool? She was a hottie! > That said, I have to put in a word for the ladies in Girlschool. OK, > they're more lke Grannyschool these days, but let no one hold their > age against them! I've seen them two or three times in the last > couple of years, and they do not mess about but get on with kicking > your ass. Top-notch straight-up rock band. > I saw Girlschool in Boston twenty-something years ago on their "Play Dirty" tour - those ladies rock! John From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Mon Feb 6 06:01:50 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:01:50 GMT Subject: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: So that blue ribbon at the bottom of the info page on the Hawkwind website. Is that the official colour of a free speech ribbon? Where would I get one? Suddenly it seems a bit more important to join the front line... FoFP From sloterdijk at MSN.COM Mon Feb 6 12:19:21 2006 From: sloterdijk at MSN.COM (Burro Mike) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:19:21 +0000 Subject: sloterdijk in the UK? available dates for a whirlwind visit 3/25-3/28 Message-ID: Anyone who is interested in helping bring Sloterdijk or Mike Burro to a UK town, I am planning on doing a short run of gigs in late March.( providing I can make it happen financially ) Right now we are working on a London gig about 3/27 or 3/28. I plan to leave Holland for England on the 24th or 25th of March. Open dates would be 3/25-3/28 ( a total of 4 ). If you've got an interest. drop a line to Sloterdijk at msn.com From sloterdijk at MSN.COM Mon Feb 6 12:45:40 2006 From: sloterdijk at MSN.COM (Burro Mike) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:45:40 +0000 Subject: SLOTERDIJK seeking gigs in Nederland, Belgium 3/21-3/24 Message-ID: Hello all. I'm looking to do some sloterdijk shows in Nederland and or Belgium between 3/22-3/24. Please drop me a line directly if interested. Peace, Mike Burro ( SLOTERDIJK ). http://www.soundclick.com/sloterdijk http://www.freewebs.com/sloterdijk From hawkfan at RATSAUCE.CO.UK Mon Feb 6 13:24:58 2006 From: hawkfan at RATSAUCE.CO.UK (Hawkfan) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:24:58 -0000 Subject: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602061101.k16B1ofo011767@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: Erk, Outlook filed your posting in Junk Mail. I do hope that's not MS' contribution to the current censorship debate ;-) Lets not forget that: 1. 99% of all groups are reasonable people but the other 1% make 99% of the noise 2. People have a tendency to get more hard line the more you criticise them When idiots start showing posters with "Death to xxx" on them (it's not so long ago that the National Front would have replaced the xxx with "Pakis") that's not a good reason for fanning the flames. Rather we should be dampening them. I don't think that the furore is just due to the cartoons as I suspect the cartoons were a last straw. Free speech is an important principle, but it can be and has been abused. JR -----Original Message----- From: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List [mailto:BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET] On Behalf Of M Holmes Sent: 06 February 2006 11:02 To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET Subject: Freeedom of Speech So that blue ribbon at the bottom of the info page on the Hawkwind website. Is that the official colour of a free speech ribbon? Where would I get one? Suddenly it seems a bit more important to join the front line... FoFP From sunboxhouse at HOTMAIL.COM Mon Feb 6 14:53:25 2006 From: sunboxhouse at HOTMAIL.COM (pete howe) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 19:53:25 +0000 Subject: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <000c01c62b4a$a2db8eb0$8080a8c0@rattus2> Message-ID: yes..its a good point.The problem with complete freedom of speech is that it can be so easily abused beyond what is regarded as acceptable..such is the sorry nature of some so-called "human beings"..so in reality, complete freedom of speech can never be totally justified, due to the minority that will abuse it. * On a more relevant topic- looking at the hawkwind official website..WHAT IS this REALLY IMPORTANT NEWS to be ANNOUNCED VERY soon???Anyone know??? excited but a tad concerned! pete sunbox >From: Hawkfan >Reply-To: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List >To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET >Subject: Re: Freeedom of Speech >Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:24:58 -0000 > >Erk, Outlook filed your posting in Junk Mail. I do hope that's not MS' >contribution to the current censorship debate ;-) > >Lets not forget that: >1. 99% of all groups are reasonable people but the other 1% make 99% of the >noise >2. People have a tendency to get more hard line the more you criticise them > >When idiots start showing posters with "Death to xxx" on them (it's not so >long ago that the National Front would have replaced the xxx with "Pakis") >that's not a good reason for fanning the flames. Rather we should be >dampening them. I don't think that the furore is just due to the cartoons >as >I suspect the cartoons were a last straw. > >Free speech is an important principle, but it can be and has been abused. > >JR > >-----Original Message----- >From: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List [mailto:BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET] On >Behalf Of M Holmes >Sent: 06 February 2006 11:02 >To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET >Subject: Freeedom of Speech > >So that blue ribbon at the bottom of the info page on the Hawkwind >website. Is that the official colour of a free speech ribbon? Where >would I get one? Suddenly it seems a bit more important to join the >front line... > >FoFP _________________________________________________________________ Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger 7.5 today! http://messenger.msn.co.uk From eddiejobson at HOTMAIL.COM Mon Feb 6 19:07:03 2006 From: eddiejobson at HOTMAIL.COM (eddie jobson) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 00:07:03 +0000 Subject: Life on Mars (again) Message-ID: Tonight's tribute to the Hawks was in the form of Urban Guerilla (played on the juke box in the pub) and strangely enough I was on a train earlier today travelling through Geneva and those very words were Graffiti sprayed on the wall next to the train line! I remember Calvert saying in an interview once that he saw those words also sprayed on a wall (in Notting Hill I think though rather than Switzerland) and that's what gave him the inspiration to write the song. Eddie. Have just pasted this in and apparently Ejection was used as well, never even heard that! Mr Edmund Butt must be a bit of a fan surely? http://www.edbuttmusic.com/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/drama/lifeonmars/episodeguide_episode5_music.shtml From deadearnest at BTOPENWORLD.COM Mon Feb 6 20:04:35 2006 From: deadearnest at BTOPENWORLD.COM (Cyberkrel) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 01:04:35 -0000 Subject: Deb Frost is metal Message-ID: The finest female fronted metal band right now is Dundee's very own SAZ. Go to www.officialsaz.com and catch it all - Nikki as lead vocalist and Nicola as co-lead and harmony vocalist front one helluva metal band. Take a listen and catch a look on the website. After that, there's Michele Mclaren of Mr Spider who does some seriously great rock vocals among their blues-rock, but that's for a nother day. Andy Garibaldi ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 2:45 PM Subject: Re: Deb Frost is metal > Stephen Swann wrote: > > > I just had to say that. There are so few women in > > metal these days (or were at any other time, for that > > matter), and of those few, too many have just been > > poster kittens with no interest in music. At the > > Delancey on Saturday, Deb was TOTALLY ROCKING OUT to > > some of the heaviest new tracks I have heard in years. > > I like to think of her as the band's middle finger. ;-) > > [...] > > > Hey, Al told me personally that he thought my one-line > > review of Eponymous was a classic. > > Could you repeat that review for those of us with deteriorating memories? > > > Anyway, I retracted that first-impression review years > > ago. I *still* wish they would put Name Your Monster > > and/or Time Will Take Care of You back into their > > concert setlist. :) > > Time was made to be played live. It's pumped up the crowd every time I've seen it performed...even when there were only four people in the room! > > [...] > > > isn't it time to start doing > > all-BrainS concert sets...? Like, even if it means > > cutting some of the BOC material? Al's response was > > that he was thinking about doing longer concert sets to > > fit more material in! w00t! > > Excellent. Although you could say that the Surgeons have taken over ownership of Vera Gemini, Tattoo Vampire...even (blasphemy) D&S, TR&TB and CoF. > > Brian From deadearnest at BTOPENWORLD.COM Mon Feb 6 20:09:30 2006 From: deadearnest at BTOPENWORLD.COM (Cyberkrel) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 01:09:30 -0000 Subject: Deb Frost is metal Message-ID: Sorry to repeat, but if you like Girlschool, then that SAZ band will blow you away. See earlier post. Andy G. ----- Original Message ----- From: John Swartz To: Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 2:10 PM Subject: Re: Deb Frost is metal > > Is Kelly still in Girls/Grannyschool? She was a hottie! > > > That said, I have to put in a word for the ladies in Girlschool. OK, > > they're more lke Grannyschool these days, but let no one hold their > > age against them! I've seen them two or three times in the last > > couple of years, and they do not mess about but get on with kicking > > your ass. Top-notch straight-up rock band. > > > > I saw Girlschool in Boston twenty-something years ago on their "Play > Dirty" tour - those ladies rock! > > John From wrightm at BRE.CO.UK Tue Feb 7 04:29:20 2006 From: wrightm at BRE.CO.UK (Wright, Mike) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 09:29:20 -0000 Subject: OFF: London Underground as muisc Message-ID: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturevulture/archives/2006/02/03/going_und erground.html Although there is no HW appearance, Delia Derbyshire, Neu and The Crazy world of Arthur Brown get in there SAFER06 - A one day conference on the 28th February 2006 which explains the implications of the new fire legislation and the requirements of DSEAR, and will help you understand the actions you need to take ensure safety and compliance. For full details see www.bre.co.uk/events -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Privileged and confidential information and/or copyright material may be contained in this e-mail. The information and material is intended for the use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee you may not copy or deliver it to anyone else or use it in any unauthorised manner. To do so is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you receive this e-mail by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by return e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you. Building Research Establishment Ltd, Registered under number 3319324 in England and Wales. BRE Certification Limited, Registered under number 3548352 in England and Wales. Building Research Establishment and BRE Certification are subsidiaries of the BRE Trust. BRE Trust, Registered under number 3282856 in England and Wales, and registered as a charity (No 1092193). Registered Offices: Bucknalls Lane, Garston, Watford, Hertfordshire WD25 9XX From cea at CARLAZ.COM Tue Feb 7 05:20:31 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:20:31 +0000 Subject: Deb Frost is metal In-Reply-To: <000801c629e4$f38108c0$0a00000a@studybox> Message-ID: On 04/02/2006 23:44, Tony wrote: > Is Kelly still in Girls/Grannyschool? She was a hottie! Kelly Johnson? No, she was involved here and there in the '90s I think, but since 2000 or so the lead guitar has been a Jackie Chambers. Kim, Enid, and Denise from the "classic" lineup are there. Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Tue Feb 7 06:01:57 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 11:01:57 GMT Subject: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Hawkfan's message of Mon, 6 Feb 2006 18:24:58 -0000 Message-ID: Hawkfan writes: > Erk, Outlook filed your posting in Junk Mail. I do hope that's not MS' > contribution to the current censorship debate ;-) Heh. I et they don't get to see it in China either. > Lets not forget that: 1. 99% of all groups are reasonable people but > the other 1% make 99% of the noise 2. People have a tendency to get > more hard line the more you criticise them I'm fine with criticism. I'm not fine with people from other countries telling us that we can't publish something. If they're happy without freedom of speech then that's their lookout. They don't get to remove it from us because their laws and religion don't apply to us (at least those of us who aren't Muslim). That applies to both eating bacon sarnies and publishing anything we like. > When idiots start showing posters with "Death to xxx" on them (it's > not so long ago that the National Front would have replaced the xxx > with "Pakis") I'm in favour of freedom of speech. That means that I'll shut up if the BNP march or if people dress as suicide bombers when that's how they want to do it. Making death threats however crosses the line under incitement laws. We sold the pass when this happened with Salman Rushdie. It's time to retake it to make that particular point. I wouldn't have chosen something as dumb as cartoons to fight on, but someone else picked that fight. > that's not a good reason for fanning the flames. It's also not a good reason to surrender rights once again. Last time it was a book. This time it's a cartoon. Bacon sarnies next? Just how trivial can people get trying to apply their rules to us? > Rather we should be dampening them. I don't think that the furore is > just due to the cartoons as I suspect the cartoons were a last straw. In fact it took a bunch of Danish Imams four months of hawking this protest around the middle east to get it to ignition heat. When they began to realise that the original 12 drawings (commissioned to illustrate self-censorship, not to pick a fight - the guy was originally writing a kid's book about the life of Mohammed and couldn't find an illustrator) weren't bothering much of anyone. To ramp it up, the Imams drew (or had drawn) a picture of the Prophet with a pig's snout and trotters (I'm guessing that this is just about as insulting as it's possible to get) and went on TV in Jordan (and a BBC international station) claiming that it was one of the Danish drawings. They drew three fake drawings in all and have been exposed for this in Denmark - a big part of the reason the Danes are rather annoyed. > Free speech is an important principle, but it can be and has been > abused. That's the spin, but I don't buy it. Besides, it's not folks praising motherhood that are going to need defending, it's the folks who other folks get upset about. I'm heartened though that moderate Muslims in Britain are calling for arrests for incitement. I've been hoping for that since the Salman Rushdie affair over a decade ago. If they'd also help make the point that free speech is what's important in europe, I'd most happily join them on a march. FoFP From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Tue Feb 7 06:08:33 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 11:08:33 GMT Subject: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: pete howe's message of Mon, 6 Feb 2006 19:53:25 +0000 Message-ID: pete howe writes: > yes..its a good point.The problem with complete freedom of speech is > that it can be so easily abused beyond what is regarded as > acceptable.. "Repatriate all Immigrants!", "Legalise Sex with Six Year Olds!", "Abolish Religion Now!" - all acceptable. Unpleasant and perhaps infuriating to hear, but acceptable. The point about freedom of speech is that speech, no matter how unpleasant, is acceptable except when it amounts to incitement to crime. If someone gets obnoxious in use of their freedom or speech, we get to argue with them or ignore them. We do not get to declare it unacceptable and ban them. Neither do folks in other countries get to ban speech here. > such is the sorry nature of some so-called "human > beings"..so in reality, complete freedom of speech can never be > totally justified Try me. I'll certainly give it a go. Just hold people responsible for predictable consequences of their speech which are illegal or harmful. > due to the minority that will abuse it. It's about as reasonable to fix that problem by limiting freedom of speech as it is to fix speeding by banning cars. FoFP From judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Feb 7 10:35:07 2006 From: judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM (trev) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 15:35:07 -0000 Subject: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: all this shit, primarily, has nothing to do with religions - its to do with a conflict of material interests in the world and basic human characteristics like greed, egotism, paranoia, inability to communicate etc (as usual - yawn) however, when someone threatens to kill me just for drawing a picture or saying something they don't like, well ...if they wanna get personal...??? i mean self preservation will always outweigh truth and justice if you're honest about it. my own answer to this will be to form a new band, which i have been thinking about for some time - an electric space rock band with an islamic sufi music content. the sufis of northern india play music which fits really well with standard straight rock rhythms. listen to these basicly 4/4 rhythms by good old fatty ali khan http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000000HNY/greecethracemi0e/104-8206536-9351927 anyone know of any percussionists who can handle this (brighton area) sufis are an islamic sect who believe in worshiping god via love. sufi musicians have been repeatedly banned from playing their music by their power-mad right wing violent fundamentalist rulers. these political mullers are no better than right wing bushites, nazis and thatcherites to name but a few, and deserve the same degree of resistance if not more because they are even more willing to kill musicians, writers and artists than our home-grown bunch. freedom judge trev REAL FESTIVAL MUSIC - RFM http://www.realfestivalmusic.co.uk Festival Listings, Festival Reviews, CDs, Video Downloads, News, Forum, Chat, Healers ----- Original Message ----- From: "M Holmes" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:01 AM Subject: Re: Freeedom of Speech > Hawkfan writes: > >> Erk, Outlook filed your posting in Junk Mail. I do hope that's not MS' >> contribution to the current censorship debate ;-) > > Heh. I et they don't get to see it in China either. > >> Lets not forget that: 1. 99% of all groups are reasonable people but >> the other 1% make 99% of the noise 2. People have a tendency to get >> more hard line the more you criticise them > > I'm fine with criticism. I'm not fine with people from other countries > telling us that we can't publish something. If they're happy without > freedom of speech then that's their lookout. They don't get to remove it > from us because their laws and religion don't apply to us (at least > those of us who aren't Muslim). That applies to both eating bacon > sarnies and publishing anything we like. > >> When idiots start showing posters with "Death to xxx" on them (it's >> not so long ago that the National Front would have replaced the xxx >> with "Pakis") > > I'm in favour of freedom of speech. That means that I'll shut up if the > BNP march or if people dress as suicide bombers when that's how they > want to do it. Making death threats however crosses the line under > incitement laws. We sold the pass when this happened with Salman > Rushdie. It's time to retake it to make that particular point. I > wouldn't have chosen something as dumb as cartoons to fight on, but > someone else picked that fight. > >> that's not a good reason for fanning the flames. > > It's also not a good reason to surrender rights once again. Last time it > was a book. This time it's a cartoon. Bacon sarnies next? Just how > trivial can people get trying to apply their rules to us? > >> Rather we should be dampening them. I don't think that the furore is >> just due to the cartoons as I suspect the cartoons were a last straw. > > In fact it took a bunch of Danish Imams four months of hawking this > protest around the middle east to get it to ignition heat. When they > began to realise that the original 12 drawings (commissioned to > illustrate self-censorship, not to pick a fight - the guy was originally > writing a kid's book about the life of Mohammed and couldn't find an > illustrator) weren't bothering much of anyone. To ramp it up, the Imams > drew (or had drawn) a picture of the Prophet with a pig's snout and > trotters (I'm guessing that this is just about as insulting as it's > possible to get) and went on TV in Jordan (and a BBC international > station) claiming that it was one of the Danish drawings. They drew > three fake drawings in all and have been exposed for this in Denmark - > a big part of the reason the Danes are rather annoyed. > >> Free speech is an important principle, but it can be and has been >> abused. > > That's the spin, but I don't buy it. Besides, it's not folks praising > motherhood that are going to need defending, it's the folks who other > folks get upset about. > > I'm heartened though that moderate Muslims in Britain are calling for > arrests for incitement. I've been hoping for that since the Salman > Rushdie affair over a decade ago. If they'd also help make the point that > free speech is what's important in europe, I'd most happily join them on a > march. > > FoFP > From oystrgal at BELLSOUTH.NET Tue Feb 7 11:22:06 2006 From: oystrgal at BELLSOUTH.NET (Jean Lansford) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 11:22:06 -0500 Subject: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: > In fact it took a bunch of Danish Imams four months of hawking this > protest around the middle east to get it to ignition heat. When they > began to realise that the original 12 drawings (commissioned to > illustrate self-censorship, not to pick a fight - the guy was originally > writing a kid's book about the life of Mohammed and couldn't find an > illustrator) weren't bothering much of anyone. To ramp it up, the Imams > drew (or had drawn) a picture of the Prophet with a pig's snout and > trotters (I'm guessing that this is just about as insulting as it's > possible to get) and went on TV in Jordan (and a BBC international > station) claiming that it was one of the Danish drawings. They drew > three fake drawings in all and have been exposed for this in Denmark - > a big part of the reason the Danes are rather annoyed. More than just the pig snout. You can see the additional pictures toward the bottom of this page: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ Not everything on that page is safe for work. From jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK Tue Feb 7 17:50:46 2006 From: jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK (Jonathan Jarrett) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 22:50:46 +0000 Subject: OFF: London Underground as music In-Reply-To: <539D43F00153574B8DA4C5B01D8961F9D5E86E@OPHELIA.bre.co.uk> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:29:20AM -0000, Wright, Mike typed out: > http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/culturevulture/archives/2006/02/03/going_und > erground.html > > Although there is no HW appearance, Delia Derbyshire, Neu and The Crazy > world of Arthur Brown get in there One of those things that just makes one want to tweak and change and improve, but I'm glad someone's done it. Many people, according to the comments, but I was always disappointed with The Great Bear for not using the interchanges creatively and had only the other day resolved to try and do something similar. Now I don't have to :-) Also, the comments have generated the phrase, "It's not that there's too much hip-hop, it's that the Northern Line's too long," which is a glorious thing to take out of context and stare at. Yours, Jon (needs to get out more) ObCD: Blue Oyster Cult - _Cultosaurus Erectus_ -- Jonathan Jarrett Birkbeck College, London jjarrett at chiark.greenend.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------- "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." (Tom Waits) From hw at CY-B.ORG Tue Feb 7 18:29:34 2006 From: hw at CY-B.ORG (Rik Rx) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 18:29:34 -0500 Subject: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: http://www.eff.org/br/ On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:01:50 GMT, M Holmes wrote: >So that blue ribbon at the bottom of the info page on the Hawkwind >website. Is that the official colour of a free speech ribbon? Where >would I get one? Suddenly it seems a bit more important to join the >front line... > >FoFP From ir004728 at MINDSPRING.COM Tue Feb 7 21:40:46 2006 From: ir004728 at MINDSPRING.COM (Albert Bouchard) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:40:46 -0500 Subject: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <20060207162207.KORM1593.ibm66aec.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net> Message-ID: OMG that is vile. But I like the last one best. LOL Al On Feb 7, 2006, at 11:22 AM, Jean Lansford wrote: >> In fact it took a bunch of Danish Imams four months of hawking this >> protest around the middle east to get it to ignition heat. When they >> began to realise that the original 12 drawings (commissioned to >> illustrate self-censorship, not to pick a fight - the guy was >> originally >> writing a kid's book about the life of Mohammed and couldn't find an >> illustrator) weren't bothering much of anyone. To ramp it up, the >> Imams >> drew (or had drawn) a picture of the Prophet with a pig's snout and >> trotters (I'm guessing that this is just about as insulting as it's >> possible to get) and went on TV in Jordan (and a BBC international >> station) claiming that it was one of the Danish drawings. They drew >> three fake drawings in all and have been exposed for this in >> Denmark - >> a big part of the reason the Danes are rather annoyed. > > More than just the pig snout. You can see the additional > pictures toward the bottom of this page: > > http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ > > Not everything on that page is safe for work. From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Wed Feb 8 05:40:32 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 10:40:32 GMT Subject: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Albert Bouchard's message of Tue, 7 Feb 2006 21:40:46 -0500 Message-ID: Albert Bouchard writes: > OMG that is vile. But I like the last one best. Folks have died over this. I hope the truth does come out and these bastards get credit for their art. I also hope the added them to the 12 while in one of the middle-east states where they're not protected by freedom of speech. Perhaps if they find themselves on trial there for blasphemy and aostasy they'll think a little more of the freedoms they had in Denmark. As for the piccies, I'd be most sickeneed by the second one. That's a real test of "If you don't believe in freedom of speech for those you despise, you don't believe in it at all." FoFP From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Wed Feb 8 06:22:26 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 11:22:26 GMT Subject: Good CD ripper proggie?? Message-ID: Doing a Hawk compilation for someone (he's near retired, but hey, he might start buying 'em...). So I need a proggie to grab individual tracks from CD and then I need to put 'em all on one CD. In the old days I used to do it all with Easy CD Creator but that doesn't work any more. I have Nero, but that just seems to write CDs. It doesn't help grab the tracks to the hard drive. Itunes does seem to grab tracks as .wav but with live albums has its own weird ideas about where the tracks start and finish. Just copying the tracks from a CD from the drive doesn't work either since they don't copy over as .wav So what's the simplest way to do the bit that involves copying tracks to the hard drive? Thanks FoFP From mysterioso at GMAIL.COM Wed Feb 8 06:33:40 2006 From: mysterioso at GMAIL.COM (Chris Allen) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 11:33:40 +0000 Subject: Good CD ripper proggie?? In-Reply-To: <200602081122.k18BMQqF003891@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: Get CDex. It does everything you could possibly want. http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=567 Download v1.51 - I've been using it for over a yer and it's never given me any grief. C. On 2/8/06, M Holmes wrote: > > Doing a Hawk compilation for someone (he's near retired, but hey, he > might start buying 'em...). > > So I need a proggie to grab individual tracks from CD and then I need to > put 'em all on one CD. In the old days I used to do it all with Easy CD > Creator but that doesn't work any more. > > I have Nero, but that just seems to write CDs. It doesn't help grab the > tracks to the hard drive. Itunes does seem to grab tracks as .wav but > with live albums has its own weird ideas about where the tracks start > and finish. > > Just copying the tracks from a CD from the drive doesn't work either > since they don't copy over as .wav > > So what's the simplest way to do the bit that involves copying tracks to > the hard drive? > > Thanks > > FoFP > From mysterioso at GMAIL.COM Wed Feb 8 10:58:58 2006 From: mysterioso at GMAIL.COM (Chris Allen) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:58:58 +0000 Subject: HW: News headline Message-ID: This headline caught my hopeful eye... http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4688938.stm From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Wed Feb 8 11:18:04 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 16:18:04 GMT Subject: HW: News headline In-Reply-To: Chris Allen's message of Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:58:58 +0000 Message-ID: Chris Allen writes: > This headline caught my hopeful eye... > http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/sci/tech/4688938.stm Hey, I have a piece of Mars on my mantlepiece. Should I check it for worms? FoFP From sloterdijk at MSN.COM Wed Feb 8 12:50:10 2006 From: sloterdijk at MSN.COM (Burro Mike) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 17:50:10 +0000 Subject: 3 copies of the original SLOTERDIJK Integration CD on ebay ( Lollipop shop ) Message-ID: Hi friends, I've noticed that there are three copies of the orignal issue of 'Integration' on Ebay. I only have about 2 copies of the disc myself which I'm keeping..Although I occaiosnally offer a re-issue, we don't offer the original gatefold artwork anymore or the 'embossed cd'..Just search for sloterdijk at: http://www.ebay.com From paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU Wed Feb 8 13:36:58 2006 From: paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU (Paul Mather) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 13:36:58 -0500 Subject: Good CD ripper proggie?? In-Reply-To: <200602081122.k18BMQqF003891@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 11:22 +0000, M Holmes wrote: > Doing a Hawk compilation for someone (he's near retired, but hey, he > might start buying 'em...). > > So I need a proggie to grab individual tracks from CD and then I need to > put 'em all on one CD. In the old days I used to do it all with Easy CD > Creator but that doesn't work any more. > > I have Nero, but that just seems to write CDs. It doesn't help grab the > tracks to the hard drive. Itunes does seem to grab tracks as .wav but > with live albums has its own weird ideas about where the tracks start > and finish. > > Just copying the tracks from a CD from the drive doesn't work either > since they don't copy over as .wav > > So what's the simplest way to do the bit that involves copying tracks to > the hard drive? If you are interested in the quality of the copy, I suggest you use either ExactAudioCopy (EAC) [http://www.exactaudiocopy.de] or dBpowerAMP [http://www.dbpoweramp.com] if you are using MS-Windows. EAC is sort of the "gold standard" for digital audio extraction (DAE) quality on Windows. Both EAC and dBpowerAMP now support AccurateRip, which allows you to compare checksums of your DAE with those of others around the world, to be more confident of having made a bit-identical DAE. (Hey, if you use either of these, you might be able to confirm my AccurateRip checksums for the Hawkwind remasters. I think I'm the only one to have submitted results for Hawkwind CDs.;) IMHO, it's very worthwhile using a good quality DAE program, even if you believe your CD hardware to be good and your CDs pristine. My *BRAND NEW* never-been-played copy of Hawkwind's _Take Me To Your Leader_ CD would not extract the last track cleanly, leaving skips and static at places in the extracted audio. I had to set EAC on it to get a clean DEA finally, and even then I had to increase EAC's timeout for giving up because it was taking so long. (In the end, it took almost 50 minutes to extract just that one track cleanly! When I did visually examine the CD it did look a bit scuffed/grubby, which seemed odd for something just out of the shrink wrap.) But, luckily now I have a backup of a clean DAE of the entire CD in FLAC format, and so if/when my retail CD goes pear shaped I can burn myself another copy. For live tracks, the "weird ideas where the tracks start and finish" is often down to the person laying down the track markers when mastering the CD (unless you mean iTunes is being weird on top of that:). Sometimes, the index points result in a segue that's just too abrupt---at least for my tastes. In those cases, I suggest if you want to go the whole nine yards then you extract the live tracks either side, too, and then concatenate them together in an audio editor and trim off the parts at the start and the end, along with adding fades, to get it precisely as you want it. You can then save the edited version as a new WAV file and use that in your compilation. There are lots of free audio editing applications, like Audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net) and the likes that will let you do editing of this sort. Cheers, Paul. -- e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --- Frank Vincent Zappa From des at EFALKMEDIA.COM Wed Feb 8 13:55:01 2006 From: des at EFALKMEDIA.COM (E F) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 13:55:01 -0500 Subject: Good CD ripper proggie?? In-Reply-To: <1139423818.52248.24.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org> Message-ID: Try Cdex, it will Rip tracks or the whole disk. Saves as WAV or MP3 or OOG. Free too. http://www.download.com/CDex/3000-2140-10226370.html --Eric On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 13:36:58 -0500, Paul Mather wrote: > On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 11:22 +0000, M Holmes wrote: >> Doing a Hawk compilation for someone (he's near retired, but hey, he >> might start buying 'em...). >> >> So I need a proggie to grab individual tracks from CD and then I need to >> put 'em all on one CD. In the old days I used to do it all with Easy CD >> Creator but that doesn't work any more. >> >> I have Nero, but that just seems to write CDs. It doesn't help grab the >> tracks to the hard drive. Itunes does seem to grab tracks as .wav but >> with live albums has its own weird ideas about where the tracks start >> and finish. >> >> Just copying the tracks from a CD from the drive doesn't work either >> since they don't copy over as .wav >> >> So what's the simplest way to do the bit that involves copying tracks to >> the hard drive? > > If you are interested in the quality of the copy, I suggest you use > either ExactAudioCopy (EAC) [http://www.exactaudiocopy.de] or dBpowerAMP > [http://www.dbpoweramp.com] if you are using MS-Windows. EAC is sort of > the "gold standard" for digital audio extraction (DAE) quality on > Windows. Both EAC and dBpowerAMP now support AccurateRip, which allows > you to compare checksums of your DAE with those of others around the > world, to be more confident of having made a bit-identical DAE. (Hey, > if you use either of these, you might be able to confirm my AccurateRip > checksums for the Hawkwind remasters. I think I'm the only one to have > submitted results for Hawkwind CDs.;) > > IMHO, it's very worthwhile using a good quality DAE program, even if you > believe your CD hardware to be good and your CDs pristine. My *BRAND > NEW* never-been-played copy of Hawkwind's _Take Me To Your Leader_ CD > would not extract the last track cleanly, leaving skips and static at > places in the extracted audio. I had to set EAC on it to get a clean > DEA finally, and even then I had to increase EAC's timeout for giving up > because it was taking so long. (In the end, it took almost 50 minutes > to extract just that one track cleanly! When I did visually examine the > CD it did look a bit scuffed/grubby, which seemed odd for something just > out of the shrink wrap.) But, luckily now I have a backup of a clean > DAE of the entire CD in FLAC format, and so if/when my retail CD goes > pear shaped I can burn myself another copy. > > For live tracks, the "weird ideas where the tracks start and finish" is > often down to the person laying down the track markers when mastering > the CD (unless you mean iTunes is being weird on top of that:). > Sometimes, the index points result in a segue that's just too > abrupt---at least for my tastes. In those cases, I suggest if you want > to go the whole nine yards then you extract the live tracks either side, > too, and then concatenate them together in an audio editor and trim off > the parts at the start and the end, along with adding fades, to get it > precisely as you want it. You can then save the edited version as a new > WAV file and use that in your compilation. There are lots of free audio > editing applications, like Audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net) > and the likes that will let you do editing of this sort. > > Cheers, > > Paul. > -- > e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu > > "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production > deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." > --- Frank Vincent Zappa From paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU Wed Feb 8 14:25:10 2006 From: paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU (Paul Mather) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:25:10 -0500 Subject: Good CD ripper proggie?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 13:55 -0500, E F wrote: > Try Cdex, it will Rip tracks or the whole disk. Saves as WAV or MP3 or > OOG. > > Free too. All that applies to EAC and dBpowerAMP, too. Plus, EAC is trusted by more people in the trading community for high-quality DAE. (EAC really is the de facto DAE standard.) Does Cdex support AccurateRip? Does it also let you specify the CD sector sample offset for your drive, so you can get identical DAE results for a given disc across different drive hardware? Cheers, Paul. PS: Personally, I normally use cdparanoia because I don't run Windows. -- e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --- Frank Vincent Zappa From des at EFALKMEDIA.COM Wed Feb 8 14:41:02 2006 From: des at EFALKMEDIA.COM (E F) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 14:41:02 -0500 Subject: Good CD ripper proggie?? In-Reply-To: <1139426710.52248.36.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org> Message-ID: Frankly I use it in 'out of the box' mode, but it does allow you to set a drive off set and select some ripping modes including using the paranoia.library. D/L it and take it a look, it's not big and the price is right. Good Luck. --Eric On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:25:10 -0500, Paul Mather wrote: > On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 13:55 -0500, E F wrote: >> Try Cdex, it will Rip tracks or the whole disk. Saves as WAV or MP3 or >> OOG. >> >> Free too. > > All that applies to EAC and dBpowerAMP, too. Plus, EAC is trusted by > more people in the trading community for high-quality DAE. (EAC really > is the de facto DAE standard.) > > Does Cdex support AccurateRip? Does it also let you specify the CD > sector sample offset for your drive, so you can get identical DAE > results for a given disc across different drive hardware? > > Cheers, > > Paul. > > PS: Personally, I normally use cdparanoia because I don't run Windows. > -- > e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu > > "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production > deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." > --- Frank Vincent Zappa From paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU Wed Feb 8 15:15:46 2006 From: paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU (Paul Mather) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:15:46 -0500 Subject: Good CD ripper proggie?? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 14:41 -0500, E F wrote: > Frankly I use it in 'out of the box' mode, but it does allow you to set a > drive off set and select some ripping modes including using the > paranoia.library. > > D/L it and take it a look, it's not big and the price is right. > > Good Luck. [...] > On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:25:10 -0500, Paul Mather > wrote: [...] > > PS: Personally, I normally use cdparanoia because I don't run Windows. I think you might have overlooked the above PS. :-) I noticed this is stated on the CDex Web page: Operating System: All 32-bit MS Windows (95/98/NT/2000/XP) So, I don't think it'd be much practical use for *me* to try it out. (I use cdparanoia for DAE, or something like abcde if I want to do batch conversion/tagging.) :-) I do remember using CDex many many years ago, but switched to EAC when using Windows. By what you say, they have improved the feature set and DAE since then. Looking at the feature requests on the CDex site, it doesn't appear to support converting to lossless formats like SHN or FLAC (though you can always go CD > WAV, WAV > SHN/FLAC using different software, I suppose). DBpowerAMP has plugins for those, making direct conversion very easy indeed. (It also has many plugins for other audio formats, like MP3, OGG, etc.) Cheers, Paul. -- e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --- Frank Vincent Zappa From des at EFALKMEDIA.COM Wed Feb 8 15:25:49 2006 From: des at EFALKMEDIA.COM (E F) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:25:49 -0500 Subject: Good CD ripper proggie?? In-Reply-To: <1139429746.52248.57.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org> Message-ID: Oops, you're right I did miss the PS. In that case, thank you for the info regarding the software you mentioned. ;-) Cheers. --Eric On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 15:15:46 -0500, Paul Mather wrote: > On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 14:41 -0500, E F wrote: >> Frankly I use it in 'out of the box' mode, but it does allow you to set >> a >> drive off set and select some ripping modes including using the >> paranoia.library. >> >> D/L it and take it a look, it's not big and the price is right. >> >> Good Luck. > [...] >> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 14:25:10 -0500, Paul Mather >> >> wrote: > [...] >> > PS: Personally, I normally use cdparanoia because I don't run Windows. > > I think you might have overlooked the above PS. :-) I noticed this is > stated on the CDex Web page: Operating System: All 32-bit MS Windows > (95/98/NT/2000/XP) > > So, I don't think it'd be much practical use for *me* to try it out. (I > use cdparanoia for DAE, or something like abcde if I want to do batch > conversion/tagging.) :-) > > I do remember using CDex many many years ago, but switched to EAC when > using Windows. By what you say, they have improved the feature set and > DAE since then. > > Looking at the feature requests on the CDex site, it doesn't appear to > support converting to lossless formats like SHN or FLAC (though you can > always go CD > WAV, WAV > SHN/FLAC using different software, I suppose). > DBpowerAMP has plugins for those, making direct conversion very easy > indeed. (It also has many plugins for other audio formats, like MP3, > OGG, etc.) > > Cheers, > > Paul. > -- > e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu > > "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production > deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." > --- Frank Vincent Zappa From grinningboy at NTLWORLD.COM Wed Feb 8 16:34:31 2006 From: grinningboy at NTLWORLD.COM (Charlie Grant) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 21:34:31 -0000 Subject: Denial of Death Message-ID: My copy arrived today - and it does indeed rock. Favourites on first listen 1864 and Rocket Science (what a great opener). Great songs, great sound and great playing - boy that Ross the Boss is good. Also very nice, and very pleasing to see the 100 Club gig mentioned under 'The Special Gigs'. Maybe we could get another gig this side of the pond :-). .......Charles the Grinning Boy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Edlund Anderson" To: Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 10:10 AM Subject: Re: Denial of Death > On 03/02/2006 01:39, Stephen Swann wrote: >> Everything on there rocks > > Damn it, I only order it a few days ago, so it'll be next week at least > before it arrives even if Al hurled it straight out the door on receipt > of my order. But I need it *now*! :) > > Cheers, > Carl > > -- > Carl Edlund Anderson > mailto:cea at carlaz.com > http://www.carlaz.com/ From management at HAWKWIND.COM Thu Feb 9 07:58:31 2006 From: management at HAWKWIND.COM (Hawkwind) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:58:31 -0000 Subject: Fw: Gig announcement Message-ID: Hello Folks! GIG ANNOUNCEMENT! Hawkwind will be playing at Exeter Phoenix on Friday 7th April 2006 More info to follow soon on Mission Control www.hawkwind.com Best wishes Kris From nick at THECOMPLETESHEET.COM Thu Feb 9 21:34:18 2006 From: nick at THECOMPLETESHEET.COM (nick at THECOMPLETESHEET.COM) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 21:34:18 -0500 Subject: =?US-ASCII?B?Qk9DOiAgREZUUiBvbiAiRWFybCI=?= Message-ID: Part of the DFTR solo found its way into tonight's episode of "MY Name Is Earl". A couple weeks ago Earl also made a comment about once being "stepped on at a Motorhead concert". I really like that show. --Nick From deborah at VACANO.ORG Thu Feb 9 22:51:58 2006 From: deborah at VACANO.ORG (Deborah Vacano) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 20:51:58 -0700 Subject: BOC: DFTR on "Earl" In-Reply-To: <200602100234.k1A2YIGG054715@mmm1503.boca15-verio.com> Message-ID: I saw that.. wasn't that just too cool?? It really is a funny show.. Karma was just kicking his ass tonight..lol!! ~~Deborah nick at THECOMPLETESHEET.COM wrote: > Part of the DFTR solo found its way into tonight's episode of "MY Name Is Earl". > > A couple weeks ago Earl also made a comment about once being "stepped on at a Motorhead concert". > > I really like that show. > > --Nick > > From cea at CARLAZ.COM Fri Feb 10 04:23:35 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:23:35 +0000 Subject: Denial of Death In-Reply-To: <00ad01c62cf7$740f45a0$0202a8c0@Laptop> Message-ID: Well, my copy arrived. Wow. Really: *Wow*! I don't think it's just the sheen of newness that has me thinking this is the best Brain Surgeons disc yet. And this goes on being just a great tBS record, this is a great rock record, period. You can feel it on every 1 and 0: this disc has a 'tude a mile long, and every note comes out swinging, ready for a fight. I'm not going to make some ridiculous claim that every song is the greatest ever written, but pretty much every song *acts* like it is. A few brief notes: As soon as it arrived, I crunched down the tracks and slapped 'em on the iPod and didn't even even bother too turn off the song shuffle.... So the first track that popped up was actually "Lonestar". Woah, this was like the heaviest ZZ Top song Billy Gibbons wishes he'd recorded :) Like if everyone in the video was in leather, had firecrackers in their beards, and the car was an jet-powered dragster with scythes on its hub caps and a grinning longhorn skull for a hood ornament. Last exit to Texas, indeed ..... 1864: Damn, I had to look down and check that the iPod hadn't just cued my Motorhead track instead. Brutal opening that would do Lemmy proud, and it never lets up. Finest tribute to an ancestor yet committed to disc :) Constantine's Sword: Fabulous chugging on the chorus (dangerously catchy, actually), and the false ending that cuts to shredly boogie is all class. Man, ever time I fire up a new track, I think "OK, I'm bound not to like this one at last." And I think, "Huh, that _is_ a great riff .... Oh, this one rocks, too!" :) I was prepared to decide "Strange Like Me" was going to be the token weak acousticky track, but then it too turns out to kick, and has outrageous flamencoid shredding sprayed all over it :) So, to reduce the risk of just keep gushing on a song by song basis, I'll sum up: This is a mighty rock record. It comes over like it wants to steal your children -- or at least have your children, then steal them. Ross is the catalyst for this exothermic reaction: the disc is absolutely packed with muscle-bound guitar. I honestly don't know if there's a track that a major label exec would point to as hit single material, but that hardly matters in this context -- the important thing is that I haven't found a track that I want to skip over. Oh, I like this record! Definitely one of the best I've heard in the last few years :) Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson http://www.carlaz.com/ From jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK Fri Feb 10 07:47:53 2006 From: jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK (Jonathan Jarrett) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:47:53 +0000 Subject: OFF: Deb Frost is metal In-Reply-To: <43E8746F.3060206@carlaz.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 10:20:31AM +0000, Carl Edlund Anderson typed out: > On 04/02/2006 23:44, Tony wrote: > >Is Kelly still in Girls/Grannyschool? She was a hottie! > > Kelly Johnson? No, she was involved here and there in the '90s I think, > but since 2000 or so the lead guitar has been a Jackie Chambers. Kim, > Enid, and Denise from the "classic" lineup are there. I have to admit, when I saw pictures of the line-up on their site I did suspect that Ms Chambers might have been recruited mainly to drop bikers' jaws. Can she actually play? Obviously if she can then it's perfectly acceptable to lech about her... ;-) Yours, Jon ObCD: Stinking Lizavetta - _III_ -- Jonathan Jarrett Birkbeck College, London jjarrett at chiark.greenend.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------- "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." (Tom Waits) From cea at CARLAZ.COM Fri Feb 10 07:58:04 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:58:04 +0000 Subject: OFF: Deb Frost is metal In-Reply-To: <20060210124753.GA18294@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: On 10/02/2006 12:47, Jonathan Jarrett wrote: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 10:20:31AM +0000, Carl Edlund Anderson typed out: >> On 04/02/2006 23:44, Tony wrote: >> >Is Kelly still in Girls/Grannyschool? She was a hottie! >> >> Kelly Johnson? No, she was involved here and there in the '90s I think, >> but since 2000 or so the lead guitar has been a Jackie Chambers. Kim, >> Enid, and Denise from the "classic" lineup are there. > > I have to admit, when I saw pictures of the line-up on their site I did suspect that Ms Chambers > might have been recruited mainly to drop bikers' jaws. Can she actually play? Obviously if she can then it's > perfectly acceptable to lech about her... ;-) If forced to pick between the members of Girlschool and Lemmy, I guess I'd choose the former ;) though haven't felt a great deal of interest in leching at them (though I say this as a married man probably some 15-20 years their junior). Still, I'm sure any rock musician is well-served by an ability to drop the jaws of members of the audience. That said, I've not noticed anything wrong with the playing of Ms Chambers. Mind you, Girlschool songs do not require supreme guitar heroics to get their point across, much as is true with Motorhead! Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK Fri Feb 10 08:00:39 2006 From: jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK (Jonathan Jarrett) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:00:39 +0000 Subject: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602071108.k17B8XvF029470@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:08:33AM +0000, M Holmes typed out: > pete howe writes: > > such is the sorry nature of some so-called "human > > beings"..so in reality, complete freedom of speech can never be > > totally justified > > Try me. I'll certainly give it a go. Just hold people responsible for > predictable consequences of their speech which are illegal or harmful. There's the weasel room right there, in the word `predictable'. Especially when you introduce statistics into it. We can predict, perhaps, or so it could be claimed, that a certain number of people will infringe such rights, so how `predictable' does something need to be before you can legislate? > > due to the minority that will abuse it. > > It's about as reasonable to fix that problem by limiting freedom of > speech as it is to fix speeding by banning cars. Surely not by banning cars, but by "limiting" their use to, say, 70 mph and less in certain areas. Oh wait. Limiting and banning are not the same thing in either case. I do agree with your principles here, but I think that so far the opposition has its arguments better marshalled. Yours, Jon -- Jonathan Jarrett Birkbeck College, London jjarrett at chiark.greenend.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------- "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." (Tom Waits) From maxine.wesley at PORT.AC.UK Fri Feb 10 08:05:55 2006 From: maxine.wesley at PORT.AC.UK (Maxine Wesley) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:05:55 -0000 Subject: On: Gig Annnouncement Message-ID: > Hello Folks! > GIG ANNOUNCEMENT! > Hawkwind will be playing at Exeter Phoenix on Friday 7th April 2006 > More info to follow soon on Mission Control www.hawkwind.com=20 > Best wishes > Kris I'm sorry but I think you'll find that we don't encourage advertising or spamming on this list. Only kidding - weeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, yipeeeeeeeeee! It's been a long hard winter and along comes spring, and a gig. Can life get any better? cheers Maxine From steve.bishop at DB.COM Fri Feb 10 08:12:03 2006 From: steve.bishop at DB.COM (Steve Bishop) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:12:03 +0000 Subject: On: Gig Annnouncement In-Reply-To: <43ED0125.29212.58752058@port.ac.uk> Message-ID: yeah it can get better - the gig could be a bit closer to my home in Essex !! Steve Maxine Wesley Sent by: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List To BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET 10/02/2006 13:05 cc Subject Please respond to On: Gig Annnouncement BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List > Hello Folks! > GIG ANNOUNCEMENT! > Hawkwind will be playing at Exeter Phoenix on Friday 7th April 2006 > More info to follow soon on Mission Control www.hawkwind.com=20 > Best wishes > Kris I'm sorry but I think you'll find that we don't encourage advertising or spamming on this list. Only kidding - weeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, yipeeeeeeeeee! It's been a long hard winter and along comes spring, and a gig. Can life get any better? cheers Maxine --- This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Fri Feb 10 09:33:48 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:33:48 GMT Subject: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Jonathan Jarrett's message of Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:00:39 +0000 Message-ID: Jonathan Jarrett writes: > On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 11:08:33AM +0000, M Holmes typed out: > > pete howe writes: > > > such is the sorry nature of some so-called "human beings"..so in > > > reality, complete freedom of speech can never be totally justified > > Try me. I'll certainly give it a go. Just hold people responsible > > for predictable consequences of their speech which are illegal or > > harmful. > There's the weasel room right there I stoat my case and I'll stick to it. > in the word `predictable'. Especially when you introduce statistics > into it. We can predict, perhaps, or so it could be claimed, that a > certain number of people will infringe such rights, so how > `predictable' does something need to be before you can legislate? Enough for 12 folks on the jury to agree that it was only to be expected. Stats won't cut it for your, heh, average jury. > > > due to the minority that will abuse it. > > It's about as reasonable to fix that problem by limiting freedom of > > speech as it is to fix speeding by banning cars. > Surely not by banning cars, but by "limiting" their use to, > say, 70 mph and less in certain areas. Oh Doesn't creating that limit actually cause speeding? After all, one can't speed where there's no speed limit. > wait. Limiting and banning are not the same thing in either case. > I do agree with your principles here, but I think that so far > the opposition has its arguments better marshalled. Yeah, burning down Embassies is just so, well, eloquent. Looks like the word is getting out about the Danish Imams who lied about the three fake piccies though. If I were them, I'd be back in Denmark when the arabs find out. The Danes hate 'em for what they've done, but they'll stop at cutting relations with the danish Muslim Council. If that piccie of the dog fucking a demale muslim worshipper gets attributed to them in Saudi, they'll probably hand for apostasy. Now *that* would be a hell of a way to learn to appreciate Danish free speech. FoFP From Thaiboysexpress at AOL.COM Fri Feb 10 09:33:54 2006 From: Thaiboysexpress at AOL.COM (Martin Hutchby) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:33:54 EST Subject: On: Gig Annnouncement Message-ID: Essex?, how about Derby!!!!!! From mlicht at CYBERMESA.COM Fri Feb 10 09:45:29 2006 From: mlicht at CYBERMESA.COM (Mark Licht) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 07:45:29 -0700 Subject: Gig Annnouncement In-Reply-To: <43ED0125.29212.58752058@port.ac.uk> Message-ID: Life could get better if the major announcement (that's just days away) is to a announce a world wide tour including the left side of the pond. Always hopeful, Mark Only kidding - weeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, yipeeeeeeeeee! It's been a long hard winter and along comes spring, and a gig. Can life get any better? cheers Maxine From steve.bishop at DB.COM Fri Feb 10 09:46:40 2006 From: steve.bishop at DB.COM (Steve Bishop) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:46:40 +0000 Subject: On: Gig Annnouncement In-Reply-To: <29d.52288d8.311dfe52@aol.com> Message-ID: sounds like they need to do a full nationwide tour - come on HW, how about it ?!! Martin Hutchby Sent by: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List To BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET 10/02/2006 14:33 cc Subject Please respond to Re: On: Gig Annnouncement BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List Essex?, how about Derby!!!!!! --- This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. From oystrgal at BELLSOUTH.NET Fri Feb 10 10:36:37 2006 From: oystrgal at BELLSOUTH.NET (Jean Lansford) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:36:37 -0500 Subject: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: From: M Holmes > > Jonathan Jarrett writes: > > > Surely not by banning cars, but by "limiting" their use to, > > say, 70 mph and less in certain areas. Oh > > Doesn't creating that limit actually cause speeding? After all, one > can't speed where there's no speed limit. Well, from an engineering point of view, speeding happens whenever someone drives faster than the road is designed to be driven on safely. So, if the physics says that a car of a predefined configuration (the "design vehicle") will go airborne if it tried to go around a curve at greater than a given speed, we try to set the speed limit at 5-10 mph below that speed to give people some cushion for uncontrollable variables like a vehicle with balder tires or a mis-set speedometer. There are often other considerations as well, such as the presence of pedestrians, but most speed limits in the US are set by the physical configuration of the road. From roger.wynne-jones at VIRGIN.NET Fri Feb 10 11:00:09 2006 From: roger.wynne-jones at VIRGIN.NET (roger) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:00:09 +0000 Subject: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <20060210153637.WCNJ2285.ibm58aec.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net> Message-ID: Well I've driven down the M40 at 120+ and the the only safety problems are caused by the idiots in front of me driving too slowly and not getting out of my way If I wasn't such a good driver I might have been hurt R Jean Lansford wrote: > From: M Holmes >> Jonathan Jarrett writes: >> >>> Surely not by banning cars, but by "limiting" their use to, >>> say, 70 mph and less in certain areas. Oh >> Doesn't creating that limit actually cause speeding? After all, one >> can't speed where there's no speed limit. > > Well, from an engineering point of view, speeding happens > whenever someone drives faster than the road is designed to > be driven on safely. So, if the physics says that a car of > a predefined configuration (the "design vehicle") will go > airborne if it tried to go around a curve at greater than a > given speed, we try to set the speed limit at 5-10 mph below > that speed to give people some cushion for uncontrollable > variables like a vehicle with balder tires or a mis-set > speedometer. > > There are often other considerations as well, such as the > presence of pedestrians, but most speed limits in the US are > set by the physical configuration of the road. > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: 09/02/2006 From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Fri Feb 10 11:01:46 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:01:46 GMT Subject: Freedom of Speeech Message-ID: Could the very same cartoons (not the fake three though) have appeared in an Egyptian newspaper during Ramadan last year and have produced nary a murmur. An arab libertarian seems to think so and he has the scans to prove it: http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html From oystrgal at BELLSOUTH.NET Fri Feb 10 11:31:07 2006 From: oystrgal at BELLSOUTH.NET (Jean Lansford) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:31:07 -0500 Subject: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: > From: roger > > Well I've driven down the M40 at 120+ and the the only safety problems > are caused by the idiots in front of me driving too slowly and not > getting out of my way > If I wasn't such a good driver I might have been hurt We can't exactly set one speed limit for Roger and another for the average drivers. As you've noted, the other drivers become a road hazard under those circumstances. Which is why we also have minimum speed limits, though we usually don't spend the money to post extra signs notifying the driving populace of such. So really, speed limits represent a range of speeds at which the general public can reasonably be expected to travel safely within. Not that it makes much difference these days. We don't have the money to build roads straight enough and flat enough for anyone to drive safely at more than about 80mph, and often not even that. -- Jean Lansford oystrgal at bellsouth.net From neiltoyne at NTLWORLD.COM Fri Feb 10 11:59:50 2006 From: neiltoyne at NTLWORLD.COM (Neil Toyne) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:59:50 -0000 Subject: On: Gig Annnouncement Message-ID: or Co. Durham..................... Still, a family trip to Cornwall in the Easter break sounds good. Just need to convince the other half. Neil ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Bishop" To: Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:12 PM Subject: Re: On: Gig Annnouncement > yeah it can get better - the gig could be a bit closer to my home in Essex !! > > Steve > > > > > Maxine Wesley > Sent by: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List > To > BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET > 10/02/2006 13:05 cc > > Subject > Please respond to On: Gig Annnouncement > BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Folks! > > GIG ANNOUNCEMENT! > > Hawkwind will be playing at Exeter Phoenix on Friday 7th April 2006 > > More info to follow soon on Mission Control www.hawkwind.com=20 > > Best wishes > > Kris > > I'm sorry but I think you'll find that we don't encourage advertising or > spamming on this list. > > > > > Only kidding - weeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, yipeeeeeeeeee! > It's been a long hard winter and along comes spring, and a gig. > > Can life get any better? > > cheers > > Maxine > > > > --- > > This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you > are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) > please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any > unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this > e-mail is strictly forbidden. > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: 09/02/2006 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: 09/02/2006 From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Fri Feb 10 12:48:46 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:48:46 GMT Subject: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Jean Lansford's message of Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:31:07 -0500 Message-ID: Jean Lansford writes: > We can't exactly set one speed limit for Roger and another for > the average drivers. Why not? having the same limit for everyone is just some kinda communism. FoFP From sunboxhouse at HOTMAIL.COM Fri Feb 10 13:21:00 2006 From: sunboxhouse at HOTMAIL.COM (pete howe) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:21:00 +0000 Subject: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602101748.k1AHmk7C005200@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: lol..this difficult subject about the idealistically correct, but, UNFORTUNATELY, real problems that exist with complete freedom of speech, has now gone from the very sub-sublime to the very very ridiculous!(bit like the true idealism of Communism, i guess,as opposed to its reality?). "lives of great men may remind us.." pete >From: M Holmes >Reply-To: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List >To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET >Subject: Re: Freeedom of Speech >Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:48:46 GMT > >Jean Lansford writes: > > > We can't exactly set one speed limit for Roger and another for > > the average drivers. > >Why not? having the same limit for everyone is just some kinda communism. > >FoFP _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search! http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/ From oystrgal at BELLSOUTH.NET Fri Feb 10 13:29:25 2006 From: oystrgal at BELLSOUTH.NET (Jean Lansford) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:29:25 -0500 Subject: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: > From: M Holmes >> Jean Lansford writes: > > > We can't exactly set one speed limit for Roger and another for > > the average drivers. > > Why not? having the same limit for everyone is just some kinda communism. Safety. If the only person the speeder killed was himself, I'd say go for it and let Darwin sort it out. But roads are much, much safer if everyone is travelling together at approximately the same speed. Especially since the vast majority of the people who run at top speed suffer from Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. From sunboxhouse at HOTMAIL.COM Fri Feb 10 14:09:28 2006 From: sunboxhouse at HOTMAIL.COM (pete howe) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:09:28 +0000 Subject: On: Gig Annnouncement In-Reply-To: <002401c62e63$6810cf90$6601a8c0@neildf262e81ac> Message-ID: Dave has clearly stated theyre getting too old to do major full british tours..its just a shame that gigs seem to concentrate on either near Daves studio(exeter way) or Newcastle(whos Radio station promote Hawkwind a lot).. The nearest hes come to Essex since 1997, is either London, or Cambridgeshire...but i can understand why..lol( joke ..i live in essex, too!).. Oh how I remember the yearly trips to the Ipswich Gaumont in south Suffolk(1978-1988)..and later on, Colchester, Essex(not so yearly..!..1990, 1991, 1993,1997).. In fact, i believe Alan Davey spent much of his youth watching Hawkwind at the Ipswich Gaumont, so I think ONE trip THIS WAY is JUSTIFIABLE!!!! :-( pete >From: Neil Toyne >Reply-To: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List >To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET >Subject: Re: On: Gig Annnouncement >Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:59:50 -0000 > >or Co. Durham..................... > >Still, a family trip to Cornwall in the Easter break sounds good. > >Just need to convince the other half. > >Neil >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Steve Bishop" >To: >Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:12 PM >Subject: Re: On: Gig Annnouncement > > > > yeah it can get better - the gig could be a bit closer to my home in >Essex >!! > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > Maxine Wesley > > Sent by: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List > > > >To > > >BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET > > 10/02/2006 13:05 >cc > > > > >Subject > > >Please respond to >On: Gig Annnouncement > > >BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Folks! > > > GIG ANNOUNCEMENT! > > > Hawkwind will be playing at Exeter Phoenix on Friday 7th April 2006 > > > More info to follow soon on Mission Control www.hawkwind.com=20 > > > Best wishes > > > Kris > > > > I'm sorry but I think you'll find that we don't encourage advertising or > > spamming on this list. > > > > > > > > > > Only kidding - weeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, yipeeeeeeeeee! > > It's been a long hard winter and along comes spring, and a gig. > > > > Can life get any better? > > > > cheers > > > > Maxine > > > > > > > > --- > > > > This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If >you > > are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) > > please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any > > unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this > > e-mail is strictly forbidden. > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: >09/02/2006 > > > > > > > >-- >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: 09/02/2006 _________________________________________________________________ Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger 7.5 today! http://messenger.msn.co.uk From roger.wynne-jones at VIRGIN.NET Fri Feb 10 14:15:28 2006 From: roger.wynne-jones at VIRGIN.NET (roger) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:15:28 +0000 Subject: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <20060210182925.MPTJ4015.ibm59aec.bellsouth.net@mail.bellsouth.net> Message-ID: No, I really am very smart and I use my vast knowledge to educate others who can only gasp in amazement at what i can and do achieve, often! on my way to a Hawkwind gig at Hitchin if i remember correctly, and I usually do :-)) R Jean Lansford wrote: >> From: M Holmes >>> Jean Lansford writes: >>> We can't exactly set one speed limit for Roger and another for >>> the average drivers. >> Why not? having the same limit for everyone is just some kinda communism. > > Safety. If the only person the speeder killed was himself, I'd > say go for it and let Darwin sort it out. But roads are much, > much safer if everyone is travelling together at approximately > the same speed. > > Especially since the vast majority of the people who run at > top speed suffer from Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: 09/02/2006 From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Fri Feb 10 14:31:31 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:31:31 GMT Subject: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: pete howe's message of Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:21:00 +0000 Message-ID: pete howe writes: > lol..this difficult subject about the idealistically correct, but, > UNFORTUNATELY, real problems that exist with complete freedom of > speech, has now gone from the very sub-sublime to the very very > ridiculous!(bit like the true idealism of Communism, i guess,as > opposed to its reality?). Grandson: Papa. What will the future be like when we have True Communism? Papa: Why, we'll all have personal aeroplanes. Grandson: Where will we fly to Papa? Papa : Saint Petersburg, or anywhere else we want to go. Grandson : Papa, what will we doi when we get there? Papa : Well, queue for bread I suppose. From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Fri Feb 10 14:33:28 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 19:33:28 GMT Subject: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Jean Lansford's message of Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:29:25 -0500 Message-ID: Jean Lansford writes: > Especially since the vast majority of the people who run at > top speed suffer from Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. Y'know: I had to look that up, but already I like it. FoFP From nycademon at SPIRALREALM.COM Fri Feb 10 14:47:56 2006 From: nycademon at SPIRALREALM.COM (Guido Vacano) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 12:47:56 -0700 Subject: On: Gig Annnouncement In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Umm . . . is Britain really big enough for this to be a major issue? :-) I think I'd drive to Wyoming (I'm in Colorado) if they were playing there (though there's really nothing IN Wyoming, and it's a bit redneck for Hawkwind, but you get the idea), and maybe farther. Guido pete howe wrote: > Dave has clearly stated theyre getting too old to do major full british > tours..its just a shame that gigs seem to concentrate on either near > Daves > studio(exeter way) or Newcastle(whos Radio station promote Hawkwind a > lot).. > The nearest hes come to Essex since 1997, is either London, or > Cambridgeshire...but i can understand why..lol( joke ..i live in essex, > too!).. > Oh how I remember the yearly trips to the Ipswich Gaumont in south > Suffolk(1978-1988)..and later on, Colchester, Essex(not so > yearly..!..1990, > 1991, 1993,1997).. > In fact, i believe Alan Davey spent much of his youth watching > Hawkwind at > the Ipswich Gaumont, so I think ONE trip THIS WAY is JUSTIFIABLE!!!! > :-( > pete > >> From: Neil Toyne >> Reply-To: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List >> To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET >> Subject: Re: On: Gig Annnouncement >> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:59:50 -0000 >> >> or Co. Durham..................... >> >> Still, a family trip to Cornwall in the Easter break sounds good. >> >> Just need to convince the other half. >> >> Neil >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Steve Bishop" >> To: >> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:12 PM >> Subject: Re: On: Gig Annnouncement >> >> >> > yeah it can get better - the gig could be a bit closer to my home in >> Essex >> !! >> > >> > Steve >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Maxine Wesley >> > Sent by: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List >> >> > >> To >> > >> BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET >> > 10/02/2006 13:05 >> cc >> > >> > >> Subject >> > >> Please respond to >> On: Gig Annnouncement >> > >> BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > Hello Folks! >> > > GIG ANNOUNCEMENT! >> > > Hawkwind will be playing at Exeter Phoenix on Friday 7th April 2006 >> > > More info to follow soon on Mission Control www.hawkwind.com=20 >> > > Best wishes >> > > Kris >> > >> > I'm sorry but I think you'll find that we don't encourage >> advertising or >> > spamming on this list. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Only kidding - weeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, yipeeeeeeeeee! >> > It's been a long hard winter and along comes spring, and a gig. >> > >> > Can life get any better? >> > >> > cheers >> > >> > Maxine >> > >> > >> > >> > --- >> > >> > This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If >> you >> > are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) >> > please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any >> > unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in >> this >> > e-mail is strictly forbidden. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: >> 09/02/2006 >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: >> 09/02/2006 > > _________________________________________________________________ > Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger > 7.5 today! http://messenger.msn.co.uk From jill.strobridge at BLUEYONDER.CO.UK Fri Feb 10 16:58:46 2006 From: jill.strobridge at BLUEYONDER.CO.UK (Jill Strobridge) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 21:58:46 -0000 Subject: On: Gig Annnouncement Message-ID: no complaints from me. I may live away north in Scotland but all my relatives are down in Devon so whenever Hawkwind play Exeter I can do the essential travelling / family visits / socialising and then have the best reward of all - a Hawkwind gig 8-) cheers jill ----- Original Message ----- From: "pete howe" To: Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 7:09 PM Subject: Re: On: Gig Annnouncement > Dave has clearly stated theyre getting too old to do major full british > tours..its just a shame that gigs seem to concentrate on either near Daves > studio(exeter way) or Newcastle(whos Radio station promote Hawkwind a > lot).. > The nearest hes come to Essex since 1997, is either London, or > Cambridgeshire...but i can understand why..lol( joke ..i live in essex, > too!).. > Oh how I remember the yearly trips to the Ipswich Gaumont in south > Suffolk(1978-1988)..and later on, Colchester, Essex(not so > yearly..!..1990, > 1991, 1993,1997).. > In fact, i believe Alan Davey spent much of his youth watching Hawkwind at > the Ipswich Gaumont, so I think ONE trip THIS WAY is JUSTIFIABLE!!!! > :-( > pete > >>From: Neil Toyne >>Reply-To: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List >>To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET >>Subject: Re: On: Gig Annnouncement >>Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:59:50 -0000 >> >>or Co. Durham..................... >> >>Still, a family trip to Cornwall in the Easter break sounds good. >> >>Just need to convince the other half. >> >>Neil >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Steve Bishop" >>To: >>Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:12 PM >>Subject: Re: On: Gig Annnouncement >> >> >> > yeah it can get better - the gig could be a bit closer to my home in >>Essex >>!! >> > >> > Steve >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Maxine Wesley >> > Sent by: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List >> >> > >>To >> > >>BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET >> > 10/02/2006 13:05 >>cc >> > >> > >>Subject >> > >>Please respond to >>On: Gig Annnouncement >> > >>BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > Hello Folks! >> > > GIG ANNOUNCEMENT! >> > > Hawkwind will be playing at Exeter Phoenix on Friday 7th April 2006 >> > > More info to follow soon on Mission Control www.hawkwind.com=20 >> > > Best wishes >> > > Kris >> > >> > I'm sorry but I think you'll find that we don't encourage advertising >> > or >> > spamming on this list. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Only kidding - weeeehaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, yipeeeeeeeeee! >> > It's been a long hard winter and along comes spring, and a gig. >> > >> > Can life get any better? >> > >> > cheers >> > >> > Maxine >> > >> > >> > >> > --- >> > >> > This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If >>you >> > are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) >> > please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any >> > unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in >> > this >> > e-mail is strictly forbidden. >> > >> > >> > -- >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: >>09/02/2006 >> > >> > >> >> >> >>-- >>No virus found in this outgoing message. >>Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.4/255 - Release Date: 09/02/2006 > > _________________________________________________________________ > Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger > 7.5 today! http://messenger.msn.co.uk > > From jill.strobridge at BLUEYONDER.CO.UK Sat Feb 11 06:58:18 2006 From: jill.strobridge at BLUEYONDER.CO.UK (Jill Strobridge) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 11:58:18 -0000 Subject: HW: life on mars Message-ID: Just trying to fit the Hawkwind tracks into the 'Life on Mars' timeframe. I missed last week's episode but understand that a football match was being played even though the series appears to be set in mid-summer. My (hazy!) recollection is that in 1973 cricket and football seasons didn't overlap to the extent they do today when football has effectively become a year-round sport. However both Urban Guerilla and Ejection were late summer / early autumn releases so it could have been a very warm September! And on reflection this is actually possible - I was just starting work at the University after doing a train tour round Scotland and can remember some stunningly beautiful scenery - so the weather must have been pretty good! Yrs reminiscently jill ================================ Jill Strobridge =============================== From jill.strobridge at BLUEYONDER.CO.UK Sat Feb 11 09:15:24 2006 From: jill.strobridge at BLUEYONDER.CO.UK (Jill Strobridge) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:15:24 -0000 Subject: OFF: Stonehenge - new road scheme Message-ID: Just in case there is anyone interested in the proposed road schemes through / round / underneath Stonehenge I've just received a leaflet from the Highways Agency (Department of Transport) detailing the different options for Public Consultation. There is (was) an exhibition at the White Hart Hotel in Salisbury on Thursday - Saturday 9th-11th February and in London on Friday-Saturday 17th-18th February at the Society of Antiquaries, Burlington House, Piccadilly (sadly they don't seem to have given much warning for anyone who might wanted to have attend these!). There's a website at www.highways.gov.uk/stonehenge and a questionnaire to complete (headed up with the slogan: "Safe roads, Reliable journeys, Informed travellers" hmmm). Closing date for opinions is 24th April 2006. Enjoy! jill ============================================== Jill Strobridge ============================================== From jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK Sat Feb 11 09:33:47 2006 From: jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK (Jonathan Jarrett) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:33:47 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <43ECB889.4040707@virgin.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 04:00:09PM +0000, roger typed out: > Well I've driven down the M40 at 120+ and the the only safety problems > are caused by the idiots in front of me driving too slowly and not > getting out of my way Yeah, I mean, how are you supposed to maintain a safe stopping distance when their poxy little cars won't even do your chosen speed, eh? Don't they know your reaction time is limited? > If I wasn't such a good driver I might have been hurt Not just you, alas. Sorry, that might be a little harsh. But you're making me glad I don't drive. I suspect this is a joke but I've lost too many friends in RTAs to find it that funny. Yours, Jon ObCD: Hawkwind - _Levitation_ (which would be slightly safer than crossing the road at least) -- Jonathan Jarrett Birkbeck College, London jjarrett at chiark.greenend.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------- "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." (Tom Waits) From judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM Sat Feb 11 12:17:19 2006 From: judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM (trev) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 17:17:19 -0000 Subject: ron tree judge trev moab Message-ID: Hi all you Blessed Ones and Real Festival People and Hawkfans. "Insect Brain" by the spacerock supergroup MOTHER OF ALL BANDS, featuring Ron Tree (Hawkwind), Judge Trev (Inner City Unit/Space Ritual), Commander Jim Hawkman (Inner City Unit/Spaceritual), John Morgan (Senser), Angelflame (Space Ritual), Richard Lanchester (Here and Now) is now available: http://www.realfestivalmusic.co.uk/musicinsectbrain.html Tracks: Insect Brain - Tree Meat Eater - Tree/Thoms War Machine - Tree/Hook Uber Alles Dolphins - Thoms Precious - Tree/Thoms Reflections - Tree/Thoms Me - Thoms Yasser - Thoms/Tree Spirit of the Age - Calvert/Brock cheques, credit cards or pay pal accepted on website, or send cheque, postal order or international money order to: Real Festival Music 34a Upper Lewes Road Brighton East Sussex BN2 3FH UK Price is ?10 plus postage UK 50p...Europe ?1...Rest of World ?1.50 This album was completed in 2003 and since then has been the subject of arguments, betrayals, and legal litigation, you know - the usual. I am releasing "Insect Brain" privately to you friends, in order to maintain it's "unreleased" status somewhat, to enable a proper release in the future if any record company might be willing to handle it. Profits from this CDr will go towards the costs incurred in the management dispute which has prevented it's release up 'til now. One thing I can say is that I honestly consider this to be my best guitar performance and Ron's best ever vocal performance on record. This album has X factor and is very well recorded and mixed. Fot it to be buried for evermore, as is otherwise possible, would be a crime. Judge Trev reviews: Aural Innovations review : The Mother Of All Bands - "Insect Brain" (unreleased-as yet!) >From Aural Innovations #30 (February 2005) The Mother Of All Bands features Ron Tree (ex Hawkwind 1995-2002) and Judge Trev Thoms (Inner City Unit), and their musical pasts are in the melting pot of this band's style, but with a lot of fresh new ingredients thrown in too! The album starts with the title track ("Insect Brain") with some pretty unsettling effected laughter (and a tune that reminds me of the Iron Butterfly classic "In-A Gadda Da Vida", but with a whole otherworldy thing going on!). Ron shines from the word go with some true to form eccentric wordplay and subtle alien high pitched backing ("f-f-f focus through my eyes"). It's wonderfully eccentric and something that rocks out too. "Meat Eater Man" is a mid tempo, darker affair with some excellent soloing from Judge Trev as a kind of co-lead vocal guitar, some distorted random words from Ron at the end of the track giving it an almost chaotic feel. "War Machine" thumps in after a news sample discussing the war on terror situation and it's good to hear it in the lyrics ("like the gremlin, mutilation is your toy!"/"world leaders...of death! misery! & pain!"), blistering solo from Judge Trev on this. "Dolphins Uber Alles" sees Trev on lead vocals, which is a nice contrast with a rocking heavy vibe and some rootsy on-fire soloing, cymbals washing into "Precious", which is a trance like pace. I have to mention again Judge Trev Thom's playing as it keeps sliding in and out snake like, very raw but driving it on with Ron Tree at full throttle vocally. "Behind the Mirror" rocks out with some space rock 'n roll, with Ron and Angie (from Spaceritual) singing. I get the feeling this one is about the disconnection of everyday interaction (i.e., the net). An instrumental follows on from a rocker of a track again with Judge Trev singing with deep booming gong hits, a dark brooding instrumental which brings to mind vast dunes of sand at dusk. "Spirit Of The Age 21st Century" is the 'MOAB''s nod and tribute to one Robert Calvert, but rewriting it actually with some manic robotic effected vocals from Ron and the punkiest I've heard it so far! Excellent! This album is brilliant and I was lucky enough to receive a copy from the band to keep to myself. The band are looking for a deal and I honestly think fans of Ron and Trev will simply love this and so too will anyone else looking for something fresh, edgy and wild. If we all make enough noise to the companies who knows? This is a band to definitely keep an eye out for. I think they'll get their music out there as it already sounds like a classic album you'd buy. Reviewed by Keith Hill The Organ review: M.O.A.B (Mother Of All Bands) - What we have here is a Hawkfamily supergroup, indeed the mother of all (or is that Nik Turner's Space Ritual?). The Hawkfamily have always been much more than just Hawkwind themselves - the offshoots, friends and relations, the inner city units and starfighters. Here we have one time I.C.U pilot Judge Trev Thoms on guitar, we got commander Jim Hawkman on synths and various compulsory swizz-iii-fiiiiiissss- shhhh spinning noise - insect noises, the broken call of noise. we got Ron Tree on vocals (fresh from a seven year space mission with the Baron Brock and the Hawkship), six legs that become eight with Senser percussionist John Morgan. Classic space rock that as much rooted (as the band point out themselves) in Cream and Iron Butterfly as classic 70's Calvert flavoured Hawkwind. They have nailed down songs drenched in those lyrical Moorcockisms and those killing jokes - meat eating space formula conspiracy and mad scientific experience. They have that ability to jam the space jam without ever getting boring or cliched about it. Red light shooting like gremlin pushing urban guerillas with a full album on the launch pad ready to fly. Indeed inner city unit urban guerillas - and it all ends with a rather fine version of Spirit Of The Age. Go ask The Judge about it over at AND THERE CAME THE BEASTS AND KINGS WITH THEIR ARMIES AND THEIR CAPTAINS TO MAKE WAR WITH HIM UPON THE HORSE AND TO MAKE WAR WITH HIS ARMIES AND HIS EYES WERE AS A FLAME OF FIRE HE WAS CROWNED WITH MANY CROWNS AND IN RIGHTEOUSNESS HE JUDGES AND IN RIGHTEOUSNESS HE WAGES WAR http://www.judgetrev.com REAL FESTIVAL MUSIC - RFM http://www.realfestivalmusic.co.uk Festival Listings, Festival Reviews, CDs, Video Downloads, News, Forum, Chat, Healers From grinningboy at NTLWORLD.COM Sat Feb 11 12:30:54 2006 From: grinningboy at NTLWORLD.COM (Charlie Grant) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 17:30:54 -0000 Subject: Denial of Death Message-ID: Quick question - and excuse my ignorance - but does any one have any info on R Friedman, who co-wrote 7 of the tracks? Obviously a big influence over the album and contributing to it's cohesiveness and overall greatness. From tony.orourke at TALK21.COM Sat Feb 11 13:01:57 2006 From: tony.orourke at TALK21.COM (Tony) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:01:57 -0000 Subject: Denial of Death In-Reply-To: <000601c62f30$ea5989b0$0202a8c0@Laptop> Message-ID: Isn't R Friedman the real name of Ross Funicello aka Ross The Boss? I heard / read somewhere that Ross had co-written some of the songs on DOD. -----Original Message----- From: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List [mailto:BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET] On Behalf Of Charlie Grant Sent: 11 February 2006 17:31 To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET Subject: Re: Denial of Death Quick question - and excuse my ignorance - but does any one have any info on R Friedman, who co-wrote 7 of the tracks? Obviously a big influence over the album and contributing to it's cohesiveness and overall greatness. From cea at CARLAZ.COM Sat Feb 11 15:15:46 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:15:46 +0000 Subject: Denial of Death In-Reply-To: <000201c62f35$3fb20000$0a00000a@studybox> Message-ID: Yup. R Friedman = Ross the Boss. Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson http://www.carlaz.com/ From webmaster at ANCIENTEUROPE.INFO Sat Feb 11 16:52:11 2006 From: webmaster at ANCIENTEUROPE.INFO (Webmaster@ancienteurope.info) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 21:52:11 -0000 Subject: Stonehenge - new road scheme In-Reply-To: <006701c62f15$9a2eb9d0$6865a8c0@jillspc> Message-ID: More news of Stonehenge on this thread, including the NT and other press releases. http://www.care2.com/c2c/groups/disc.html?gpp=4648&pst=170374&archival= George From grinningboy at NTLWORLD.COM Sun Feb 12 04:50:04 2006 From: grinningboy at NTLWORLD.COM (Charlie Grant) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:50:04 -0000 Subject: Denial of Death Message-ID: It all makes perfect sense now. Thanks guys. .......CtGB. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Edlund Anderson" To: Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 8:15 PM Subject: Re: Denial of Death > Yup. R Friedman = Ross the Boss. > > Cheers, > Carl > > -- > Carl Edlund Anderson > http://www.carlaz.com/ From grinningboy at NTLWORLD.COM Sun Feb 12 04:53:15 2006 From: grinningboy at NTLWORLD.COM (Charlie Grant) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 09:53:15 -0000 Subject: Denial of Death Message-ID: A rock musician not using their real name - whatever next? .......CtGB. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Edlund Anderson" To: Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 8:15 PM Subject: Re: Denial of Death > Yup. R Friedman = Ross the Boss. > > Cheers, > Carl > > -- > Carl Edlund Anderson > http://www.carlaz.com/ From swann at PLUTONIA.COM Sun Feb 12 11:22:13 2006 From: swann at PLUTONIA.COM (Stephen Swann) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 11:22:13 -0500 Subject: Denial of Death In-Reply-To: <000601c62f30$ea5989b0$0202a8c0@Laptop> Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 05:30:54PM -0000, Charlie Grant wrote: > Quick question - and excuse my ignorance - but does any one have any info on > R Friedman, who co-wrote 7 of the tracks? Obviously a big influence over the > album and contributing to it's cohesiveness and overall greatness. Well, other people have already answered that R. Friedman = Ross the Boss. Ross is a bona fide guitar superhero, and everything he writes or plays shows it. His monster guitar sound, and Al's dark, powerful songwriting have combined to create the best rock/ metal sound I've heard in *years*. Also, they are a commanding live presence these days - you will be blown away. Steve From swann at PLUTONIA.COM Sun Feb 12 11:24:18 2006 From: swann at PLUTONIA.COM (Stephen Swann) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 11:24:18 -0500 Subject: Denial of Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:23:35AM +0000, Carl Edlund Anderson wrote: > > So, to reduce the risk of just keep gushing on a song by song basis, > I'll sum up: This is a mighty rock record. The funny thing is, as soon as I heard the disc, one of the first things that came to mind was "Carl's going to love this one." Steve From js3619 at ACMENET.NET Sun Feb 12 15:29:27 2006 From: js3619 at ACMENET.NET (Jason Scruton) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 15:29:27 -0500 Subject: BRAIN: my review of Denial of Death -- will by BrainTrust stature be revoked? In-Reply-To: <20060212162418.GB16719@plutonia.com> Message-ID: Hi gang/compatriots/strangers/list-denizens, For a few weeks now I've been struggling to figure something out about the Denial of Death. On second thought, strike that. For a few weeks now I've been struggling to figure out how I get along with Denial of Death. When I first gave it spin-time, I had written,"The previous tBS albs are more like laboratories of heavy expressions, but they're not as singularly successful with just ONE style as on DoD. It's very different for that same reason. Very cool, by my book." This sentence was a bit biased, 'cause I'd had been bitten by the enthusiasm I felt when hearing a few of the tracks in a live setting previously. my quote from myself was based p[rimarilu on those tracks. I do definately love a few tracks. But.... not the whole. and this BUGS ME TO NO END. It tears me up to know that after 5 days or so in my CD player, I've already put the disc away in favor of Funkadelic's first album and a compilation of Peter Green's Fleetwood Mac. I've been trying to figure out the 'why' behind such a lukewarm reaction. Lyrically, I feel that this material is quite spot-on. Musically, the disc has the intensity and passion that I expect from the Brain Surgeons,... I don't know. want I can put together is this so far: Past members of tBS's catalogue always left me guessing and wanting to see where the tune and the album were going. DoDeath is tightly focussed on one style. VERY tightly focussed. Yes, it rocks. that is true and heads will indeed bob and sway to the disc. Many have done so already. Hell, at CBGBs I cut the rug, too. LIve settings are always different beasts, though. Perhaps I'm taking this all too seriously. I don't know, but this disc feels... predictable to a higher degree than I'm accustomed to from any Surgeon effort in the past. That leaves me cold. Some tracks are great twists in line with what I love about the band (i'd says 3 are all-time greats), but it's not a majority. I'm sad because I truly would like to follow tBS 's foray down the path they blaze this time... Or maybe the answer's simpler: this kind of metal isn't my cup of coffee. The band I love like brothers and sisters, but the style of DoD is alien to me. I need a whiskey. I feel I've let the team down. Jason. From jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK Mon Feb 13 06:41:58 2006 From: jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK (Jonathan Jarrett) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:41:58 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602101433.k1AEXmec020612@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:33:48PM +0000, M Holmes typed out: > Jonathan Jarrett writes: > > in the word `predictable'. Especially when you introduce statistics > > into it. We can predict, perhaps, or so it could be claimed, that a > > certain number of people will infringe such rights, so how > > `predictable' does something need to be before you can legislate? > > Enough for 12 folks on the jury to agree that it was only to be > expected. Stats won't cut it for your, heh, average jury. Yes, but we're not talking about juries. You said: > > > Try me. I'll certainly give it a go. Just hold people responsible > > > for predictable consequences of their speech which are illegal or > > > harmful. If it's to be illegal, so that a jury can be asked to decide any cases at all, there must be a definition of what can be considered a predictable consequence. If it's not illegal not to know better, the notional idiot can't be brought to court. If it's to be illegal to be that idiotic, some definition of illegal idiocy must be laid down. The weasel is still safe there for now. > Doesn't creating that limit actually cause speeding? After all, one > can't speed where there's no speed limit. Certainly it does. Are you retreating to semantics or are you suggesting that the offence of dangerous driving should be enough to cover speeding without limits being required? > > I do agree with your principles here, but I think that so far > > the opposition has its arguments better marshalled. > > Yeah, burning down Embassies is just so, well, eloquent. Actions speak louder than words, they say... But The opposition to free speech doesn't all do that. If we're talking about opposition that have any arguments at all marshalled, at least. If someone is burning down embassies they're probably not susceptible to a well-turned point of debate. Yours, Jon -- Jonathan Jarrett Birkbeck College, London jjarrett at chiark.greenend.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------- "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." (Tom Waits) From cea at CARLAZ.COM Mon Feb 13 06:50:23 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:50:23 +0000 Subject: BRAIN: my review of Denial of Death -- will by BrainTrust stature be revoked? In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.1.20060212144933.021caa18@pop.acmenet.net> Message-ID: I know what you mean -- whereas previous tBS albums often verged on stylistic kitchen sink, this album *is* more focused, inevitably meaning that there is not necessarily something for everyone. On the other hand, the stylistic focus on DoD does sort of mark out territory in the way no other tBS album did -- thus, no doubt, the subtle adoption of the "tBS NYC" appellation. Things are different here. And though tBS's choice to buckle down and rock on DoD inevitably narrows things down. I do think it's a choice that plays to the band's strengths: Al, Ross, and Co. can put down some crunch and shred with the best of them, and do so here. From this base camp, whither the next ascent? Well, I guess this is all part of the trip :) Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From mysterioso at GMAIL.COM Mon Feb 13 07:11:16 2006 From: mysterioso at GMAIL.COM (Chris Allen) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:11:16 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <20060213114158.GD27546@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: > > > > > Try me. I'll certainly give it a go. Just hold people responsible > > > > for predictable consequences of their speech which are illegal or > > > > harmful. > > If it's to be illegal, so that a jury can be asked to decide any > cases at all, there must be a definition of what can be considered a > predictable consequence. If it's not illegal not to know better, the > notional idiot can't be brought to court. If it's to be illegal to be that > idiotic, some definition of illegal idiocy must be laid down. The weasel > is still safe there for now. > > What happened to "ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law"? From cea at CARLAZ.COM Mon Feb 13 07:41:47 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:41:47 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <7e287e6d0602130411m224b0720padf8be1e02ab4ca2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I don't entirely understand this (now somewhat convoluted) debate. Insofar as I am aware, no cartoon of Mohammed published in any European country of late has actually been published in violation of the laws of those countries. If this understanding is true, then any further debate over the legalities of the issue is surely moot? Whether these cartoons may be illegal somewhere else, or even whether they are offensive to some citizens of the countries in which they have been published, seems irrelevant. Lots of things that are offensive to some are still legal, and rightly so (IMO). Moreover,if some people want the laws about what's legal to publish changed, then there are existing legal avenues for them to pursue this end. This is surely true for speed limits (however they got involved in this) also. (Cue Eric Bloom's infamous "I can't drive 55" rant from the Live '76 video ;) Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From cea at CARLAZ.COM Mon Feb 13 07:48:27 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:48:27 +0000 Subject: Denial of Death In-Reply-To: <20060212162418.GB16719@plutonia.com> Message-ID: On 12/02/2006 16:24, Stephen Swann wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 09:23:35AM +0000, Carl Edlund Anderson wrote: >> So, to reduce the risk of just keep gushing on a song by song basis, >> I'll sum up: This is a mighty rock record. > > The funny thing is, as soon as I heard the disc, one of > the first things that came to mind was "Carl's going to > love this one." And you were right :) Roll on, power chord abuse! Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM Mon Feb 13 08:07:03 2006 From: judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM (trev) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:07:03 -0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: burn 'em dahn ...burn 'em dahn...grunt! trev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Jarrett" To: Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 11:41 AM Subject: Re: OFF: Freeedom of Speech > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 02:33:48PM +0000, M Holmes typed out: >> Jonathan Jarrett writes: >> > in the word `predictable'. Especially when you introduce statistics >> > into it. We can predict, perhaps, or so it could be claimed, that a >> > certain number of people will infringe such rights, so how >> > `predictable' does something need to be before you can legislate? >> >> Enough for 12 folks on the jury to agree that it was only to be >> expected. Stats won't cut it for your, heh, average jury. > > Yes, but we're not talking about juries. You said: > >> > > Try me. I'll certainly give it a go. Just hold people responsible >> > > for predictable consequences of their speech which are illegal or >> > > harmful. > > If it's to be illegal, so that a jury can be asked to decide any > cases at all, there must be a definition of what can be considered a > predictable consequence. If it's not illegal not to know better, the > notional idiot can't be brought to court. If it's to be illegal to be that > idiotic, some definition of illegal idiocy must be laid down. The weasel > is still safe there for now. > >> Doesn't creating that limit actually cause speeding? After all, one >> can't speed where there's no speed limit. > > Certainly it does. Are you retreating to semantics or are you > suggesting that the offence of dangerous driving should be enough to cover > speeding without limits being required? > >> > I do agree with your principles here, but I think that so far >> > the opposition has its arguments better marshalled. >> >> Yeah, burning down Embassies is just so, well, eloquent. > > Actions speak louder than words, they say... But The opposition > to free speech doesn't all do that. If we're talking about opposition that > have any arguments at all marshalled, at least. If someone is burning down > embassies they're probably not susceptible to a well-turned point of > debate. Yours, > Jon > > -- > Jonathan Jarrett Birkbeck College, London > jjarrett at chiark.greenend.org.uk > -------------------------------------------------------- > "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." (Tom Waits) > From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Mon Feb 13 09:00:47 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:00:47 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Jonathan Jarrett's message of Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:41:58 +0000 Message-ID: Jonathan Jarrett writes: > > > > Try me. I'll certainly give it a go. Just hold people responsible > > > > for predictable consequences of their speech which are illegal or > > > > harmful. > > If it's to be illegal, so that a jury can be asked to decide any > cases at all, there must be a definition of what can be considered a > predictable consequence. If it's not illegal not to know better, the > notional idiot can't be brought to court. If it's to be illegal to be that > idiotic, some definition of illegal idiocy must be laid down. The weasel > is still safe there for now. Use a "reasonable man" clause. Basically if a reasonable man would be expected to forsee certain consequences as a result of their exercise of free speech then those consequences are forseeable. As always the jury gets to decide the capabilities of a reasonable man. > > Doesn't creating that limit actually cause speeding? After all, one > > can't speed where there's no speed limit. > Certainly it does. Are you retreating to semantics or are you > suggesting that the offence of dangerous driving should be enough to cover > speeding without limits being required? Nah, I was just trying to be humourous. I note that some people at least detected this. > > > I do agree with your principles here, but I think that so far the > > > opposition has its arguments better marshalled. > > Yeah, burning down Embassies is just so, well, eloquent. > Actions speak louder than words, they say... Indeed and their actions tell us that they're retards. > But The opposition to free speech doesn't all do that. If we're > talking about opposition that have any arguments at all marshalled, at > least. If someone is burning down embassies they're probably not > susceptible to a well-turned point of debate. Seems that many if not most of the halfwits burning flags (do they really think we're bothered by that?) haven't even seen the 12 cartoons published in the European newspapers. This despite the fact that they were *all* published in a national Egyptian newspaper in October with not even one letter to the editor to follow. Throw in that it was Imams (teachers of Islam; wise men whose divine examples must be followed according to my dictionary) who produced the three fake, and considerably more upsetting, pictures and it seems to me that the problem lies more in the Islam religion than in the European press. Our main problem is that we have cowards like Straw and Chirac who are too damn ready to sell our hard-won freedoms to a bunch of halfwits who can't find the exit from the Middle-Ages. FoFP Next Up: Death threats over cartoons and why this means you can't have nukes. From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Mon Feb 13 09:09:57 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:09:57 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Carl Edlund Anderson's message of Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:41:47 +0000 Message-ID: Carl Edlund Anderson writes: > I don't entirely understand this (now somewhat convoluted) debate. > > Insofar as I am aware, no cartoon of Mohammed published in any European > country of late has actually been published in violation of the laws of > those countries. Correct. > If this understanding is true, then any further debate > over the legalities of the issue is surely moot? If you take the view that Islamic rules apply to Muslims and they have no more right to apply them to us than they have to demand we don't eat bacon rolls, then yes, it's pretty moot in the American sense of the word - the British sense means the opposite). > Whether these cartoons > may be illegal somewhere else, or even whether they are offensive to > some citizens of the countries in which they have been published, seems > irrelevant. Lots of things that are offensive to some are still legal, > and rightly so (IMO). Yup. > Moreover,if some people want the laws about what's legal to publish > changed, then there are existing legal avenues for them to pursue this > end. Indeed, but religions are often populated by idiots who'd rather throw their toys out of the pram and threaten others with harm than engage in the hard work of trying to persuade others of their cause. It may not be the case that Islam is more choc-full of this type of person than other religions, but the press they're getting of late is certainly making it look that way. It's well past time for the sane Muslims to rein in their loonies. The one thing we can be grateful of in the past couple of weeks is that in Britain at least, a start seems to have been made on that project. FoFP From cea at CARLAZ.COM Mon Feb 13 10:06:02 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:06:02 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602131409.k1DE9vH5007440@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On 13/02/2006 14:09, M Holmes wrote: > Carl Edlund Anderson writes: >> If this understanding is true, then any further debate >> over the legalities of the issue is surely moot? > > If you take the view that Islamic rules apply to Muslims and they have > no more right to apply them to us than they have to demand we don't eat > bacon rolls, then yes, I'm not sure I actually need to take a view one way or the other. That's just "the way it is", legally, in the UK and (presumably) most other European countries (at present). > it's pretty moot in the American sense of the > word - the British sense means the opposite). So noted! But at present, the IND hasn't decided whether to let me be British yet, so I guess I'm all right using the American meaning. Later on, if all goes well, I guess I can waffle between the two ;) >> Moreover,if some people want the laws about what's legal to publish >> changed, then there are existing legal avenues for them to pursue this >> end. > > Indeed, but religions are often populated by idiots who'd rather throw > their toys out of the pram and threaten others with harm than engage in > the hard work of trying to persuade others of their cause. It may not be > the case that Islam is more choc-full of this type of person than other > religions, but the press they're getting of late is certainly making it > look that way. It's well past time for the sane Muslims to rein in their > loonies. No argument from me on religions attracting more than the average organization's share of raving nutters! My point was only that I don't understand what _debate_ there could possibly be on this issue because, under current laws, it looks entirely black-and-white, open-and-shut. Things are illegal or not illegal; there may often be uncertainty on whether certain things are legal, but these things were pretty clearly legal. Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Mon Feb 13 10:42:11 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:42:11 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Carl Edlund Anderson's message of Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:06:02 +0000 Message-ID: Carl Edlund Anderson writes: > > it's pretty moot in the American sense of the > > word - the British sense means the opposite). > So noted! But at present, the IND hasn't decided whether to let me be > British yet, so I guess I'm all right using the American meaning. Later > on, if all goes well, I guess I can waffle between the two ;) It's always good to know these things. Look at the trouble Louise Woodward ran into (*) over a transatlantic difference in the meaning of the word "pop". > My point was only that I don't understand what _debate_ there could > possibly be on this issue because, under current laws, it looks > entirely black-and-white, open-and-shut. Things are illegal or not > illegal; there may often be uncertainty on whether certain things are > legal, but these things were pretty clearly legal. My suspicion, partly confirmed this week by comment from heads of the Met, is that in Britain, the race and incitement laws have not been fully applied to Muslims ever since the Salman Rushdie death threats. I put this down to: a) Politicians who are too timid to stand up for our rights when it's politically difficult to do so. b) The, in my view racist, belief of some influential politicians that if push came to shove, most Muslims in Britain would side with the halal halfwits (**) rather than the British way of toleration and respect for individual rights. c) Too many of our politicians would like to see such rights ended anyway, for example those sponsoring ID cards and legislation which would end free speech where religion is the subject under discussion. The upshot has been almost two decades in which halal halfwits felt free to issue death threats and pursue a violent agenda because they were immune from prosecution. Recent public reaction indicates that people have noticed this and are demanding change. That can have only good results. So yes, it was illegal, but those breaking the law had good cause to think they would not be prosecuted. FoFP * That and not knowing to STFU until her lawyer arrived. ** I refuse to dignify violent idiots with the name "terrorists". From cea at CARLAZ.COM Mon Feb 13 10:49:43 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:49:43 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602131542.k1DFgBoV008746@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On 13/02/2006 15:42, M Holmes wrote: > So yes, it was illegal, but those breaking the law had good cause to > think they would not be prosecuted. Yes. I would only clarify that the "pretty clearly legal" things to which I referred earlier were the Danish cartoons, not the English incitements to commit crimes. Inciting people to commit crimes is as pretty clearly illegal. Mind you, had I been the editor of the Danish newspaper, I might well have decided running those cartoons might not be in the interests of the business, regardless of my legal right to do so -- but I am not a newspaper editor, not familiar with those sorts of issues, and so what I might or might not have done is pretty irrelevant. The only issue, I think, is: were laws broken? The answers seem, well, pretty clear. Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From bloody.peasant at GMAIL.COM Mon Feb 13 11:16:44 2006 From: bloody.peasant at GMAIL.COM (Roy G. Ovrebo) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:16:44 +0100 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <43F07E8B.8050009@carlaz.com> Message-ID: Carl Edlund Anderson wrote: > I don't entirely understand this (now somewhat convoluted) debate. > > Insofar as I am aware, no cartoon of Mohammed published in any > European country of late has actually been published in violation > of the laws of those countries. Actually, the publication in Norway may (and I say _may_) have been in violation of a long-asleep clause about blaspheming. That clause was last invoked when Monty Python's Life of Brian was banned for a few months when it first came out. Curiously, the magazine that published those cartoons have an editorial policy of wanting to keep blasphemy illegal. Evidently, it only applies to religions they approve of themselves. They have been sued over it now... -- Roy From swann at PLUTONIA.COM Mon Feb 13 11:26:48 2006 From: swann at PLUTONIA.COM (Stephen Swann) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:26:48 -0500 Subject: BRAIN: my review of Denial of Death -- will by BrainTrust stature be revoked? In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.1.20060212144933.021caa18@pop.acmenet.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 03:29:27PM -0500, Jason Scruton wrote: > > Or maybe the answer's simpler: this kind of metal isn't my cup of > coffee. The band I love like brothers and sisters, but the style of DoD is > alien to me. Whereas, speaking for the opposition, this kind of metal is where my heart lives. Steve From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Mon Feb 13 11:35:27 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:35:27 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Carl Edlund Anderson's message of Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:49:43 +0000 Message-ID: Carl Edlund Anderson writes: > Mind you, had I been the editor of the Danish newspaper, I might well > have decided running those cartoons might not be in the interests of the > business, regardless of my legal right to do so Which would be self-censorship. The backstory is that a guy who happened to work for the newspaper was writing a children's book on the life of Muhammed. He'd asked several folks to illustrate this and found that they all demurred. This led him to do a piece for the paper on self-censorship, in which a wide call went out for cartoons top illustrate either self-censorship, or how the cartoonists thought the West saw Muslims. They chose the best 12and they were published in September. Some Danish Imams got their knickers in a twist about it but nobody was interested. They took their complaints to the Middle-east and an Egyptian newspaper printed all 12 (an Egyptian libertarian has the newspaper and sent scans as evidence) in October. This didn't even get a letter to the editor. Then the Imams produced (or simply copied from elsewhere - there are different stories here) three more cartoons: 1. Picture of Muhammed with pig snout and ears (there's a claim going that this is in fact taken from some strange Pig Imitation competition in the US or France). 2. Picture of a woman in full hajib(?) kneeling in prayer and being fucked by a dog. 3. Picture of Muhammed crushing children in his hands and the legend "Muhammed is a Paedophile". The Imams managed to get on Jordanian TV hawkwind a booklet with the original 12 and these three pictures claiming that this was what was being published in Europe. Until last week they refused to answer the Danish government on where the three fake pictures came from. Last week one broke ranks and admitted what they'd done. The rest, as they say, is history. Not a particularly wise way for holy men to act, and they've now produced about two dozen deaths as well as all the other trouble we've seen on the news. It's reasonably clear that they've manipulated both sides in order to stir up this trouble. It's doubtful they could be charged with anything in Europe. It'snot impossible that they could be charged in the Middle-East, but that would require some fairly high-profilepeople to admit they'd been duped,or worse,that they'd encouraged riots without ever having seen the pictures, let alone confirm that they were actually published. I very much doubt that anyone less barking than the BNP would have been willing to publish the cartoons of the alleged holy men. Perhaps when it comes down to it, good taste is merely another form of self-censorship. FoFP From cea at CARLAZ.COM Mon Feb 13 11:37:39 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:37:39 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <20060213161644.GB8208@deathtrap.bluecom.no> Message-ID: On 13/02/2006 16:16, Roy G. Ovrebo wrote: > Carl Edlund Anderson wrote: >> I don't entirely understand this (now somewhat convoluted) debate. >> Insofar as I am aware, no cartoon of Mohammed published in any >> European country of late has actually been published in violation >> of the laws of those countries. > > Actually, the publication in Norway may (and I say _may_) have been > in violation of a long-asleep clause about blaspheming. That clause > was last invoked when Monty Python's Life of Brian was banned for a > few months when it first came out. Ah, well, if that turns out to be the case, that would be a different issue there, then. Though, in any case, I think it goes without saying that the appropriate action to redress this kind of thing would be a civil law suit, not embassy burning .... > Curiously, the magazine that published those cartoons have an > editorial policy of wanting to keep blasphemy illegal. Evidently, > it only applies to religions they approve of themselves. They have > been sued over it now... Yes, well, the right-wing nationalists are indeed a little louder in Denmark than I personally would like to see them being :/ Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From cea at CARLAZ.COM Mon Feb 13 11:55:15 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:55:15 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602131635.k1DGZR4I028105@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On 13/02/2006 16:35, M Holmes wrote: > Carl Edlund Anderson writes: >> Mind you, had I been the editor of the Danish newspaper, I might well >> have decided running those cartoons might not be in the interests of the >> business, regardless of my legal right to do so > > Which would be self-censorship. But it is, after all, my right to censor myself whenever I feel like it. I mean, I quite often choose not to say things that I could legally say :) I rely on the law to keep other people from choosing for me. Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From oystrgal at BELLSOUTH.NET Mon Feb 13 12:04:40 2006 From: oystrgal at BELLSOUTH.NET (Jean Lansford) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:04:40 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: From: M Holmes >It may not be the case that Islam is more choc-full of this >type of person than other religions, but the press they're >getting of late is certainly making it look that way. It's >well past time for the sane Muslims to rein in their loonies. And for the Christians to rein in theirs (*koff*Robertson*koff*) and for the Republicans to rein in theirs. But we're living in a season where the loonies have the bit in their teeth. >> Certainly it does. Are you retreating to semantics or are >> you suggesting that the offence of dangerous driving should >> be enough to over speeding without limits being required? > >Nah, I was just trying to be humourous. I note that some >people at least detected this. Hey, at least you learned something new. I know you'll make good use of Dunning-Kruger. Oh, to be a fly on the wall.... From oystrgal at BELLSOUTH.NET Mon Feb 13 12:08:54 2006 From: oystrgal at BELLSOUTH.NET (Jean Lansford) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:08:54 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: From: M Holmes >Until last week they refused to answer the Danish government >on where the three fake pictures came from. Last week one >broke ranks and admitted what they'd done. Cite? I'd like to pass that on to some others who have been trying to follow this story. From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Mon Feb 13 12:22:58 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:22:58 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Carl Edlund Anderson's message of Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:55:15 +0000 Message-ID: Carl Edlund Anderson writes: > On 13/02/2006 16:35, M Holmes wrote: > > Carl Edlund Anderson writes: > >> Mind you, had I been the editor of the Danish newspaper, I might > >> well have decided running those cartoons might not be in the > >> interests of the business, regardless of my legal right to do so > > Which would be self-censorship. > But it is, after all, my right to censor myself whenever I feel like > it. I mean, I quite often choose not to say things that I could > legally say :) I rely on the law to keep other people from choosing > for me. Which works fine until a group thinks that it can have you self-censor the way they want you to my encouraging you to believe that they will cause you and your head to pursue different careers... Y'know, it'd be good if those news bods would realise that "Assassins of Allah" would make the perfect soundtrack to all those flag-burnings. FoFP From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Mon Feb 13 12:27:46 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:27:46 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Jean Lansford's message of Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:04:40 -0500 Message-ID: Jean Lansford writes: > From: M Holmes > >It may not be the case that Islam is more choc-full of this type of > >person than other religions, but the press they're getting of late is > >certainly making it look that way. It's well past time for the sane > >Muslims to rein in their loonies. > And for the Christians to rein in theirs (*koff*Robertson*koff*) and > for the Republicans to rein in theirs. No argument from me on that one, though at least they're only saying "Believe the world is only 6000 years old or we'll do more line-dancing." Though now that I think of it, those bastards did get "God, The Devil, and Bob" canned. That was one of my favourite cartoons. It'll be Mister Boffo next... > But we're living in a season where the loonies have the bit in their > teeth. ...and their heads firmly up their arses. FoFP From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Mon Feb 13 12:30:18 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:30:18 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Jean Lansford's message of Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:08:54 -0500 Message-ID: Jean Lansford writes: > From: M Holmes > > >Until last week they refused to answer the Danish government > >on where the three fake pictures came from. Last week one > >broke ranks and admitted what they'd done. > Cite? I'd like to pass that on to some others who have been > trying to follow this story. I'm reasonably sure I caught that on the BBC website on Friday. It was flying under false colours though, possibly something about Condy or Chretien condemning the publishing of the cartoons. FoFP From paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU Mon Feb 13 13:08:53 2006 From: paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU (Paul Mather) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:08:53 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602131409.k1DE9vH5007440@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 14:09 +0000, M Holmes wrote: > Indeed, but religions are often populated by idiots who'd rather throw > their toys out of the pram and threaten others with harm than engage in > the hard work of trying to persuade others of their cause. Although that may be a fashionable characterisation, I disagree with it---at least from my own personal experience. I can't think of a single incident in which I have (or anyone I know has) been directly threatened with harm by a religious person. In fact, most people I know who are religious are not even evangelical about it. That's not to say that there aren't those sort of people you talk about, but mathematically I'd say they were in the minority. Also, I'd be interested in seeing statistics on whether secular society and institutions differ in the relative number of people "who'd rather throw their toys out of the pram and threaten others with harm than engage in the hard work of trying to persuade others of their cause" as compared with religious counterparts. I would doubt it. I'd say that's a personality trait that manages to work its way out in all walks of life, be it secular or religious. I certainly agree that there is a perception of what you state. I just disagree whether it is a reality. > It may not be > the case that Islam is more choc-full of this type of person than other > religions, but the press they're getting of late is certainly making it > look that way. It's well past time for the sane Muslims to rein in their > loonies. How will we be able to tell? If the newspapers and media keep running stories of religious extremists, it won't matter what the reality is on the ground: it will still appear that the lunatics are running the asylum, whether they actually are or not. The fixation that the news has with strife and conflict as a way of selling newspapers and grabbing viewers airtime (the "If it Bleeds it Leads"/"Bad News Sells" dictum) means we rarely get a balanced view of most issues. (Indeed, as crime has actually been going down, reporting in the media and perception of crime has been going up.) If the Daily Mail wants to portray Abu Hamzu frothing on, waving his hook and preaching death as the archetypal British muslim, it's not likely that the picture we have of British muslims will change much. Is Abu Hamza representative of British muslims, though? Sure, he and the likes of the 7/7 bombers exist, but are they representative of the majority? I doubt it, just as I doubt that the country is "flooded" with asylum seekers; most hospitals are MSRA death-traps; and the average youth is an ABSO-in-waiting; and similar Daily Mail and red top fare. > The one thing we can be grateful of in the past couple of weeks is that > in Britain at least, a start seems to have been made on that project. I agree when you say above, in effect, that dialogue, not jerking knees, is what is needed. Unfortunately, there's been a lot of knee-jerk reaction on both sides of this issue. Stereotyping is not a good way forward. Cheers, Paul. -- e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --- Frank Vincent Zappa From paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU Mon Feb 13 13:40:12 2006 From: paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU (Paul Mather) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:40:12 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602131727.k1DHRkIj012235@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 17:27 +0000, M Holmes wrote: > Jean Lansford writes: > > > From: M Holmes > > > >It may not be the case that Islam is more choc-full of this type of > > >person than other religions, but the press they're getting of late is > > >certainly making it look that way. It's well past time for the sane > > >Muslims to rein in their loonies. > > > And for the Christians to rein in theirs (*koff*Robertson*koff*) and > > for the Republicans to rein in theirs. > > No argument from me on that one, though at least they're only saying > "Believe the world is only 6000 years old or we'll do more > line-dancing." Well, it might not have made the news in Blighty, but amongst the other whacky things Pat Robertson has spewed forth is a call for the Head of State of Venezuela to be assassinated by US Special Forces. (Having said that, it does sound to me more humane than being sentenced to a lifetime of line dancing.:) Cheers, Paul. -- e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --- Frank Vincent Zappa From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Mon Feb 13 13:57:45 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:57:45 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Paul Mather's message of Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:40:12 -0500 Message-ID: Paul Mather writes: > > > And for the Christians to rein in theirs (*koff*Robertson*koff*) > > > and for the Republicans to rein in theirs. > > No argument from me on that one, though at least they're only saying > > "Believe the world is only 6000 years old or we'll do more > > line-dancing." > Well, it might not have made the news in Blighty, but amongst the > other whacky things Pat Robertson has spewed forth is a call for the > Head of State of Venezuela to be assassinated by US Special Forces. I caught that. Strangely I'd had the impression that the US had actually passed a law against calling for the death of any head of state. Perhaps the UK isn't the only country that's been letting religious loonies off the hook when they've been doing this. Of course in Scotland we've been fond of Mister Robertson ever since he described us as "A dark land full of strong homosexuals". Perhaps it was the kilt that scared him. > (Having said that, it does sound to me more humane than being > sentenced to a lifetime of line dancing.:) Even Morgan Spurlock hasn't made anyone do that. FoFP From baj4164121 at AOL.COM Mon Feb 13 15:21:45 2006 From: baj4164121 at AOL.COM (Beverley Johnstone) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:21:45 -0500 Subject: A few days ? Message-ID: I was just beginning to wonder how long a few days is, after it said on mission control that a major announcement was going to be made a week gone Saturday. Surely it wasn't the Exeter gig which i'm looking forward to but it has to be more major than that surely. C'mon don't keep us in suspense any longer PLEASE. From nickmedford at HOTMAIL.COM Mon Feb 13 20:44:26 2006 From: nickmedford at HOTMAIL.COM (Nick Medford) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:44:26 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:00:47 GMT, M Holmes wrote: >Jonathan Jarrett writes: > >> > > > Try me. I'll certainly give it a go. Just hold people responsible >> > > > for predictable consequences of their speech which are illegal or >> > > > harmful. >> >> If it's to be illegal, so that a jury can be asked to decide any >> cases at all, there must be a definition of what can be considered a >> predictable consequence. If it's not illegal not to know better, the >> notional idiot can't be brought to court. If it's to be illegal to be that >> idiotic, some definition of illegal idiocy must be laid down. The weasel >> is still safe there for now. > >Use a "reasonable man" clause. Basically if a reasonable man would be >expected to forsee certain consequences as a result of their exercise of >free speech then those consequences are forseeable. This is highly problematic. For example- once this cartoons furore was already underway, would a reasonable man have been expected to foresee that reprinting them was likely to inflame the situation further (i.e. bring about an entirely *unreasonable* response from large numbers of the offended, a response involving deaths and injuries)? Surely the answer is yes, such a response was all too predictable- in which case your argument ends up being *against* those reprintings, which is presumably not what you intended. Nick From judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Feb 14 05:23:26 2006 From: judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM (trev) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:23:26 -0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: to confuse matters, how about introducing artistic license into the debate? there might be a predictable consequence sparked off by a work of art which inflames passions to act upon it's message. trev ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Medford" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 1:44 AM Subject: Re: OFF: Freeedom of Speech > On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:00:47 GMT, M Holmes wrote: > >>Jonathan Jarrett writes: >> >>> > > > Try me. I'll certainly give it a go. Just hold people >>> > > > responsible >>> > > > for predictable consequences of their speech which are illegal or >>> > > > harmful. >>> >>> If it's to be illegal, so that a jury can be asked to decide any >>> cases at all, there must be a definition of what can be considered a >>> predictable consequence. If it's not illegal not to know better, the >>> notional idiot can't be brought to court. If it's to be illegal to be >>> that >>> idiotic, some definition of illegal idiocy must be laid down. The weasel >>> is still safe there for now. >> >>Use a "reasonable man" clause. Basically if a reasonable man would be >>expected to forsee certain consequences as a result of their exercise of >>free speech then those consequences are forseeable. > > This is highly problematic. For example- once this cartoons furore was > already underway, would a reasonable man have been expected to foresee > that > reprinting them was likely to inflame the situation further (i.e. bring > about an entirely *unreasonable* response from large numbers of the > offended, a response involving deaths and injuries)? > > Surely the answer is yes, such a response was all too predictable- in > which > case your argument ends up being *against* those reprintings, which is > presumably not what you intended. > > Nick > From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Tue Feb 14 05:35:47 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:35:47 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Nick Medford's message of Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:44:26 -0500 Message-ID: Nick Medford writes: > >Use a "reasonable man" clause. Basically if a reasonable man would > >be expected to forsee certain consequences as a result of their > >exercise of free speech then those consequences are forseeable. > This is highly problematic. For example- once this cartoons furore > was already underway, would a reasonable man have been expected to > foresee that reprinting them was likely to inflame the situation > further (i.e. bring about an entirely *unreasonable* response from > large numbers of the offended, a response involving deaths and > injuries)? Nope. Generally unreasonable responses are not regarded as forseeable. FoFP From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Tue Feb 14 05:41:43 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:41:43 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: trev's message of Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:23:26 -0000 Message-ID: trev writes: > to confuse matters, how about introducing artistic license into the debate? > there might be a predictable consequence sparked off by a work of art which > inflames passions to act upon it's message. Such as the "Piss Christ" exhibit or even Hawkwind producing "Right to Decide"? It's only a problem if someone is inspired to do something illegal and then only if the artist can be regarded as inciting them to have done so. Thus someone saying "Let's burn all the infidels!" is problematic exercise of free speech because it could be reasonable to expect that where there are multiple halfwits listening, one of them might take these words as inspiration. Someone doing so as a result of a cartoon is less obviously forseeable as a predictable response. Let's say the BNP published a cartoon of what the Ku Klux Klan would have called a lynching though. If someone acted on that, a jury might convict under such a "reasonable man could forsee" law. It's the fact that there will always be borderline cases that means these things have to be left to a jury to decide. FoFP From jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK Tue Feb 14 05:43:43 2006 From: jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK (Jonathan Jarrett) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:43:43 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <7e287e6d0602130411m224b0720padf8be1e02ab4ca2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 12:11:16PM +0000, Chris Allen typed out: > What happened to "ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law"? That only works once there's a law to be ignorant of, though. Yours, Jon -- Jonathan Jarrett Birkbeck College, London jjarrett at chiark.greenend.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------- "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." (Tom Waits) From cea at CARLAZ.COM Tue Feb 14 05:43:41 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:43:41 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602131722.k1DHMwJh011133@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On 13/02/2006 17:22, M Holmes wrote: > Carl Edlund Anderson writes: >> On 13/02/2006 16:35, M Holmes wrote: >> > Carl Edlund Anderson writes: >> >> Mind you, had I been the editor of the Danish newspaper, I might >> >> well have decided running those cartoons might not be in the >> >> interests of the business, regardless of my legal right to do so > >> > Which would be self-censorship. > >> But it is, after all, my right to censor myself whenever I feel like >> it. I mean, I quite often choose not to say things that I could >> legally say :) I rely on the law to keep other people from choosing >> for me. > > Which works fine until a group thinks that it can have you self-censor > the way they want you to my encouraging you to believe that they will > cause you and your head to pursue different careers... But at that point you are entitled to legal protection from people threatening an illegal act. (I'm leaving aside the issue of whether you actually get the protection you are entitled to). I should be free to choose or not choose the (legal) things I say without fear of illegal reprisal. If I went to a job interview and indulged in my legal right to free speech by making true but unflattering observations about my interviewers, it would be ridiculous to say that it was "censorship" if they didn't hire me. My right to present my opinions is protected as much as their right not to hire me if they don't like me. I might well choose to keep my unflattering observations to myself, if I want the job. Or I could choose that the job was less important than making my observations. The important thing is I have that choice, not someone else. All that matters is that people can say what they want without breaking the law themselves or fearing other people will break the law in reprisal against them. Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From nickmedford at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Feb 14 06:11:03 2006 From: nickmedford at HOTMAIL.COM (Nick Medford) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 06:11:03 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:35:47 GMT, M Holmes wrote: >Nope. Generally unreasonable responses are not regarded as forseeable. As I said before, once the flag-burning, death threats, and actual violence were already underway, I would have thought it blindingly obvious that more of the same would follow the reprintings (which is not to argue for or against those reprintings, necessarily), but if you honestly believe that this was "not forseeable", then we will have to agree to disagree. Nick From judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Feb 14 06:29:37 2006 From: judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM (trev) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:29:37 -0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: so when i described the destruction of parliament by rampaging skinhead hordes in the fantasy song "skinheads in leningrad", if a rampaging horde had actually attacked parliament, mistaking my fantasy for a literal exhortation, i would have been banged up??? if this was a possibility, half the writers in the country would be in the nick for threatening maggie thatchers well-being. she was, as you know, actually attacked by the ira bombers in brighton. how can you prove whether there was intent or not? i dont think you can. there might have been real intent at the time of writing when artistic passions were up but which would have not lasted after the work was finished and published. this was the case with "skinheads". when iwrote it, the exhortation to violence was real to me, but as i generally condone non violence whenever possible, in hindsight it was not. ooer trev ----- Original Message ----- From: "M Holmes" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:41 AM Subject: Re: OFF: Freeedom of Speech > trev writes: > >> to confuse matters, how about introducing artistic license into the >> debate? >> there might be a predictable consequence sparked off by a work of art >> which >> inflames passions to act upon it's message. > > Such as the "Piss Christ" exhibit or even Hawkwind producing "Right to > Decide"? > > It's only a problem if someone is inspired to do something illegal and > then only if the artist can be regarded as inciting them to have done > so. > > Thus someone saying "Let's burn all the infidels!" is problematic > exercise of free speech because it could be reasonable to expect that > where there are multiple halfwits listening, one of them might take > these words as inspiration. Someone doing so as a result of a cartoon is > less obviously forseeable as a predictable response. > > Let's say the BNP published a cartoon of what the Ku Klux Klan would > have called a lynching though. If someone acted on that, a jury might > convict under such a "reasonable man could forsee" law. > > It's the fact that there will always be borderline cases that means > these things have to be left to a jury to decide. > > FoFP > From judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Feb 14 07:04:53 2006 From: judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM (trev) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:04:53 -0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: ..and ... it seems to me that the hatred of the west felt by the fundamentalist islamic arabs is more to do with jealousy of our technological and social superiority. this is being expressed by them by these religious excuses. i have been looking into the historical reasons why there is not a single arab state capable of manufacturing a car or an aircraft (apart from oman where there is an aircraft being made by western companies). there are many reasons, but the one which really seemed relevant is the fact that their right-wing facistic mullahs and pashas or whatever their title was, actually banned the printing press for 200 years thus preventing the extrapolation of technological ideas in the east - until it was too late. we in the west used to be in a similar state but during the past 400 years or so, the humanistic "lefty" elements in our society have, by their blood sweat toil and tears, raised up our level of governmental and legal ethics so that now we rightly look upon the ethical and social outlook of the fundamentalist arab world as being disgustingly medieval. no wonder our hackles are raised by these fanatics when we have shed so much blood and effort, for so long, to achieve "freedom of speech". i am glad to see in the recent news that the more civilised elements of islam are at last speaking up. terrorism is a fearful weapon which is aimed at you and me and our families and loved ones. it works because it uses "stealth". the only people who can unshield this "stealth weapon" are the more intelligent, psychologically balanced, and educated elements of islam because they alone are in a position to pinpoint the killers. i mean...bush isn't much better, if at all, but he won't be in power forever. trev ----- Original Message ----- From: "trev" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:29 AM Subject: Re: OFF: Freeedom of Speech > so when i described the destruction of parliament by rampaging skinhead > hordes in the fantasy song "skinheads in leningrad", if a rampaging horde > had actually attacked parliament, mistaking my fantasy for a literal > exhortation, i would have been banged up??? > if this was a possibility, half the writers in the country would be in the > nick for threatening maggie thatchers well-being. she was, as you know, > actually attacked by the ira bombers in brighton. > how can you prove whether there was intent or not? i dont think you can. > there might have been real intent at the time of writing when artistic > passions were up but which would have not lasted after the work was > finished and published. this was the case with "skinheads". when iwrote > it, > the exhortation to violence was real to me, but as i generally condone non > violence whenever possible, in hindsight it was not. > ooer > > trev > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "M Holmes" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 10:41 AM > Subject: Re: OFF: Freeedom of Speech > > >> trev writes: >> >>> to confuse matters, how about introducing artistic license into the >>> debate? >>> there might be a predictable consequence sparked off by a work of art >>> which >>> inflames passions to act upon it's message. >> >> Such as the "Piss Christ" exhibit or even Hawkwind producing "Right to >> Decide"? >> >> It's only a problem if someone is inspired to do something illegal and >> then only if the artist can be regarded as inciting them to have done >> so. >> >> Thus someone saying "Let's burn all the infidels!" is problematic >> exercise of free speech because it could be reasonable to expect that >> where there are multiple halfwits listening, one of them might take >> these words as inspiration. Someone doing so as a result of a cartoon is >> less obviously forseeable as a predictable response. >> >> Let's say the BNP published a cartoon of what the Ku Klux Klan would >> have called a lynching though. If someone acted on that, a jury might >> convict under such a "reasonable man could forsee" law. >> >> It's the fact that there will always be borderline cases that means >> these things have to be left to a jury to decide. >> >> FoFP >> > From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Tue Feb 14 07:06:21 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:06:21 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Nick Medford's message of Tue, 14 Feb 2006 06:11:03 -0500 Message-ID: Nick Medford writes: > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:35:47 GMT, M Holmes wrote: > >Nope. Generally unreasonable responses are not regarded as > >forseeable. > As I said before, once the flag-burning, death threats, and actual > violence were already underway, I would have thought it blindingly > obvious that more of the same would follow the reprintings (which is > not to argue for or against those reprintings, necessarily), but if > you honestly believe that this was "not forseeable", then we will have > to agree to disagree. No I agree that it was. At that point though people were essentially responding to the exercise of freedom of speech with threats of murder, arson, and other illegal acts. It became important to assert our rights to FoS and some newspapeers did this by reprinting the cartoons. It'd have been much the same if Arab countries had demanded we quit eating bacon sarnies because the Koran says it's forbidden. A fair response to it would be to build a bacon sarnie so large it could be seen from space and invite all to participate. If folks get their knickers in a twist over it then that's just too bad. If they murder as a result then you cannot be held responsible for incitement in the same way as saying "Let's kill all the infidels!" Which I guess is a way of saying that "Resonably forseeable" is necessary but not sufficient. FoFP From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Tue Feb 14 07:13:51 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:13:51 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: trev's message of Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:29:37 -0000 Message-ID: trev writes: > so when i described the destruction of parliament by rampaging skinhead > hordes in the fantasy song "skinheads in leningrad", if a rampaging horde > had actually attacked parliament, mistaking my fantasy for a literal > exhortation, i would have been banged up??? Hasn't this actually been tried in the US over a rap song? > if this was a possibility, half the writers in the country would be in the > nick for threatening maggie thatchers well-being. she was, as you know, > actually attacked by the ira bombers in brighton. > how can you prove whether there was intent or not? i dont think you can. Wasn't intent regarded as a major issue in the Hamza case? The trouble with intent is that you, a rapper, the BNP or Hamza could always mount an "I was just singing/mouthing off" defence. The problem is that with certain speech, that kind of thing can lead to some nutter actually doing what's recommended. Another troubling question is whether Hamza or the BNP should be free to say "let's kill all the infidels/blacks!" if nobody actually acts upon it. Is the clear risk that someone might do so enough to remove the right to such speech? > there might have been real intent at the time of writing when artistic > passions were up but which would have not lasted after the work was > finished and published. this was the case with "skinheads". when iwrote it, > the exhortation to violence was real to me, but as i generally condone non > violence whenever possible, in hindsight it was not. Let's say that the title was instead the less than catchy "Arabs at the Danish Embassy". Would you release that song tomorrow? FoFP From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Tue Feb 14 07:32:12 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:32:12 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: trev's message of Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:04:53 -0000 Message-ID: trev writes: > ..and ... > it seems to me that the hatred of the west felt by the fundamentalist > islamic arabs is more to do with jealousy of our technological and social > superiority. I have grave doubts about this. The Wahhabi creed, which is largely behind this is based on teachings by Qutb. His argument is that Western civilisation has made a fatal error in divorcing religion from the state and that people here live largely empty and meaningless lives dedicated to amassing wealth and material goods and trying to create the perfect lawn or stereo sound. His idea is that arab society used to be the greatest in the world and must not be permitted to become merely a poorer copy of the West. What's felt is more strongly a rejection and frustration that Western civilisation can be so utterly wrong and yet utterly successful that it seems to be inevitable that it will become the first planet-wide civilisation. One doesn't have to go completely along with that to realise that he has something of a point in that we are prone to rather neurotic obsessions (such as the perfect lawn or stereo) and that humanity in general would have much to lose by yet more indigenous cultures being swamped. There used to be 30,000 cultures on this planet and there has to be a suspicion that we might have have had something to learn from many of those now extinct. > this is being expressed by them by these religious excuses. i have > been looking into the historical reasons why there is not a single > arab state capable of manufacturing a car or an aircraft (apart from > oman where there is an aircraft being made by western companies). > there are many reasons, but the one which really seemed relevant is > the fact that their right-wing facistic mullahs and pashas or whatever > their title was, actually banned the printing press for 200 years thus > preventing the extrapolation of technological ideas in the east - > until it was too late. >From another point of view, can there be any doubt that the printing press *is* a carrier of alien ideas which can destroy a society? We in the West are after all happy to say that the photocopier helped destroy the USSR. In short: what if the goal of the arab leaders wasn't to be able to build aeroplanes but to have the perfect religious society? Would it be morally OK for the West to subsume their society just because we can. Alternatively if we could somehow fence it off and ignore it, would that be fair on some poor arab kid who might want to grow up to design rockets? > > we in the west used to be in a similar state but during the past 400 > > years or so, the humanistic "lefty" elements in our society have, by > > their blood sweat toil and tears, raised up our level of > > governmental and legal ethics so that now we rightly look upon the > > ethical and social outlook of the fundamentalist arab world as being > > disgustingly medieval. no wonder our hackles are raised by these > > fanatics when we have shed so much > blood and effort, for so long, to > > achieve "freedom of speech". I suspect there's underappreciation amongst your average guy in Saudi that FoS is a "sacred" idea here. > i am glad to see in the recent news > that the more civilised elements of islam are at last speaking up. You and me both. > terrorism is a fearful weapon which is aimed at you and me and our > families and loved ones. it works because it uses "stealth". the > only people who can unshield this "stealth weapon" are the more > intelligent, psychologically balanced, and educated elements of islam > because they alone are in a position to pinpoint the killers. i > mean...bush isn't much better, if at all, but he won't be in power > forever. Whoever is in power in the US, the problem of energy will still exist. The US would need 200 nuclear power stations to have a shot at any kind of energy independence and that would raise questions as to when the uranium will run out. Could be that if we don't develop fusion power soon, we'll see some uncontrolled fusion in sundry places. FoFP From judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Feb 14 07:48:38 2006 From: judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM (trev) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:48:38 -0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: Let's say that the title was instead the less than catchy "Arabs at the Danish Embassy". Would you release that song tomorrow? if i was true to myself - yes most definitely. the only reason to stop me would be the fear of physical harm ..actually it's not bad "arabs at the danish embassy, asserting their racial suprembassy" (just try finding a word which rhymes with embassy....lol) you are now the co-writer of this song, m holmes, aaaaagh - do you deserve to die???..or be put in jail??? lol see what i mean trev ----- Original Message ----- From: "M Holmes" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:13 PM Subject: Re: OFF: Freeedom of Speech > trev writes: > >> so when i described the destruction of parliament by rampaging skinhead >> hordes in the fantasy song "skinheads in leningrad", if a rampaging horde >> had actually attacked parliament, mistaking my fantasy for a literal >> exhortation, i would have been banged up??? > > Hasn't this actually been tried in the US over a rap song? > >> if this was a possibility, half the writers in the country would be in >> the >> nick for threatening maggie thatchers well-being. she was, as you know, >> actually attacked by the ira bombers in brighton. > >> how can you prove whether there was intent or not? i dont think you can. > > Wasn't intent regarded as a major issue in the Hamza case? > > The trouble with intent is that you, a rapper, the BNP or Hamza could > always mount an "I was just singing/mouthing off" defence. The problem > is that with certain speech, that kind of thing can lead to some nutter > actually doing what's recommended. > > Another troubling question is whether Hamza or the BNP should be free to > say "let's kill all the infidels/blacks!" if nobody actually acts upon > it. Is the clear risk that someone might do so enough to remove the > right to such speech? > >> there might have been real intent at the time of writing when artistic >> passions were up but which would have not lasted after the work was >> finished and published. this was the case with "skinheads". when iwrote >> it, >> the exhortation to violence was real to me, but as i generally condone >> non >> violence whenever possible, in hindsight it was not. > > Let's say that the title was instead the less than catchy "Arabs at the > Danish Embassy". Would you release that song tomorrow? > > FoFP > From judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Feb 14 08:15:49 2006 From: judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM (trev) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:15:49 -0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: right, well, first i think that Qutb is a total pratt. All religious, and ideological doctrines become lies as soon as they are written. Constant change is the nature of the universe. Anyone who says it must be so because it is wriiten in this holy book, or in mein campf etc is a moron. truth is best understood by our own active minds disseminating the evidence according to our freely acting conciousnesses. why do you think the great avatars christ, mohammed, buddha etc never wrote any doctrine - only their sheep-minded followers did and thats when all the troubles started. yes you point out some of the calamities which have befallen our earth but i dont think that a regime which implements sharia law would be any better than our own rabid materialistic exploiters. actually i don't think that there is a "final" solution - just a series of ducks and dives - or cycles...lol yes we should be pushing for more sustaining technologies of course (have you been to the big green gathering) but i think that is getting away from the subject. trev ----- Original Message ----- From: "M Holmes" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:32 PM Subject: Re: OFF: Freeedom of Speech > trev writes: > >> ..and ... >> it seems to me that the hatred of the west felt by the fundamentalist >> islamic arabs is more to do with jealousy of our technological and social >> superiority. > > I have grave doubts about this. The Wahhabi creed, which is largely > behind this is based on teachings by Qutb. His argument is that Western > civilisation has made a fatal error in divorcing religion from the state > and that people here live largely empty and meaningless lives dedicated > to amassing wealth and material goods and trying to create the perfect > lawn or stereo sound. > > His idea is that arab society used to be the greatest in the world and > must not be permitted to become merely a poorer copy of the West. What's > felt is more strongly a rejection and frustration that Western > civilisation can be so utterly wrong and yet utterly successful that it > seems to be inevitable that it will become the first planet-wide > civilisation. > > One doesn't have to go completely along with that to realise that he has > something of a point in that we are prone to rather neurotic obsessions > (such as the perfect lawn or stereo) and that humanity in general would > have much to lose by yet more indigenous cultures being swamped. There > used to be 30,000 cultures on this planet and there has to be a > suspicion that we might have have had something to learn from many of > those now extinct. > >> this is being expressed by them by these religious excuses. i have >> been looking into the historical reasons why there is not a single >> arab state capable of manufacturing a car or an aircraft (apart from >> oman where there is an aircraft being made by western companies). >> there are many reasons, but the one which really seemed relevant is >> the fact that their right-wing facistic mullahs and pashas or whatever >> their title was, actually banned the printing press for 200 years thus >> preventing the extrapolation of technological ideas in the east - >> until it was too late. > > From another point of view, can there be any doubt that the printing > press *is* a carrier of alien ideas which can destroy a society? We in > the West are after all happy to say that the photocopier helped destroy > the USSR. > > In short: what if the goal of the arab leaders wasn't to be able to > build aeroplanes but to have the perfect religious society? Would it be > morally OK for the West to subsume their society just because we can. > Alternatively if we could somehow fence it off and ignore it, would that > be fair on some poor arab kid who might want to grow up to design rockets? > >> > we in the west used to be in a similar state but during the past 400 >> > years or so, the humanistic "lefty" elements in our society have, by >> > their blood sweat toil and tears, raised up our level of >> > governmental and legal ethics so that now we rightly look upon the >> > ethical and social outlook of the fundamentalist arab world as being >> > disgustingly medieval. no wonder our hackles are raised by these >> > fanatics when we have shed so much > blood and effort, for so long, to >> > achieve "freedom of speech". > > I suspect there's underappreciation amongst your average guy in Saudi > that FoS is a "sacred" idea here. > >> i am glad to see in the recent news >> that the more civilised elements of islam are at last speaking up. > > You and me both. > >> terrorism is a fearful weapon which is aimed at you and me and our >> families and loved ones. it works because it uses "stealth". the >> only people who can unshield this "stealth weapon" are the more >> intelligent, psychologically balanced, and educated elements of islam >> because they alone are in a position to pinpoint the killers. i >> mean...bush isn't much better, if at all, but he won't be in power >> forever. > > Whoever is in power in the US, the problem of energy will still exist. > The US would need 200 nuclear power stations to have a shot at any kind > of energy independence and that would raise questions as to when the > uranium will run out. > > Could be that if we don't develop fusion power soon, we'll see some > uncontrolled fusion in sundry places. > > FoFP > From nickmedford at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Feb 14 08:34:38 2006 From: nickmedford at HOTMAIL.COM (Nick Medford) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:34:38 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:06:21 GMT, M Holmes wrote: >Nick Medford writes: > >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:35:47 GMT, M Holmes wrote: > >> >Nope. Generally unreasonable responses are not regarded as >> >forseeable. > >> As I said before, once the flag-burning, death threats, and actual >> violence were already underway, I would have thought it blindingly >> obvious that more of the same would follow the reprintings (which is >> not to argue for or against those reprintings, necessarily), but if >> you honestly believe that this was "not forseeable", then we will have >> to agree to disagree. > >No I agree that it was. At that point though people were essentially >responding to the exercise of freedom of speech with threats of murder, >arson, and other illegal acts. It became important to assert our rights >to FoS and some newspapeers did this by reprinting the cartoons. Yes, that's the argument for the reprints. I am not sure about this though. As a hypothetical, suppose some newspaper printed some cartoons or caricatures which many black people living in the UK found objectionable, and let's further suppose that areas such as Moss Side and Brixton erupted in fury as a consequence. Would it really be "important", or even acceptable, for the cartoons to then be reprinted all over the place in support of the free speech principle? >It'd have been much the same if Arab countries had demanded we quit >eating bacon sarnies because the Koran says it's forbidden. A fair >response to it would be to build a bacon sarnie so large it could be >seen from space and invite all to participate. I agree this might be fair, but would it be wise? And where does it leave your earlier criterion of "forseeable harm" as the limit to FoS? Because you now seem to be saying that forseeable harm should be the determinant of limiting FoS, EXCEPT where the principle of free speech is itself at stake. And clearly this exemption could be held to cover just about anything. I think one of the most difficult things about this debate is it brings into focus the question of principles vs practicalities. Does it make sense to assert and uphold what is a perfectly good and noble *idea*, when by doing so all sorts of real-world mayhem is unleashed? On the other hand, if you *don't* uphold the idea, what else might you be risking? And the difficulty of navigating between these two opposing questions is precisely why this issue is far from simple. >If folks get their >knickers in a twist over it then that's just too bad. Perhaps... but could you really explain that so airily to, let's say, the family of a person murdered in the ensuing violence, if they made it known that they held you partly responsible for provoking the violence? Nick From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Tue Feb 14 09:33:44 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:33:44 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Nick Medford's message of Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:34:38 -0500 Message-ID: Nick Medford writes: > >No I agree that it was. At that point though people were essentially > >responding to the exercise of freedom of speech with threats of > >murder, arson, and other illegal acts. It became important to assert > >our rights to FoS and some newspapeers did this by reprinting the > >cartoons. > Yes, that's the argument for the reprints. I am not sure about this > though. As a hypothetical, suppose some newspaper printed some > cartoons or caricatures which many black people living in the UK found > objectionable, and let's further suppose that areas such as Moss Side > and Brixton erupted in fury as a consequence. Would it really be > "important", or even acceptable, for the cartoons to then be reprinted > all over the place in support of the free speech principle? If those rioting were demanding the removal of rights to FoS then yes, absolutely. As far as the halfwit Imams and the rabble they roused goes, I'd have been happier if *every* newspaper in Europe had printed them in one day. It'd have gone a lot further to show that we won't be intimidated. Plus, if they were really bothered about those pictures, they'd just have STFU because there's at least a billion more people have seen them as a result of their whining than would have otherwise. > >It'd have been much the same if Arab countries had demanded we quit > >eating bacon sarnies because the Koran says it's forbidden. A fair > >response to it would be to build a bacon sarnie so large it could be > >seen from space and invite all to participate. > I agree this might be fair, but would it be wise? I think so. Kowtowing to islamofascists got us nothing but trouble when the government did it over threats to Rushdie. Let's show them, in a dignified and sober way of course, that we're as serious about our rights to FoS as they are about their rights to proclaim the Koran. If we do it solidly enough, who knows, maybe they'll finally get it. > And where does it leave your earlier criterion of "forseeable harm" as > the limit to FoS? Because you now seem to be saying that forseeable > harm should be the determinant of limiting FoS, EXCEPT where the > principle of free speech is itself at stake. And clearly this > exemption could be held to cover just about anything. No. In fact I'm trying to find a distinction between deliberate incitement "Let's kill all the infidels!", reckless stupidity (shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre) and speech which people choose themselves to react to in irresponsible or illegal ways, such as burning down an Embassy over cartoons or the Anti-Nazi League trashing a BNP minibus after a speech by Nick Griffin. If you've encouraged someone to act illegally (and Trev's song might well count here) and they do it, I think incitement or conspiracy is a fair call. If someone else acts illegally just to respond to legal speech, but that speech is not incitement, then I think the legal hammer should fall on them, even if their previous distemper has made it a forseeable result of the speech. Short form: don't tell someone to act illegally where there's a chance that they might. > I think one of the most difficult things about this debate is it > brings into focus the question of principles vs practicalities. Does > it make sense to assert and uphold what is a perfectly good and noble > *idea*, when by doing so all sorts of real-world mayhem is unleashed? Anyone can uphold a noble idea when it's no trouble to do so. The historical test is very much whether they an uphold it in face of difficulties, or even threat to life. From what little I know of arab culture, it seems obvious that if we sell the pass now, rather than see it through, arab governments, and arabs in general, will conclude that we're not serious about it anyway. > On the other hand, if you *don't* uphold the idea, what else might you > be risking? And the difficulty of navigating between these two > opposing questions is precisely why this issue is far from simple. I think the principle is relatively straightforward. Only the tactics are complex. Nevertheless, we have one surrender (Rushdie) to make up for. We shouldn't fail to make the stand here. > >If folks get their knickers in a twist over it then that's just too > >bad. > Perhaps... but could you really explain that so airily to, let's say, > the family of a person murdered in the ensuing violence, if they made > it known that they held you partly responsible for provoking the > violence? I don't doubt that'd be difficult. However we have more than a little experience of what happens when such freedoms vanish. That can involve explaining to millions of families why we failed to defend the freedoms that would have protected their children. Going along to get along with fascists simply does not work. FoFP From nickmedford at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Feb 14 11:57:15 2006 From: nickmedford at HOTMAIL.COM (Nick Medford) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:57:15 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:33:44 GMT, M Holmes wrote: >> >A fair >> >response to it would be to build a bacon sarnie so large it could be >> >seen from space and invite all to participate. > >> I agree this might be fair, but would it be wise? > >I think so. Kowtowing to islamofascists got us nothing but trouble when >the government did it over threats to Rushdie. I agree, but, as Jack Straw said (and yes, it sets my teeth on edge to find myself agreeing with Jack Straw about anything, but by the law of averages it has to happen occasionally I suppose), the *right* to say something offensive does not entail any sort of *obligation* to do so. I don't buy the idea that a decision not to reprint the cartoons would automatically be kowtowing to anybody. It's a fine line, of course. I would prefer to see journalists and editors exercising restraint (as has happened in the UK), because they *can*. Obviously I would not be in favour of any governmental intervention compelling them to do so. >> And where does it leave your earlier criterion of "forseeable harm" as >> the limit to FoS? Because you now seem to be saying that forseeable >> harm should be the determinant of limiting FoS, EXCEPT where the >> principle of free speech is itself at stake. And clearly this >> exemption could be held to cover just about anything. > >No. In fact I'm trying to find a distinction between deliberate >incitement "Let's kill all the infidels!", reckless stupidity (shouting >"fire" in a crowded theatre) and speech which people choose themselves >to react to in irresponsible or illegal ways, such as burning down an >Embassy over cartoons or the Anti-Nazi League trashing a BNP >minibus after a speech by Nick Griffin. > >If you've encouraged someone to act illegally (and Trev's song might >well count here) and they do it, I think incitement or conspiracy is a >fair call. Again, this ilustrates the difficulties of trying to apply these simple formulae to messy, complex situations, since you are in effect saying that any number of songs, books, casual remarks etc. could be construed as "incitement" if someone acts in accordance with them. Ever heard the Dead Kennedys' "Let's Lynch the Landlord"? (great song, btw). Well, if you've not heard it, the title probably tells you what you need to know for the purpose of this discussion. So- if someone did indeed lynch their landlord, and claimed that song had acted as incitement, then what? Now, as a self-appointed "reasonable man", I would feel that it was obvious that the song was, like Trev's, a fantasy. But would twelve other "reasonable men" make the same call? You seem to be saying that within your framework, you'd be unable to disagree with them if they found there had been an act of incitement. For an arch-libertarian this is rather problematic, surely? If someone else acts illegally just to respond to legal >speech, but that speech is not incitement, then I think the legal hammer >should fall on them, even if their previous distemper has made it a >forseeable result of the speech. > >Short form: don't tell someone to act illegally where there's a chance >that they might. Since there is always a chance they might, this comes down to "don't be seen to advocate anything illegal, even if you are doing so in jest, whimsy, or fantasy". I *know* you can't really believe this. > >> I think one of the most difficult things about this debate is it >> brings into focus the question of principles vs practicalities. Does >> it make sense to assert and uphold what is a perfectly good and noble >> *idea*, when by doing so all sorts of real-world mayhem is unleashed? > >Anyone can uphold a noble idea when it's no trouble to do so. The >historical test is very much whether they an uphold it in face of >difficulties, or even threat to life. Upholding an idea in the face of threat to *other people's* lives is probably not that difficult, provided as I said that one doesn't have to meet the families afterwards to explain why the "principle" was paramount. Personally- and this might leave me in a minority of one, but anyway- I am rather sceptical about the importance placed on "principles". Principles are not, after all, meant to be ends in themselves- rather they are guidelines for a decent life, interaction with others, and society. There is always the risk that upholding a "general principle" can become a substitute for actually considering the merits of a given situation and its particular circumstances. This actually >I think the principle is relatively straightforward. Yes, I agree entirely, the principle is very simple. That's my point- given that the reality is so much more complex, clearly the principle alone will not suffice. >> >If folks get their knickers in a twist over it then that's just too >> >bad. > >> Perhaps... but could you really explain that so airily to, let's say, >> the family of a person murdered in the ensuing violence, if they made >> it known that they held you partly responsible for provoking the >> violence? > >I don't doubt that'd be difficult. However we have more than a little >experience of what happens when such freedoms vanish. That can involve >explaining to millions of families why we failed to defend the freedoms >that would have protected their children. Going along to get along with >fascists simply does not work. Nice rhetoric, but there is, you will agree, some way to travel from "not reprinting a bunch of cartoons" to "deaths of millions at the hands of rampant fascism". Who can say whether the distance between "refusing to exercise restraint despite the escalating crisis" and "world war three (or similar)" might not be a shorter, more easily travelled route? Incidentally, as a digression, I am reminded of the furore over the 1997 Sensation exhbition at the Royal Academy. You may remember the row over the painting of Moors murderess Myra Hindley, and that Winnie Johnson, the mother of one of Hindley's victims, asked for the portrait to be removed from the exhibition to protect her feelings. Mrs Johnson and some supporters picketed the gallery, leafleting those going in and out, and some people (though not Mrs Johnson herself) actually damaged the painting by throwing ink over it. The board of the Royal Academy met to decide whether or not to keep the painting in the exhibition, deciding to do so, although three members of that board then resigned in protest at this decision. I have often thought about this case- the reaction in the art world was overwhelmingly in support of the decision to keep the painting on show, but I was never convinced that the "principle" in this instance actually outweighed the terrible pain etched on Winnie Johnson's features every time the poor woman appeared on the news. Nick Nick From Tjackson at SYR.EDU Tue Feb 14 12:51:10 2006 From: Tjackson at SYR.EDU (Ted Jackson) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:51:10 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: >>> nickmedford at HOTMAIL.COM 2/14/2006 11:57 AM >>> Again, this ilustrates the difficulties of trying to apply these simple formulae to messy, complex situations, since you are in effect saying that any number of songs, books, casual remarks etc. could be construed as "incitement" if someone acts in accordance with them. Ever heard the Dead Kennedys' "Let's Lynch the Landlord"? (great song, btw). Well, if you've not heard it, the title probably tells you what you need to know for the purpose of this discussion. So- if someone did indeed lynch their landlord, and claimed that song had acted as incitement, then what? Now, as a self-appointed "reasonable man", I would feel that it was obvious that the song was, like Trev's, a fantasy. But would twelve other "reasonable men" make the same call? You seem to be saying that within your framework, you'd be unable to disagree with them if they found there had been an act of incitement. For an arch-libertarian this is rather problematic, surely? The very thing happened to Judas Priest. Some kid who was a big fan killed himself and the parents tried to sue because they said the lyrics to a song advocated suicide... In this case, it couldn't even be proved that the song said anything about suicide, but the judge said, essentially, that even if it had, the band wouldn't be responsible, as the song was a work of fantasy... It was quite clear that the parents had been manipulated by lawyers hoping for a big payday... tj From jill.strobridge at BLUEYONDER.CO.UK Tue Feb 14 13:13:10 2006 From: jill.strobridge at BLUEYONDER.CO.UK (Jill Strobridge) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:13:10 -0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech - Time Out? Message-ID: Ey-up folks. This is a really interesting discussion but now it's reached 5 screenfulls per message can we ease up a bit before it turns into an endless tit-for-tat where people simply exchange their increasingly entrenched points of view rather than offering any new arguments? Most of the important points have, I think, been raised and their endless reiteration would IMO defeat any benefits gained from this exchange so far. Thank you all. It's even possible that there are Hawkwind announcements awaiting that haven't been able to get a look in 'cos they would have been swamped! Yours in peaceful cogitation jill ============================================== Jill Strobridge ============================================== From sloterdijk at MSN.COM Tue Feb 14 13:19:42 2006 From: sloterdijk at MSN.COM (Burro Mike) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:19:42 +0000 Subject: SLOTERDIJK, Mike Burro solo seeking Dutch, Belgian gigs: open dates: 3/22-4/2 Message-ID: Greetings friends. I'm sorry to inform that I won't be able to make it to The UK on my upcoming visit to The Netherlands in March. I am now staying in The Nertherlands from 3/21-4/3. I am willing to travel to Belgium for a gig if there is an interest. Please e-mail Sloterdijk at msn.com directly if interested in setting up a show. http://www.soundclick.com/sloterdijk http://www.freewebs.com/oebs From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Tue Feb 14 14:02:02 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:02:02 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Nick Medford's message of Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:57:15 -0500 Message-ID: Nick Medford writes: > On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:33:44 GMT, M Holmes wrote: > > Kowtowing to islamofascists got us nothing but trouble > > when the government did it over threats to Rushdie. > I agree, but, as Jack Straw said (and yes, it sets my teeth on edge to > find myself agreeing with Jack Straw about anything, but by the law of > averages it has to happen occasionally I suppose), the *right* to say > something offensive does not entail any sort of *obligation* to do so. Contrariwise it doesn't entail any obligation not to. What's published by the press is between them and their customers. We have the choice not to buy it, just as does every Muslim in the world. If we decide not to buy, then it's simple discretion to leave the transaction to buyer and seller. > I don't buy the idea that a decision not to reprint the cartoons would > automatically be kowtowing to anybody. It's a fine line, of course. When folks are threatening death to those who publish? When similar folks have actually killed people over similar incidents (translators of Rushdie were shot and stabbed, one dead), I think it is kowtowing to bow before threat. > I would prefer to see journalists and editors exercising restraint (as > has happened in the UK) Restraint? When did the Press last discuss a picture without showing it? This isn't restraint, it's cowardice. > because they *can*. Obviously I would not be > in favour of any governmental intervention compelling them to do so. Yup. If Jack Straw can't say "It's between them and their customers. The government has nothing to do with it" then he should simply STFU. [...] > >If you've encouraged someone to act illegally (and Trev's song might > >well count here) and they do it, I think incitement or conspiracy is > >a fair call. > Again, this ilustrates the difficulties of trying to apply these > simple formulae to messy, complex situations, since you are in effect > saying that any number of songs, books, casual remarks etc. could be > construed as "incitement" if someone acts in accordance with them. Indeed. The fact that there will be messy cases is what makes juries necessary for this sort of decision. > Ever heard the Dead Kennedys' "Let's Lynch the Landlord"? (great song, > btw). Well, if you've not heard it, the title probably tells you what > you need to know for the purpose of this discussion. So- if someone > did indeed lynch their landlord, and claimed that song had acted as > incitement, then what? The singer/songwriter has a day in Court? > Now, as a self-appointed "reasonable man", I > would feel that it was obvious that the song was, like Trev's, a > fantasy. Seems that most juries so decide, as in the Judas Priest case. > But would twelve other "reasonable men" make the same call? Looks good so far. I think Priest and Manson should have skated while Hamza should not have. That's how it played out too. > You seem to be saying that within your framework, you'd be unable to > disagree with them if they found there had been an act of incitement. I think you underestimate my admittedly pedestrian skills as far as disageement goes. > For an arch-libertarian this is rather problematic, surely? Why? I believe in law and I believe in the jury system. If I disagree with 11 people then I'll try to persuade them. If I fail well then perhaps they were right... > >If someone else acts illegally just to respond to legal > >speech, but that speech is not incitement, then I think the legal > >hammer should fall on them, even if their previous distemper has made > >it a forseeable result of the speech. > >Short form: don't tell someone to act illegally where there's a > >chance that they might. > Since there is always a chance they might, this comes down to "don't > be seen to advocate anything illegal, even if you are doing so in > jest, whimsy, or fantasy". I *know* you can't really believe this. Not quite. Obviously the idea needs refinement. Tricky stuff this lawgiving innit? > Personally- and this might leave me in a minority of one, but anyway- > I am rather sceptical about the importance placed on "principles". > Principles are not, after all, meant to be ends in themselves- rather > they are guidelines for a decent life, interaction with others, and > society. There is always the risk that upholding a "general > principle" can become a substitute for actually considering the merits > of a given situation and its particular circumstances. That's another great thing about juries: they can ignore the judge and even the law and decide that the circumstances mean it just don't apply in this case and let the defendant walk. Remember Ponting and the Official Secrets Act? [...] > >> Perhaps... but could you really explain that so airily to, let's > >> say, the family of a person murdered in the ensuing violence, if > >> they made it known that they held you partly responsible for > >> provoking the violence? > >I don't doubt that'd be difficult. However we have more than a > >little experience of what happens when such freedoms vanish. That > >can involve explaining to millions of families why we failed to > >defend the freedoms that would have protected their children. Going > >along to get along with fascists simply does not work. > Nice rhetoric You're too kind. > but there is, you will agree, some way to travel from > "not reprinting a bunch of cartoons" to "deaths of millions at the > hands of rampant fascism". Some way yes, but the Germans showed us that it need take less than a decade to get there. Seeing as my FoS muscles are probably pretty exercised, I'd rather not end up in a Death Camp before I retire. It'd play hell with my complexion. Let's also recall that Saddam did in fact feel pretty free about gassing folks he found disagreeable. It's not li > Who can say whether the distance between > "refusing to exercise restraint despite the escalating crisis" and > "world war three (or similar)" might not be a shorter, more easily > travelled route? There's always that worry, but perhaps we shouldn't be paralysed into inaction by it. > Incidentally, as a digression, I am reminded of the furore over the > 1997 Sensation exhbition at the Royal Academy. You may remember the > row over the painting of Moors murderess Myra Hindley, and that Winnie > Johnson, the mother of one of Hindley's victims, asked for the > portrait to be removed from the exhibition to protect her feelings. Very vaguely I'm sorry to say. > Mrs Johnson and some supporters picketed the gallery, leafleting those > going in and out, and some people (though not Mrs Johnson herself) > actually damaged the painting by throwing ink over it. The board of > the Royal Academy met to decide whether or not to keep the painting in > the exhibition, deciding to do so, although three members of that > board then resigned in protest at this decision. I have often thought > about this case- the reaction in the art world was overwhelmingly in > support of the decision to keep the painting on show, but I was never > convinced that the "principle" in this instance actually outweighed > the terrible pain etched on Winnie Johnson's features every time the > poor woman appeared on the news. A hard call to be sure. Rather similar in some ways to the "Right To Decide" furore. Perhaps there would have been merit in letting things lie a little longer. Conmpare and contrast with the victimology play in the Snowdrop Campaign. Rather than have a painting taken down, the Dunblane parents campaigned and got a ban on handguns and a trampling of our rights to shoot and provide for our own defence. Now *that* was something worth defending. FoFP From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Tue Feb 14 14:05:06 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:05:06 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech - Time Out? In-Reply-To: Jill Strobridge's message of Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:13:10 -0000 Message-ID: Jill Strobridge writes: > Ey-up folks. This is a really interesting discussion but now it's reached > 5 screenfulls per message can we ease up a bit before it turns into an > endless tit-for-tat where people simply exchange their increasingly > entrenched points of view rather than offering any new arguments? Most of > the important points have, I think, been raised and their endless > reiteration would IMO defeat any benefits gained from this exchange so far. > Thank you all. > > It's even possible that there are Hawkwind announcements awaiting that > haven't been able to get a look in 'cos they would have been swamped! I think you can safely assume that Hawkwind won't use an "OFF" keyword for an announcement. We've been pretty good about using the OFF tag and your software should be able to ensure you miss messages marked thus. I should say that I'm extremely heartened that we can discuss something like this without descending into the kind of slaggin matches I've seen on the subject elsewhere. Gentlemen: it's a pleasure to disagree with you! FoFP From judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Feb 14 14:31:51 2006 From: judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM (trev) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:31:51 -0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: I thought about publishing the cartoons on Real Festival Music to show solidarity with the free press. I am ashamed to say that I have not done so for fear of the Islamic murderers. I am truly ashamed. trev ----- Original Message ----- From: "M Holmes" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 7:02 PM Subject: Re: OFF: Freeedom of Speech > Nick Medford writes: > >> On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:33:44 GMT, M Holmes >> wrote: > >> > Kowtowing to islamofascists got us nothing but trouble >> > when the government did it over threats to Rushdie. > >> I agree, but, as Jack Straw said (and yes, it sets my teeth on edge to >> find myself agreeing with Jack Straw about anything, but by the law of >> averages it has to happen occasionally I suppose), the *right* to say >> something offensive does not entail any sort of *obligation* to do so. > > Contrariwise it doesn't entail any obligation not to. What's published > by the press is between them and their customers. We have the choice not > to buy it, just as does every Muslim in the world. If we decide not to > buy, then it's simple discretion to leave the transaction to buyer and > seller. > >> I don't buy the idea that a decision not to reprint the cartoons would >> automatically be kowtowing to anybody. It's a fine line, of course. > > When folks are threatening death to those who publish? When similar > folks have actually killed people over similar incidents (translators of > Rushdie were shot and stabbed, one dead), I think it is kowtowing > to bow before threat. > >> I would prefer to see journalists and editors exercising restraint (as >> has happened in the UK) > > Restraint? When did the Press last discuss a picture without showing it? > This > isn't restraint, it's cowardice. > >> because they *can*. Obviously I would not be >> in favour of any governmental intervention compelling them to do so. > > Yup. If Jack Straw can't say "It's between them and their customers. The > government has nothing to do with it" then he should simply STFU. > > [...] > >> >If you've encouraged someone to act illegally (and Trev's song might >> >well count here) and they do it, I think incitement or conspiracy is >> >a fair call. > >> Again, this ilustrates the difficulties of trying to apply these >> simple formulae to messy, complex situations, since you are in effect >> saying that any number of songs, books, casual remarks etc. could be >> construed as "incitement" if someone acts in accordance with them. > > Indeed. The fact that there will be messy cases is what makes juries > necessary for this sort of decision. > >> Ever heard the Dead Kennedys' "Let's Lynch the Landlord"? (great song, >> btw). Well, if you've not heard it, the title probably tells you what >> you need to know for the purpose of this discussion. So- if someone >> did indeed lynch their landlord, and claimed that song had acted as >> incitement, then what? > > The singer/songwriter has a day in Court? > >> Now, as a self-appointed "reasonable man", I >> would feel that it was obvious that the song was, like Trev's, a >> fantasy. > > Seems that most juries so decide, as in the Judas Priest case. > >> But would twelve other "reasonable men" make the same call? > > Looks good so far. I think Priest and Manson should have skated while > Hamza should not have. That's how it played out too. > >> You seem to be saying that within your framework, you'd be unable to >> disagree with them if they found there had been an act of incitement. > > I think you underestimate my admittedly pedestrian skills as far as > disageement goes. > >> For an arch-libertarian this is rather problematic, surely? > > Why? I believe in law and I believe in the jury system. If I disagree > with 11 people then I'll try to persuade them. If I fail well then > perhaps they were right... > >> >If someone else acts illegally just to respond to legal >> >speech, but that speech is not incitement, then I think the legal >> >hammer should fall on them, even if their previous distemper has made >> >it a forseeable result of the speech. > >> >Short form: don't tell someone to act illegally where there's a >> >chance that they might. > >> Since there is always a chance they might, this comes down to "don't >> be seen to advocate anything illegal, even if you are doing so in >> jest, whimsy, or fantasy". I *know* you can't really believe this. > > Not quite. Obviously the idea needs refinement. Tricky stuff this > lawgiving innit? > >> Personally- and this might leave me in a minority of one, but anyway- >> I am rather sceptical about the importance placed on "principles". >> Principles are not, after all, meant to be ends in themselves- rather >> they are guidelines for a decent life, interaction with others, and >> society. There is always the risk that upholding a "general >> principle" can become a substitute for actually considering the merits >> of a given situation and its particular circumstances. > > That's another great thing about juries: they can ignore the judge and > even the law and decide that the circumstances mean it just don't apply > in this case and let the defendant walk. Remember Ponting and the > Official Secrets Act? > > [...] > >> >> Perhaps... but could you really explain that so airily to, let's >> >> say, the family of a person murdered in the ensuing violence, if >> >> they made it known that they held you partly responsible for >> >> provoking the violence? > >> >I don't doubt that'd be difficult. However we have more than a >> >little experience of what happens when such freedoms vanish. That >> >can involve explaining to millions of families why we failed to >> >defend the freedoms that would have protected their children. Going >> >along to get along with fascists simply does not work. > >> Nice rhetoric > > You're too kind. > >> but there is, you will agree, some way to travel from >> "not reprinting a bunch of cartoons" to "deaths of millions at the >> hands of rampant fascism". > > Some way yes, but the Germans showed us that it need take less than a > decade to get there. Seeing as my FoS muscles are probably pretty > exercised, I'd rather not end up in a Death Camp before I retire. It'd > play hell with my complexion. > > Let's also recall that Saddam did in fact feel pretty free about gassing > folks he found disagreeable. It's not li > >> Who can say whether the distance between >> "refusing to exercise restraint despite the escalating crisis" and >> "world war three (or similar)" might not be a shorter, more easily >> travelled route? > > There's always that worry, but perhaps we shouldn't be paralysed into > inaction by it. > >> Incidentally, as a digression, I am reminded of the furore over the >> 1997 Sensation exhbition at the Royal Academy. You may remember the >> row over the painting of Moors murderess Myra Hindley, and that Winnie >> Johnson, the mother of one of Hindley's victims, asked for the >> portrait to be removed from the exhibition to protect her feelings. > > Very vaguely I'm sorry to say. > >> Mrs Johnson and some supporters picketed the gallery, leafleting those >> going in and out, and some people (though not Mrs Johnson herself) >> actually damaged the painting by throwing ink over it. The board of >> the Royal Academy met to decide whether or not to keep the painting in >> the exhibition, deciding to do so, although three members of that >> board then resigned in protest at this decision. I have often thought >> about this case- the reaction in the art world was overwhelmingly in >> support of the decision to keep the painting on show, but I was never >> convinced that the "principle" in this instance actually outweighed >> the terrible pain etched on Winnie Johnson's features every time the >> poor woman appeared on the news. > > A hard call to be sure. Rather similar in some ways to the "Right To > Decide" furore. Perhaps there would have been merit in letting things > lie a little longer. > > Conmpare and contrast with the victimology play in the Snowdrop > Campaign. Rather than have a painting taken down, the Dunblane parents > campaigned and got a ban on handguns and a trampling of our rights to > shoot and provide for our own defence. Now *that* was something worth > defending. > > FoFP > From paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU Tue Feb 14 14:35:00 2006 From: paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU (Paul Mather) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:35:00 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602141433.k1EEXi5O001786@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 14:33 +0000, M Holmes wrote: > I think so. Kowtowing to islamofascists got us nothing but trouble when > the government did it over threats to Rushdie. Let's show them, in a > dignified and sober way of course, that we're as serious about our > rights to FoS as they are about their rights to proclaim the Koran. > > If we do it solidly enough, who knows, maybe they'll finally get it. [...] > Anyone can uphold a noble idea when it's no trouble to do so. The > historical test is very much whether they an uphold it in face of > difficulties, or even threat to life. From what little I know of arab > culture, it seems obvious that if we sell the pass now, rather than see > it through, arab governments, and arabs in general, will conclude that > we're not serious about it anyway. [...] > I think the principle is relatively straightforward. Only the tactics > are complex. Nevertheless, we have one surrender (Rushdie) to make up > for. We shouldn't fail to make the stand here. [...] > I don't doubt that'd be difficult. However we have more than a little > experience of what happens when such freedoms vanish. That can involve > explaining to millions of families why we failed to defend the freedoms > that would have protected their children. Going along to get along with > fascists simply does not work. Lovely sentiments, Mike. The thing that amuses me about this fracas is that it is so easy to froth against "arab governments" and "arabs in general" and all other manner of (increasingly racist in this thread) stereotypes because the target is easy to caricaturise and point the finger at: it's an easily identified bogeyman that it's easy to get everyone to hate. (BTW, numerically speaking, isn't your average muslim face going to look South-East Asian, not Arabic in this thread?) But, if freedom of speech is so worth fighting for, I'm wondering why aren't we doing it at home. Anyone remember the old geezer in his eighties that was manhandled out of a Labour party conference speech and subsequently arrested on (if memory serves) anti-terrorism charges, just because he shouted a single word of dissent from the back? How about how the freedom of speech inherent in the right to demonstrate has been virtually obliterated by the criminalisation of such acts as trespass? What about the misuse of "war on terror" legislation by police to harass minority political and ethnic groups? Also, just the other day ID cards by stealth was passed in the Commons, and they're field-testing the automated tracking of movement of cars on the roads by license plate recognition. If you drive a car, they will be able to know where it goes. If you have a mobile phone, they can know where it is (to within ~150 feet). The RIP Bill mandates that communications companies keep tabs on who you are calling and e-mailing; you can face jail time if you refuse to hand over encryption keys. We used to vilify the Stasi for doing this sort of spying back in the days of the Evil Empire, but apparently *now* this kind of mass surveillance of your population is all very vital and necessary in the "war on terror" to hear it told. When everyone is calling on newspapers and media to "stand up for free speech" and publish a bunch of cartoons "because they can," why aren't they also asking them to publish about the messier side of the Iraq conflict "because they can?" Instead of fixating on the latest goings-on in the Celebrity Big Brother house, why can't we be informed of the latest goings-on in the world of corporate welfare, war profiteering, and tax loopholes? Why (in the USA) can George W. Bush get away with staging orchestrated "Town Hall" meetings in which only those that pledge to follow the party line and cheer on cue are allowed admission and have the media actually screen such blatant propaganda? It's all very well to demand we and our newspapers stand up against "arab governments." How about being just as vigorous in standing up to our own, though? Surely that's more important (albeit more difficult)? IMO, this cartoons outrage is just hypocrisy. There are worse problems closer to home. "Future generations are relying on us!" Cheers, Paul. -- e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --- Frank Vincent Zappa From nickmedford at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Feb 14 14:37:00 2006 From: nickmedford at HOTMAIL.COM (Nick Medford) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:37:00 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech - Time Out? Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 18:13:10 -0000, Jill Strobridge wrote: >Ey-up folks. This is a really interesting discussion but now it's reached >5 screenfulls per message can we ease up a bit before it turns into an >endless tit-for-tat where people simply exchange their increasingly >entrenched points of view rather than offering any new arguments? I'm perfectly happy to leave it where it is. As with any lengthy off-topic discussion, the list's tolerance thus far is appreciated. The only point I would add is that my "entrenched point of view", if that is what it is, is basically a wary scepticism of entrenched views. I concur with Mike about the civilised tone of the discussion. Some of the other debate I've seen on the net has been depressingly boneheaded, much like the real-world events in question. Nick From paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU Tue Feb 14 15:11:42 2006 From: paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU (Paul Mather) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:11:42 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 19:31 +0000, trev wrote: > I thought about publishing the cartoons on Real Festival Music to show > solidarity with the free press. I am ashamed to say that I have not done so > for fear of the Islamic murderers. I am truly ashamed. Sorry to hear of your deep shame, Judge Trev. Maybe you can persuade the Real Festival Music Web site to publish some articles denying the Holocaust ever happened. After all, the Germans say you can't do that, and they'll arrest you in Germany if you do. You should stand up for free speech and show them what for! (I know, standing up to Germany is not as fashionable as standing up to Iran, but beggars can't be choosers.) But wait, you say, that Holocaust denial stuff has been proven in court to be a load of rubbish, so why should I help disseminate such nonsense and cause offence to loads of Holocaust survivors into the bargain? That's easy, I'm told: because someone says you can't, and when that happens you have to "stand up for the principle of free speech" because the next thing you know they'll be stopping you from "airing both sides of the argument" and teaching Intelligent Design in science classes. Stupid, isn't it? Cheers, Paul. -- e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --- Frank Vincent Zappa From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Tue Feb 14 15:28:54 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:28:54 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Paul Mather's message of Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:35:00 -0500 Message-ID: Paul Mather writes: > On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 14:33 +0000, M Holmes wrote: > The thing that amuses me about this fracas is > that it is so easy to froth against "arab governments" and "arabs in > general" and all other manner of (increasingly racist in this thread) > stereotypes Is using a stereotype protesting arab for shorthand necessarily racist? Are we to insert instead at every reference "those arabs who are burning flags, but only those arabs who are burning flags and not the vast majority of arabs who couldn't care less what cartoons are published in Denmark"? Or can we just take it as read? I drink with more lefties than you can shake a stick at, and I work in a University, so I do understand all the tiptoeing around race and PC issues, particularly in a discussion of cultural and religious differences, but really, I get tired of all that and would appreciate the slack to say what I want to say without having to deal with calls of racism. > because the target is easy to caricaturise and point the > finger at Well y'know, that's really just because they tried so hard to get on the rest of the world's TV screens doing stupid shit. If they put in that much effort then I'm not gonna deny them a little finger-pointing. > it's an easily identified bogeyman that it's easy to get > everyone to hate. Hate? Here? That musta shot waaay over my head. I don't hate the protesting Muslims. Live and let live I say. All that's really required for their end of that bargain is that they burn their own stuff rather than someone else's and they leave what's published in Denmark to the newspaper and its customers. > (BTW, numerically speaking, isn't your average muslim > face going to look South-East Asian, not Arabic in this thread?) Possibly, but they're not the guys burning down Embassies and demanding the chopping off of heads. > But, if freedom of speech is so worth fighting for, I'm wondering why > aren't we doing it at home. Who says we're not? > Anyone remember the old geezer in his > eighties that was manhandled out of a Labour party conference speech and > subsequently arrested on (if memory serves) anti-terrorism charges, just > because he shouted a single word of dissent from the back? Oh yes. I'll probably remember that all my days. It happened less than 24 hours after we were assured that the legislation would only ever be applied to real terrorists. [Bunch of other important stuff that has my blood boiling elided - I composed a strongly worded email to my MSP about some of it only today - someone bake me a cake with a file in it if I'm suddenly posted missing?] > When everyone is calling on newspapers and media to "stand up for free > speech" and publish a bunch of cartoons "because they can," why aren't > they also asking them to publish about the messier side of the Iraq > conflict "because they can?" I suspect it's quit selling newspapers. It's sad I know, but even being lied into a war gets old where much of the population is concerned. > Instead of fixating on the latest > goings-on in the Celebrity Big Brother house I couldn't name one person in Big Brother on a bet. I heard that someone called "Jade" was in it once. > why can't we be informed > of the latest goings-on in the world of corporate welfare, war > profiteering, and tax loopholes? Why (in the USA) can George W. Bush > get away with staging orchestrated "Town Hall" meetings in which only > those that pledge to follow the party line and cheer on cue are allowed > admission and have the media actually screen such blatant propaganda? Y'know, I've heard of most of that too. > It's all very well to demand we and our newspapers stand up against > "arab governments." How about being just as vigorous in standing up to > our own, though? It'd be great, but you have to admit that holding our breath in the meanwhile probably wouldn't be a good plan. > Surely that's more important (albeit more difficult)? IMO, this > cartoons outrage is just hypocrisy. There are worse problems closer > to home. Possibly, but the only chance you'll have of persuading people of it is to retain some vestige of freedom of speech. > "Future generations are relying on us!" Testify brother! Testify! FoFP From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Tue Feb 14 15:32:49 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:32:49 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Paul Mather's message of Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:11:42 -0500 Message-ID: Paul Mather writes: > On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 19:31 +0000, trev wrote: > > I thought about publishing the cartoons on Real Festival Music to show > > solidarity with the free press. I am ashamed to say that I have not done so > > for fear of the Islamic murderers. I am truly ashamed. > Sorry to hear of your deep shame, Judge Trev. Maybe you can persuade > the Real Festival Music Web site to publish some articles denying the > Holocaust ever happened. After all, the Germans say you can't do that, The folks who called us on that are absolutely right. It's a bullshit law. The way to deal with the retards who deny the Holocaust is to argue with them, not jail them for speaking what passes for their minds. > and they'll arrest you in Germany if you do. You should stand up for > free speech and show them what for! (I know, standing up to Germany is > not as fashionable as standing up to Iran ObPython: Is this where I get to mention the war? > But wait, you say, that Holocaust denial stuff has been proven in court > to be a load of rubbish, so why should I help disseminate such nonsense > and cause offence to loads of Holocaust survivors into the bargain? Nope. Let Irvine and his cronies have at it. > That's easy, I'm told: because someone says you can't, and when that > happens you have to "stand up for the principle of free speech" because > the next thing you know they'll be stopping you from "airing both sides > of the argument" and teaching Intelligent Design in science classes. > Stupid, isn't it? I'm confused: you left out the part I disagree with? FoFP From jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK Tue Feb 14 17:23:40 2006 From: jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK (Jonathan Jarrett) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:23:40 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <43F0A05A.4050705@carlaz.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 03:06:02PM +0000, Carl Edlund Anderson typed out: > My point was only that I don't understand what _debate_ there could > possibly be on this issue because, under current laws, it looks entirely > black-and-white, open-and-shut. Things are illegal or not illegal; > there may often be uncertainty on whether certain things are legal, but > these things were pretty clearly legal. This alerts me to the fact that at some point I lost the thread. I thought that the reason Mike was going on about foreigners coercing us into the loss of our freedoms referred to the recent narrow defeat (in the UK) of the Religious Hatred Bill, which would have made something like these cartoons, even the `clean' ones, illegal (here). This is why I was attempting to argue that the real threat to such freedoms as he was defending came not from outraged imams but from that bunch we call a government, as that bill's been on the table for a long long time before this whole cartoons mess blew up, and in fact I wonder if the newspaper furore over that didn't help to keep the House of Commons empty and stopo Labour putting in the whip to make sure it went through... Would be odd if that's what saved us this time, eh? Yours, Jon ObCD: Fu Manchu - _Eatin' Dust_ -- Jonathan Jarrett Birkbeck College, London jjarrett at chiark.greenend.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------- "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." (Tom Waits) From paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU Tue Feb 14 17:40:50 2006 From: paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU (Paul Mather) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:40:50 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602142028.k1EKSsxg014687@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 20:28 +0000, M Holmes wrote: > Paul Mather writes: > > > On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 14:33 +0000, M Holmes wrote: > > > The thing that amuses me about this fracas is > > that it is so easy to froth against "arab governments" and "arabs in > > general" and all other manner of (increasingly racist in this thread) > > stereotypes > > Is using a stereotype protesting arab for shorthand necessarily racist? I think there is a misunderstanding, here. When I wrote "in this thread" I didn't mean that posting specifically; I meant in the whole thread to date. In particular, I was perturbed by the increasingly simplistic stereotypes of religious people, and how, mathematically speaking, it didn't seem to hold up to reality. I even made quite a mention of it in a previous posting, and hoped that might speak to the issue, but I guess, like me, not everyone has been reading all the postings of this thread. > Are we to insert instead at every reference "those arabs who are burning > flags, but only those arabs who are burning flags and not the vast > majority of arabs who couldn't care less what cartoons are published in > Denmark"? Or can we just take it as read? I'd prefer the former, because it has a better context to keep the argument grounded in reality than the shorthand. :-) > > because the target is easy to caricaturise and point the > > finger at > > Well y'know, that's really just because they tried so hard to get on > the rest of the world's TV screens doing stupid shit. If they put in > that much effort then I'm not gonna deny them a little finger-pointing. Lots of people do stupid things all the time, but do they end up on the TV? Have you ever heard of giving something the oxygen of publicity? (I mean, wasn't that the argument against showing the Daniel Pearl and other beheading videos on the national TV news---that and it might be grossly offensive, as well as possibly insensitive to the surviving relatives. Was it "cowardice," to reference one of your other postings, for reporters to refer to these videos in reports without actually showing them as you seem to suggest is the case with the British press and the cartoons?) Going by what you've said, three blokes shopped this "controversy" around for ages trying to get it to catch light. Eventually, someone bit. Right now, some opportunistic governments (such as Syria and Iran) have decided it plays to their current machinations to permit some embassies to get burned down and do some sabre rattling by banning all Danish imports, amongst other things. On the other side, this is a great opportunity to stoke up more Islamophobia, which seems to be the current paranoia du jour, at least in the West. All the piling on is convenient posturing. Given the grave inconsistencies on both sides shouting at each other, you'd be hard pressed, hand on heart, that this was about freedom of speech. > > (BTW, numerically speaking, isn't your average muslim > > face going to look South-East Asian, not Arabic in this thread?) > > Possibly, but they're not the guys burning down Embassies and demanding > the chopping off of heads. Exactomundo! That's precisely what I think is getting lost in all the froth: the fact that it is a tiny minority that are exploiting this incident for its own political ends. Unfortunately, stereotyping and generalisation means that we have a lot of splash damage in which the vast majority of muslims are being tagged with intents to do us harm that simply is not there. The net effect is to increase distrust of all muslims, not just the idiots and troublemakers that are stirring the pot. That hardly helps matters. > > When everyone is calling on newspapers and media to "stand up for free > > speech" and publish a bunch of cartoons "because they can," why aren't > > they also asking them to publish about the messier side of the Iraq > > conflict "because they can?" > > I suspect it's quit selling newspapers. It's sad I know, but even being > lied into a war gets old where much of the population is concerned. That's the other thing that disturbs me about this whole affair: it smacks of "fad controversy of the moment." I suppose like looking for Natalie in Aruba, folks or (more pertinently) the media will get bored of it when it "gets old," as you say, and move on to something else. > > It's all very well to demand we and our newspapers stand up against > > "arab governments." How about being just as vigorous in standing up to > > our own, though? > > It'd be great, but you have to admit that holding our breath in the > meanwhile probably wouldn't be a good plan. Yet we are supposed to stand up to the nebulous cartoon-banning menace for the sake of the little children and future generations? Although you could make that argument on the grounds of pragmatics (i.e., it's far easier to stand up to something that will likely have little or no direct impact on your life), it seems oddly out of place in a thread which has been fixated on sticking to the sheer principle of it. > > Surely that's more important (albeit more difficult)? IMO, this > > cartoons outrage is just hypocrisy. There are worse problems closer > > to home. > > Possibly, but the only chance you'll have of persuading people of it is > to retain some vestige of freedom of speech. If we only have the illusion of free speech at home, what is the point in worrying whether or not the nebulous cartoon-banners overseas want to deny us it, too? Isn't it more important to get our own house in order first? Otherwise, that's a bit like having your house burning down around you, but feeling chuffed because you stopped your neighbours who were threatening to take a bic lighter to your dog kennel in the back garden. Cheers, Paul. -- e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --- Frank Vincent Zappa From judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Feb 14 18:50:55 2006 From: judge48 at HOTMAIL.COM (trev) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:50:55 -0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: paul, i own the real festival music website and i feel solidarity with those who have published. whats holocaust denial got to do with anything? this is a crisis which is happening now. its real. people are being killed now and others will be killed. the more these cartoons are published, the less each brave publisher is liable to be attacked. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Mather" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 8:11 PM Subject: Re: OFF: Freeedom of Speech > On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 19:31 +0000, trev wrote: >> I thought about publishing the cartoons on Real Festival Music to show >> solidarity with the free press. I am ashamed to say that I have not done >> so >> for fear of the Islamic murderers. I am truly ashamed. > > Sorry to hear of your deep shame, Judge Trev. Maybe you can persuade > the Real Festival Music Web site to publish some articles denying the > Holocaust ever happened. After all, the Germans say you can't do that, > and they'll arrest you in Germany if you do. You should stand up for > free speech and show them what for! (I know, standing up to Germany is > not as fashionable as standing up to Iran, but beggars can't be > choosers.) > > But wait, you say, that Holocaust denial stuff has been proven in court > to be a load of rubbish, so why should I help disseminate such nonsense > and cause offence to loads of Holocaust survivors into the bargain? > That's easy, I'm told: because someone says you can't, and when that > happens you have to "stand up for the principle of free speech" because > the next thing you know they'll be stopping you from "airing both sides > of the argument" and teaching Intelligent Design in science classes. > > Stupid, isn't it? > > Cheers, > > Paul. > -- > e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu > > "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production > deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." > --- Frank Vincent Zappa > From nickmedford at HOTMAIL.COM Tue Feb 14 19:11:15 2006 From: nickmedford at HOTMAIL.COM (Nick Medford) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:11:15 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech - Time Out? Message-ID: On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 14:37:00 -0500, Nick Medford wrote: >I'm perfectly happy to leave it where it is. But, without elaborating my own views any further, I will just draw the attention of anyone still interested to someone else's take: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1709372,00.html A professor of law endorsing the view that reprinting the cartoons would have been a mistake, while at the same time advocating an uncompromising approach to the protection of free speech. Some will see this as inherently contradictory, of course. Nick From paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU Tue Feb 14 20:33:12 2006 From: paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU (Paul Mather) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:33:12 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 23:50 +0000, trev wrote: > paul, i own the real festival music website and i feel solidarity with those > who have published. whats holocaust denial got to do with anything? this is > a crisis which is happening now. its real. people are being killed now and > others will be killed. Sorry, Trev, I grossly misread your original message! Specifically, I somehow read "they have not done so" rather than "I have not done so," which, you'll agree, alters the meaning a lot and does make what I wrote a bit puzzling. :-) Still, Holocaust denial has everything to do with it. You can't stand up for the principle of free speech and "feel solidarity with those who have published" under those pristine auspices and conveniently ignore legal European bans that do the same as those you are shaking your fist at (not to mention blasphemy laws that apply only to Christians, etc.). (Though there's a slight difference. The would-be cartoon banners are only calling for outlaw and recrimination whereas the Germans currently have real laws in place, so the German prohibition is actual rather than hypothetical.) So, my meaning was "show solidarity with Holocaust deniers by publishing their spew on the Real Festival Music Web site if you want to defend free speech as much as you say." After all, this is a matter of defending freedom of speech, no matter how tasteless, in the face of those who would dare tell you what you can't publish, isn't it? (Or, does it just matter when it's Arabs, not Germans, trying to limit what you can say?) Personally, I disagree this is a crisis. It's just another incident in the long propaganda war. There are real crises taking place all around us, but this one doesn't rank up with them, IMO. Your mileage may vary. BTW, you must have noticed this, but people have been killed before; embassies attacked/burned; hostages taken; journalists beheaded; etc.: they will be again when it suits the Masters of War and the Spewers of Hate. The Taliban were killing men and women left, right and centre for all manner of what would be considered "exercising freedom of speech" issues. Our countries kowtow to the landlords of Chop Chop Square in Saudi Arabia because they permit Western military bases and certain oil concessions whilst openly financing and promoting dissent against us. I'm interested: why express outrage now and not then? Why is it suddenly a crisis now? > the more these cartoons are published, the less each > brave publisher is liable to be attacked. I disagree with that, too, because I believe this cartoon flap is just another pawn in a larger chess game, and no matter how many of our "brave publishers" decide to publish these, those that are fomenting the outrage will continue along their merry way. Personally, I don't think it would make much of a difference one way or another. As I said before, there are numerous occasions on which our "brave publishers" choose not to print something, usually because it is politically or economically expedient not to. Oftentimes, these "brave publishers" will be informing us instead of the latest celebrity shenanigans, or alerting us to the sweeping "flood" of sponging asylum seekers out to steal all our jobs and bleed our welfare system dry, and all manner of fluff and lies and distorted statistics. So, before I go get my crying towel for the "brave publishers," I'd rather they exercised a whole lot less self-censorship on a whole raft of topics they keep their traps shut on than to have them act all self-righteous about some abstract principle that is cool to defend under certain convenient circumstances. Note that the "brave publishers" at the Jyllands-Posten refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ back in 2003 on the grounds that they might be offensive to readers and were not funny. The editor stated in his rejection letter, "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." So, I guess he figures not many muslims read his newspaper. :-) The "brave publishers" at the Jyllands-Posten also recently made a U-turn on their intention to run Holocaust cartoons from an Iranian newspaper which had planned to do so. I guess the Jyllands-Posten fifteen minutes of fame is almost up. Still, they say there's no such thing as bad publicity. Colour me cynical. Cheers, Paul. -- e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --- Frank Vincent Zappa From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Wed Feb 15 06:11:31 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:11:31 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Paul Mather's message of Tue, 14 Feb 2006 17:40:50 -0500 Message-ID: Paul Mather writes: > > Are we to insert instead at every reference "those arabs who are burning > > flags, but only those arabs who are burning flags and not the vast > > majority of arabs who couldn't care less what cartoons are published in > > Denmark"? Or can we just take it as read? > I'd prefer the former, because it has a better context to keep the > argument grounded in reality than the shorthand. :-) I appreciate the sentiment, but really I get enough of that at work, so I'll stick to the shorthand. If someone mistaes me for a racist then I'll live with it until I can put them straight. > > > because the target is easy to caricaturise and point the > > > finger at > > Well y'know, that's really just because they tried so hard to get on > > the rest of the world's TV screens doing stupid shit. If they put in > > that much effort then I'm not gonna deny them a little finger-pointing. > Lots of people do stupid things all the time, but do they end up on the > TV? Sure, but often they're not trying this hard to get on TV. These guys in large part had placards in English because they knew that by burning flags and Embassies they'd get on Western TV. I agree that this makes our TV dumber than shit too, but we've known that since before Hawkwind started out. > Have you ever heard of giving something the oxygen of publicity? > (I mean, wasn't that the argument against showing the Daniel Pearl and > other beheading videos on the national TV news---that and it might be > grossly offensive, as well as possibly insensitive to the surviving > relatives. Was it "cowardice," to reference one of your other postings, > for reporters to refer to these videos in reports without actually > showing them as you seem to suggest is the case with the British press > and the cartoons?) In fact I have the suspicion that by refusing to show these we not only set up an underground market for them amongst the terminally sick in the head, but miss a chance to show the Muslim Brotherhood (to give Al Queda its correct name) for the simple savages they are. I take your point about protecting the relatives though. > Going by what you've said, three blokes shopped this "controversy" > around for ages trying to get it to catch light. Yup. I gather one of 'em has admitted it. > Eventually, someone > bit. Right now, some opportunistic governments (such as Syria and Iran) > have decided it plays to their current machinations to permit some > embassies to get burned down and do some sabre rattling by banning all > Danish imports, amongst other things. The Syrian government want anything but Hariri on TV. I have to wonder if the Bush folks wouldn't like something to replace endless questions about whether spying on his own citizens is ilegall mightn't serve him well too. It's not just despotic arab governments that play the distraction game. > On the other side, this is a > great opportunity to stoke up more Islamophobia, which seems to be the > current paranoia du jour, at least in the West. I've talked to quite a few people about this and I'm heartened to say that people are pretty clear that it's the halfwits they're worried about rather than Islam in general. Of course it's likely that the demographic that speaks to me isn't entirely representative. > All the piling on is convenient posturing. Given the grave > inconsistencies on both sides shouting at each other, you'd be hard > pressed, hand on heart, that this was about freedom of speech. All I can say is that it is for me. As far as the rest goes I'd *like* arab people to have more liberty too but I do not believe that this can be achieved by bombing them. > > > (BTW, numerically speaking, isn't your average muslim face going > > > to look South-East Asian, not Arabic in this thread?) > > Possibly, but they're not the guys burning down Embassies and > > demanding the chopping off of heads. > Exactomundo! That's precisely what I think is getting lost in all the > froth: the fact that it is a tiny minority that are exploiting this > incident for its own political ends. Unfortunately, stereotyping and > generalisation means that we have a lot of splash damage in which the > vast majority of muslims are being tagged with intents to do us harm > that simply is not there. The net effect is to increase distrust of > all muslims, not just the idiots and troublemakers that are stirring > the pot. That hardly helps matters. Which is why I've said we need to make common cause with such muslims where they will rein in the halfwits. Unfortunately we've had to be rather patient for that to start to happen in local parts. It's interesting that it's these cartoons that seem to have broken the dam, though the Hamza verdict coming at the same time might have indicated that we're finally willing to do our part too - I believe that half of the problem since Rushdie has been our own governments soft-soaping on terror speech. We can't expect rational British muslims to dob in the nutters if they don't have confidence we'll do something about it when we're given information. > > > When everyone is calling on newspapers and media to "stand up for > > > free speech" and publish a bunch of cartoons "because they can," > > > why aren't they also asking them to publish about the messier side > > > of the Iraq conflict "because they can?" > > I suspect it's quit selling newspapers. It's sad I know, but even > > being lied into a war gets old where much of the population is > > concerned. > That's the other thing that disturbs me about this whole affair: it > smacks of "fad controversy of the moment." I suppose like looking for > Natalie in Aruba, folks or (more pertinently) the media will get bored > of it when it "gets old," as you say, and move on to something else. Sadly true. > > > It's all very well to demand we and our newspapers stand up > > > against "arab governments." How about being just as vigorous in > > > standing up to our own, though? > > It'd be great, but you have to admit that holding our breath in the > > meanwhile probably wouldn't be a good plan. > Yet we are supposed to stand up to the nebulous cartoon-banning menace > for the sake of the little children and future generations? It's not exactly nebulous. Already MSP's are trying to push legislation covering European newspapers to prevent this happening again. The nutters *know* that if they throw enough toys out of the pram, there are nutters in our Parliaments who will give them what they're screaming for. For every reaction there's an equal and opposite overreaction. > > > Surely that's more important (albeit more difficult)? IMO, this > > > cartoons outrage is just hypocrisy. There are worse problems > > > closer to home. > > Possibly, but the only chance you'll have of persuading people of it > > is to retain some vestige of freedom of speech. > If we only have the illusion of free speech at home, what is the point > in worrying whether or not the nebulous cartoon-banners overseas want > to deny us it, too? We can fight on both fronts. I won't say I'm as active as I was when younger, but I've been in the front lines here a few times. Luckily in Britain it's mostly bureaucratic drudgery rather than the sort of facing death threats that the Euro news editors are looking at. FoFP From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Wed Feb 15 06:21:16 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:21:16 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Jonathan Jarrett's message of Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:23:40 +0000 Message-ID: Jonathan Jarrett writes: > I thought that the reason Mike was going on about foreigners coercing us > into the loss of our freedoms referred to the recent narrow defeat (in > the UK) of the Religious Hatred Bill, which would have made something like > these cartoons, even the `clean' ones, illegal (here). I'm certain it would have. I wonder whether that's a big part of why nobody risked publishing them here. > This is why I was attempting to argue that the real threat to such > freedoms as he was defending came not from outraged imams but from > that bunch we call a government Freedom of speech will certainly be at risk as long as we have a government. It's in the nature of government to notice that there are things inconvenient to them to have said openly. > as that bill's been on the table for > a long long time before this whole cartoons mess blew up, and in fact > I wonder if the newspaper furore over that didn't help to keep the > House of Commons empty and stopo Labour putting in the whip to make > sure it went through... Would be odd if that's what saved us this > time, eh? Most people on the inside are fairly clear that the Bill was a sop to the politicians claiming to represent "Moderate British Muslims", effectively extending the Blasphemy laws to Islam. Obviously FoS campaigners would rather the Blasphemy laws were abolished entirely (which would also be fairer to Muslims) in order to enhance freedom of speech. We can take it as read that such abolition won't happen soon and that the Blasphemy laws will almost certainly continue to die on the vine. FoFP P.S: Boris For Rector! From jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK Wed Feb 15 06:23:23 2006 From: jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK (Jonathan Jarrett) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:23:23 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602131857.k1DIvj3N029521@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 06:57:45PM +0000, M Holmes typed out: > Of course in Scotland we've been fond of Mister Robertson ever since he > described us as "A dark land full of strong homosexuals". Perhaps it was the > kilt that scared him. I'd like to place on record at this point that the second time I visited Edinburgh I got invited to the next meeting of the Edinburgh Gay Lesbian and Bisexual Real Ale Drinkers Circle by a woman I'd never met before that evening. (Couldn't make it, sadly.) Yours, Jon -- Jonathan Jarrett Birkbeck College, London jjarrett at chiark.greenend.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------- "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." (Tom Waits) From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Wed Feb 15 06:28:31 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:28:31 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech - Time Out? In-Reply-To: Nick Medford's message of Tue, 14 Feb 2006 19:11:15 -0500 Message-ID: Nick Medford writes: > But, without elaborating my own views any further, I will just draw the > attention of anyone still interested to someone else's take: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1709372,00.html > > A professor of law endorsing the view that reprinting the cartoons would > have been a mistake, while at the same time advocating an uncompromising > approach to the protection of free speech. Some will see this as inherently > contradictory, of course. Excellent article. Thanks Nick. FoFP From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Wed Feb 15 06:29:43 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:29:43 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Jonathan Jarrett's message of Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:23:23 +0000 Message-ID: Jonathan Jarrett writes: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 06:57:45PM +0000, M Holmes typed out: > > Of course in Scotland we've been fond of Mister Robertson ever since he > > described us as "A dark land full of strong homosexuals". Perhaps it was the > > kilt that scared him. > I'd like to place on record at this point that the second time I > visited Edinburgh I got invited to the next meeting of the Edinburgh Gay > Lesbian and Bisexual Real Ale Drinkers Circle by a woman I'd never met > before that evening. (Couldn't make it, sadly.) Yours, That absolutely *has* to be Feorag. FoFP From Tjackson at SYR.EDU Wed Feb 15 07:52:45 2006 From: Tjackson at SYR.EDU (Ted Jackson) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 07:52:45 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: >>> paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU 2/14/2006 2:35 PM >>> Lovely sentiments, Mike. The thing that amuses me about this fracas is that it is so easy to froth against "arab governments" and "arabs in general" and all other manner of (increasingly racist in this thread) stereotypes because the target is easy to caricaturise and point the finger at: it's an easily identified bogeyman that it's easy to get everyone to hate. (BTW, numerically speaking, isn't your average muslim face going to look South-East Asian, not Arabic in this thread?) I'll stick my neck on the block here and say that I'm a lot more concerned by so-called Christians who blindly support wars of agression and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan even though such wars are clearly in opposition to the teachings of Christ. All 'W' has to do is be seen going to church on Sunday, and every Jesus-freak in the US will vote for him no matter what he does or how many laws he and his lackeys break. We're under attack by religious fanatics here, but most of them are white and live in the suburbs... But, if freedom of speech is so worth fighting for, I'm wondering why aren't we doing it at home. Yep, why aren't I and like-minded Americans not camping out in front of the White House? We raised hell during the Vietnam war, but then young people were subject to a military draft. I guess we won't do anything until it's too late... Anyone remember the old geezer in his eighties that was manhandled out of a Labour party conference speech and subsequently arrested on (if memory serves) anti-terrorism charges, just because he shouted a single word of dissent from the back? How about how the freedom of speech inherent in the right to demonstrate has been virtually obliterated by the criminalisation of such acts as trespass? What about the misuse of "war on terror" legislation by police to harass minority political and ethnic groups? Also, just the other day ID cards by stealth was passed in the Commons, and they're field-testing the automated tracking of movement of cars on the roads by license plate recognition. We've already got video cameras at most busy intersections. Just a matter of time before they put GPS gear in every car... If you drive a car, they will be able to know where it goes. If you have a mobile phone, they can know where it is (to within ~150 feet). The RIP Bill mandates that communications companies keep tabs on who you are calling and e-mailing; you can face jail time if you refuse to hand over encryption keys. We used to vilify the Stasi for doing this sort of spying back in the days of the Evil Empire, but apparently *now* this kind of mass surveillance of your population is all very vital and necessary in the "war on terror" to hear it told. Yah, but cheer up. Bush says we're winning the 'war on terror.' It won't be over in our lifetime, he tells us, but we're winning! WTF kind of crystal ball do you need to see that? When everyone is calling on newspapers and media to "stand up for free speech" and publish a bunch of cartoons "because they can," why aren't they also asking them to publish about the messier side of the Iraq conflict "because they can?" I don't think they 'can.' All the media in the US are owned by huge conglomerates who, buy the way, sell arms or are invested in in armaments producers. Or big oil companies, who seem to be making $ hand over fist right now... Instead of fixating on the latest goings-on in the Celebrity Big Brother house, why can't we be informed of the latest goings-on in the world of corporate welfare, war profiteering, and tax loopholes? Because that would require sensitive thought. We'd rather just ignore a problem until it's so big we're forced to do something about it... Why (in the USA) can George W. Bush get away with staging orchestrated "Town Hall" meetings in which only those that pledge to follow the party line and cheer on cue are allowed admission and have the media actually screen such blatant propaganda? For the same reason the opposition party allowed this horrible invasion of Iraq to happen. They were afraid they'd be turned out of office. The polls told them that enough no-neck idiots over here would support the invasion because it was an element of a 'war on terror...' It's all very well to demand we and our newspapers stand up against "arab governments." How about being just as vigorous in standing up to our own, though? Surely that's more important (albeit more difficult)? IMO, this cartoons outrage is just hypocrisy. There are worse problems closer to home. "Future generations are relying on us!" They sure are, and I'd hate to be one of them... theo From akomins at UCHICAGO.EDU Wed Feb 15 08:32:49 2006 From: akomins at UCHICAGO.EDU (Arin Komins) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 07:32:49 -0600 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602151129.k1FBTh8C029542@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, M Holmes wrote: :Subject: Re: OFF: Freeedom of Speech : :Jonathan Jarrett writes: : :> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 06:57:45PM +0000, M Holmes typed out: :> > Of course in Scotland we've been fond of Mister Robertson ever since he :> > described us as "A dark land full of strong homosexuals". Perhaps it was the :> > kilt that scared him. : :> I'd like to place on record at this point that the second time I :> visited Edinburgh I got invited to the next meeting of the Edinburgh Gay :> Lesbian and Bisexual Real Ale Drinkers Circle by a woman I'd never met :> before that evening. (Couldn't make it, sadly.) Yours, : :That absolutely *has* to be Feorag. Is that the Feorag-who-is-the-SO-of-Charlie-Stross? Arin (random sf geek) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Arin Komins akomins at uchicago.edu Assistant Director/Network-Based Services University of Chicago/NSIT/NBS tel: (773)834-4087 1155 E. 60th St. #307a, Chicago, IL 60637 fax: (773)702-0559 ------------------------------------------------------------------ From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Wed Feb 15 09:45:16 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:45:16 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Arin Komins's message of Wed, 15 Feb 2006 07:32:49 -0600 Message-ID: Arin Komins writes: > :> I'd like to place on record at this point that the second > :> time I > :> visited Edinburgh I got invited to the next meeting of the > :> Edinburgh Gay Lesbian and Bisexual Real Ale Drinkers Circle by a > :> woman I'd never met before that evening. (Couldn't make it, > :> sadly.) Yours, > :That absolutely *has* to be Feorag. > Is that the Feorag-who-is-the-SO-of-Charlie-Stross? SO? They're married now. FoFP From akomins at UCHICAGO.EDU Wed Feb 15 09:51:24 2006 From: akomins at UCHICAGO.EDU (Arin Komins) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:51:24 -0600 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602151445.k1FEjGGi011340@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, M Holmes wrote: :Subject: Re: OFF: Freeedom of Speech : :Arin Komins writes: : :> :> I'd like to place on record at this point that the second :> :> time I : :> :> visited Edinburgh I got invited to the next meeting of the :> :> Edinburgh Gay Lesbian and Bisexual Real Ale Drinkers Circle by a :> :> woman I'd never met before that evening. (Couldn't make it, :> :> sadly.) Yours, : :> :That absolutely *has* to be Feorag. : :> Is that the Feorag-who-is-the-SO-of-Charlie-Stross? : :SO? They're married now. I'm clearly behind the times ;-) Arin -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Arin Komins akomins at uchicago.edu Assistant Director/Network-Based Services University of Chicago/NSIT/NBS tel: (773)834-4087 1155 E. 60th St. #307a, Chicago, IL 60637 fax: (773)702-0559 ------------------------------------------------------------------ From neiltoyne at NTLWORLD.COM Wed Feb 15 10:05:01 2006 From: neiltoyne at NTLWORLD.COM (Neil Toyne) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:05:01 -0000 Subject: ron tree judge trev moab Message-ID: Just received said platter............. I (and the neighbours) are just listening to it - seems good thus far, I'll post in more detail when I've heard more of it. Cheers, Neil ----- Original Message ----- From: "trev" To: Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 5:17 PM Subject: ron tree judge trev moab Hi all you Blessed Ones and Real Festival People and Hawkfans. "Insect Brain" by the spacerock supergroup MOTHER OF ALL BANDS, featuring Ron Tree (Hawkwind), Judge Trev (Inner City Unit/Space Ritual), Commander Jim Hawkman (Inner City Unit/Spaceritual), John Morgan (Senser), Angelflame (Space Ritual), Richard Lanchester (Here and Now) is now available: http://www.realfestivalmusic.co.uk/musicinsectbrain.html Tracks: Insect Brain - Tree Meat Eater - Tree/Thoms War Machine - Tree/Hook Uber Alles Dolphins - Thoms Precious - Tree/Thoms Reflections - Tree/Thoms Me - Thoms Yasser - Thoms/Tree Spirit of the Age - Calvert/Brock cheques, credit cards or pay pal accepted on website, or send cheque, postal order or international money order to: Real Festival Music 34a Upper Lewes Road Brighton East Sussex BN2 3FH UK Price is ?10 plus postage UK 50p...Europe ?1...Rest of World ?1.50 This album was completed in 2003 and since then has been the subject of arguments, betrayals, and legal litigation, you know - the usual. I am releasing "Insect Brain" privately to you friends, in order to maintain it's "unreleased" status somewhat, to enable a proper release in the future if any record company might be willing to handle it. Profits from this CDr will go towards the costs incurred in the management dispute which has prevented it's release up 'til now. One thing I can say is that I honestly consider this to be my best guitar performance and Ron's best ever vocal performance on record. This album has X factor and is very well recorded and mixed. Fot it to be buried for evermore, as is otherwise possible, would be a crime. Judge Trev reviews: Aural Innovations review : The Mother Of All Bands - "Insect Brain" (unreleased-as yet!) >From Aural Innovations #30 (February 2005) The Mother Of All Bands features Ron Tree (ex Hawkwind 1995-2002) and Judge Trev Thoms (Inner City Unit), and their musical pasts are in the melting pot of this band's style, but with a lot of fresh new ingredients thrown in too! The album starts with the title track ("Insect Brain") with some pretty unsettling effected laughter (and a tune that reminds me of the Iron Butterfly classic "In-A Gadda Da Vida", but with a whole otherworldy thing going on!). Ron shines from the word go with some true to form eccentric wordplay and subtle alien high pitched backing ("f-f-f focus through my eyes"). It's wonderfully eccentric and something that rocks out too. "Meat Eater Man" is a mid tempo, darker affair with some excellent soloing from Judge Trev as a kind of co-lead vocal guitar, some distorted random words from Ron at the end of the track giving it an almost chaotic feel. "War Machine" thumps in after a news sample discussing the war on terror situation and it's good to hear it in the lyrics ("like the gremlin, mutilation is your toy!"/"world leaders...of death! misery! & pain!"), blistering solo from Judge Trev on this. "Dolphins Uber Alles" sees Trev on lead vocals, which is a nice contrast with a rocking heavy vibe and some rootsy on-fire soloing, cymbals washing into "Precious", which is a trance like pace. I have to mention again Judge Trev Thom's playing as it keeps sliding in and out snake like, very raw but driving it on with Ron Tree at full throttle vocally. "Behind the Mirror" rocks out with some space rock 'n roll, with Ron and Angie (from Spaceritual) singing. I get the feeling this one is about the disconnection of everyday interaction (i.e., the net). An instrumental follows on from a rocker of a track again with Judge Trev singing with deep booming gong hits, a dark brooding instrumental which brings to mind vast dunes of sand at dusk. "Spirit Of The Age 21st Century" is the 'MOAB''s nod and tribute to one Robert Calvert, but rewriting it actually with some manic robotic effected vocals from Ron and the punkiest I've heard it so far! Excellent! This album is brilliant and I was lucky enough to receive a copy from the band to keep to myself. The band are looking for a deal and I honestly think fans of Ron and Trev will simply love this and so too will anyone else looking for something fresh, edgy and wild. If we all make enough noise to the companies who knows? This is a band to definitely keep an eye out for. I think they'll get their music out there as it already sounds like a classic album you'd buy. Reviewed by Keith Hill The Organ review: M.O.A.B (Mother Of All Bands) - What we have here is a Hawkfamily supergroup, indeed the mother of all (or is that Nik Turner's Space Ritual?). The Hawkfamily have always been much more than just Hawkwind themselves - the offshoots, friends and relations, the inner city units and starfighters. Here we have one time I.C.U pilot Judge Trev Thoms on guitar, we got commander Jim Hawkman on synths and various compulsory swizz-iii-fiiiiiissss- shhhh spinning noise - insect noises, the broken call of noise. we got Ron Tree on vocals (fresh from a seven year space mission with the Baron Brock and the Hawkship), six legs that become eight with Senser percussionist John Morgan. Classic space rock that as much rooted (as the band point out themselves) in Cream and Iron Butterfly as classic 70's Calvert flavoured Hawkwind. They have nailed down songs drenched in those lyrical Moorcockisms and those killing jokes - meat eating space formula conspiracy and mad scientific experience. They have that ability to jam the space jam without ever getting boring or cliched about it. Red light shooting like gremlin pushing urban guerillas with a full album on the launch pad ready to fly. Indeed inner city unit urban guerillas - and it all ends with a rather fine version of Spirit Of The Age. Go ask The Judge about it over at AND THERE CAME THE BEASTS AND KINGS WITH THEIR ARMIES AND THEIR CAPTAINS TO MAKE WAR WITH HIM UPON THE HORSE AND TO MAKE WAR WITH HIS ARMIES AND HIS EYES WERE AS A FLAME OF FIRE HE WAS CROWNED WITH MANY CROWNS AND IN RIGHTEOUSNESS HE JUDGES AND IN RIGHTEOUSNESS HE WAGES WAR http://www.judgetrev.com REAL FESTIVAL MUSIC - RFM http://www.realfestivalmusic.co.uk Festival Listings, Festival Reviews, CDs, Video Downloads, News, Forum, Chat, Healers -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.6/257 - Release Date: 10/02/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.8/260 - Release Date: 14/02/2006 From jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK Wed Feb 15 10:36:18 2006 From: jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK (Jonathan Jarrett) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:36:18 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:23:26AM -0000, trev typed out: > to confuse matters, how about introducing artistic license into the debate? > there might be a predictable consequence sparked off by a work of art which > inflames passions to act upon it's message. That could complicate things in a whole bunch of ways. First there's the question of whether it's permissible to offend with art. Free speech should allow us too, obviously, especially as someone will manage to be offended by almost anything and I don't think it's clear that society should protect people against `hurt feelings'. But some would argue otherwise. Then an edge case: if the offense has a purpose, such as highlighting injustice or negligence or intolerance, does that make it `legitimate' if it wasn't legitimate to do it gratuitously? And even if there is no purpose beyond the offence, though we permit it, is it still to be encouraged? But by far the biggest problem is going to be deciding whether something `is art' in the courtroom... I know they say everyone's a critic, but... Not necessarily my views, any of this, but this is where I can see handholds in the structure for born arguers to get a grip on. Yours, Jon -- Jonathan Jarrett Birkbeck College, London jjarrett at chiark.greenend.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------- "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." (Tom Waits) From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Wed Feb 15 10:47:34 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:47:34 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Jonathan Jarrett's message of Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:36:18 +0000 Message-ID: Looks like the cartoons are fighting back: http://tinyurl.com/9r4zt "Protest be damned. It's CLOBBERIN' TIME!" -- The Thing. From cea at CARLAZ.COM Wed Feb 15 10:56:43 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:56:43 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <20060215153618.GA3164@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: On 15/02/2006 15:36, Jonathan Jarrett wrote: > [...] I don't think it's clear that > society should protect people against `hurt feelings'. But some would > argue otherwise. But, on the other hand: screw them :) Cheers, Carl ObCD: tBS NYC, _Denial of Death_! -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From oystrgal at BELLSOUTH.NET Wed Feb 15 12:04:54 2006 From: oystrgal at BELLSOUTH.NET (Jean Lansford) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 12:04:54 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: > From: M Holmes > > Looks like the cartoons are fighting back: > > http://tinyurl.com/9r4zt Oy. And on the same day as the release of more Abu Ghraib pics. From cea at CARLAZ.COM Thu Feb 16 06:54:19 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:54:19 +0000 Subject: tBS: more Denial of Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I actually do have to gush a *little* more about DoD .... :) I think, overall, this is for me the best Brain Surgeons disc so far, so I'm comfortable in saying I think this is at least the best thing Al's worked on since _Imaginos_. But ... dare I think this may be Al's finest album since at least _Secret Treaties_? OK, there are individual BOC songs from the whole catalog that perhaps rise higher than perhaps the individual tracks on _Denial of Death_; I mean, at the very least, "Reaper" is just a well constructed song by any measure. But for overall consistency? I think I feel prepared to say _Denial of Death_ may well be the the best album Al's been involved with since early BOC. (Actually, I wish the sound on the early BOC albums was as good as it is on Denial of Death :) Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From dave at ASSASSINSOFSILENCE.COM Thu Feb 16 07:13:53 2006 From: dave at ASSASSINSOFSILENCE.COM (Assassins of Silence) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:13:53 -0000 Subject: Off: Gig this saturday, Assassins of Silence Message-ID: Assassins of Silence at The Exeter Hall (The X) Cowley Road Oxford. Supported by The Mood, 8:30 ?3 entry. Assassins of Silence www.assassinsofsilence.com From cea at CARLAZ.COM Thu Feb 16 09:20:42 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:20:42 +0000 Subject: Off: Gig this saturday, Assassins of Silence In-Reply-To: <000601c632f2$798399e0$0200a8c0@BICTILL1> Message-ID: On 16/02/2006 12:13, Assassins of Silence wrote: > Assassins of Silence at The Exeter Hall (The X) Cowley > Road Oxford. > Supported by The Mood, 8:30 ?3 entry. Aw, why should Oxford get all the fun!? Come play Cambridge :) Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From dave at ASSASSINSOFSILENCE.COM Thu Feb 16 09:40:50 2006 From: dave at ASSASSINSOFSILENCE.COM (Assassins of Silence) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:40:50 -0000 Subject: Off: Gig this saturday, Assassins of Silence Message-ID: Aw, why should Oxford get all the fun!? Come play Cambridge :) Cheers, Carl Yeah, for sure!! just need venue contacts, can u help there? dave From cea at CARLAZ.COM Thu Feb 16 10:02:19 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:02:19 +0000 Subject: Off: Gig this saturday, Assassins of Silence In-Reply-To: <000601c63306$fd8f38c0$0200a8c0@BICTILL1> Message-ID: On 16/02/2006 14:40, Assassins of Silence wrote: > Yeah, for sure!! just need venue contacts, can u help there? Actually, I may be able to :) depending on what size place you'd be aiming for. The little band I play in often arranges gigs at the Man on the Moon in Cambridge, which would probably max out at around hundred people. Our drummer knows those guys there and sorts us our gigs at the MotM; I'll pass your mail onto him. There's also the Portland Arms, which is perhaps slightly smaller (seen bands there, but haven't gigged at it myself). Litmus have played both these venues in the last year, I think. Unfortunately (perhaps), the next step up in Cambridge these days is The Junction (maybe cap. 850 for gigs), and I've seen Hawkwind themselves there. Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From Marc.Phillipps at ENFIELD.NHS.UK Thu Feb 16 10:21:54 2006 From: Marc.Phillipps at ENFIELD.NHS.UK (Phillipps Marc) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:21:54 -0000 Subject: Off: Gig this saturday, Assassins of Silence Message-ID: >Unfortunately (perhaps), the next step up in Cambridge these days is The >Junction (maybe cap. 850 for gigs), and I've seen Hawkwind themselves >there. I'm off to see Killing Joke there in April It's a good venue > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl Edlund Anderson [SMTP:cea at CARLAZ.COM] > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 3:01 PM > To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET > Subject: Re: Off: Gig this saturday, Assassins of Silence > > On 16/02/2006 14:40, Assassins of Silence wrote: > > Yeah, for sure!! just need venue contacts, can u help there? > > Actually, I may be able to :) depending on what size place you'd be > aiming for. > > The little band I play in often arranges gigs at the Man on the Moon in > Cambridge, which would probably max out at around hundred people. Our > drummer knows those guys there and sorts us our gigs at the MotM; I'll > pass your mail onto him. There's also the Portland Arms, which is > perhaps slightly smaller (seen bands there, but haven't gigged at it > myself). Litmus have played both these venues in the last year, I think. > > Unfortunately (perhaps), the next step up in Cambridge these days is The > Junction (maybe cap. 850 for gigs), and I've seen Hawkwind themselves > there. > > Cheers, > Carl > > -- > Carl Edlund Anderson > mailto:cea at carlaz.com > http://www.carlaz.com/ > > This communication may contain information that is confidential and legally privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient(s), please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this communication or the information within is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please return it to the sender, then delete and destroy any copies of it. The Health Informatics Service disclaims any liability for action taken reliant on the content of this message. This communication is from the Health Informatics Service serving Barnet Enfield & Haringey Health Communities. From blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM Thu Feb 16 12:34:57 2006 From: blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM (blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:34:57 -0500 Subject: tBS: more Denial of Death Message-ID: Carl wrote: > I think, overall, this is for me the best Brain Surgeons disc so far, so > I'm comfortable in saying I think this is at least the best thing Al's > worked on since _Imaginos_. It's certainly the closest in sound he's been to Imaginos. I do agree DoD is the best Surgeons album, though my favorite is still Box of Hammers. Yes, there is a difference between best and favorite. ;-) > I think I feel prepared to say > _Denial of Death_ may well be the the best album Al's been involved with > since early BOC. Wow, that's a lot of flinching for one sentence. If you're going to dare, be daring. ;-) Still, I can understand the hesitation. There are some amazing albums between Secret Treaties and DoD, and I don't know if I would feel comfortable making that statement myself. Regardless, DoD is a brutally beautiful piece of work. > (Actually, I wish the sound on the early BOC albums > was as good as it is on Denial of Death :) I agree, the overall sound is spectacular. Those guitars! And Al's drums have never sounded better-produced with the Surgeons. Brian obSong> "Plague of Lies" From ir004728 at MINDSPRING.COM Thu Feb 16 22:00:13 2006 From: ir004728 at MINDSPRING.COM (Albert Bouchard) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 22:00:13 -0500 Subject: tBS: more Denial of Death In-Reply-To: <200602161734.k1GHYvoe006407@mail25.atl.registeredsite.com> Message-ID: Thanks guys: I do feel like it's my best work in? I don't know. I feel like every album is my best usually. I remember being stunned when people didn't like Mirrors. But in retrospect I can see that Mirrors was a bit of a left turn for many fans. The thing is you don't really think about how people will perceive your work. I just think about what I have to say and how I want to say it. In that regard I will say that I had an idea to make a kind of metal that I didn't hear anyone else doing (except for maybe Last Crack, remember them?). Ross wanted to do a metal album and I just said OK but let's make it about real stuff, not norse gods or mythical creatures or how we can f$%k all night. Once we got into it, of course, we started trying to use those same images for metaphors but that's song-writing. ;-) Bottom line is that I think Jason nailed it when he said originally that this is a kind of personal metal. These songs are not exercises. Every song is about a real experience. Other songwriters do that all the time but it's a first for me. I'll try to get all the lyrics up on the cellsum site this weekend. Cheers, Al On Feb 16, 2006, at 12:34 PM, blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM wrote: > Carl wrote: >> I think, overall, this is for me the best Brain Surgeons disc so >> far, so >> I'm comfortable in saying I think this is at least the best thing >> Al's >> worked on since _Imaginos_. > > It's certainly the closest in sound he's been to Imaginos. I do > agree DoD is the best Surgeons album, though my favorite is still > Box of Hammers. Yes, there is a difference between best and > favorite. ;-) > >> I think I feel prepared to say >> _Denial of Death_ may well be the the best album Al's been >> involved with >> since early BOC. > > Wow, that's a lot of flinching for one sentence. If you're going to > dare, be daring. ;-) Still, I can understand the hesitation. There > are some amazing albums between Secret Treaties and DoD, and I > don't know if I would feel comfortable making that statement > myself. Regardless, DoD is a brutally beautiful piece of work. > >> (Actually, I wish the sound on the early BOC albums >> was as good as it is on Denial of Death :) > > I agree, the overall sound is spectacular. Those guitars! And Al's > drums have never sounded better-produced with the Surgeons. > > Brian > obSong> "Plague of Lies" From jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK Thu Feb 16 19:07:17 2006 From: jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK (Jonathan Jarrett) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 00:07:17 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602151129.k1FBTh8C029542@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 11:29:43AM +0000, M Holmes typed out: > Jonathan Jarrett writes: > > I'd like to place on record at this point that the second time I > > visited Edinburgh I got invited to the next meeting of the Edinburgh Gay > > Lesbian and Bisexual Real Ale Drinkers Circle by a woman I'd never met > > before that evening. (Couldn't make it, sadly.) Yours, > > That absolutely *has* to be Feorag. Indeed so. Of course it was you that'd introduced me to her, but I wouldn't want Mr Robertson to try and tar (and feather) you with the same brush should he ever join the list and browse the archives... Yours, Jon ObCD: Hawkwind - _The 1999 Party_ -- Jonathan Jarrett Birkbeck College, London jjarrett at chiark.greenend.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------- "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." (Tom Waits) From cea at CARLAZ.COM Fri Feb 17 06:21:02 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:21:02 +0000 Subject: tBS: more Denial of Death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On 17/02/2006 03:00, Albert Bouchard wrote: > Thanks guys: > I do feel like it's my best work in? I don't know. I feel like every > album is my best usually. I remember being stunned when people didn't > like Mirrors. But in retrospect I can see that Mirrors was a bit of a > left turn for many fans. Well, for my part, I must have been about 8 when Mirrors came out -- and it was the early 90s before I heard it for first time :) I come to everything BOCish in hindsight. And actually it always seemed to me like Mirrors wasn't a real departure from the progression set off by Agents and then Spectres. Nothing like the change of feel I get between ST and Agents, anyway. But I don't actually think any of the Agents-thru-Cultosaurus albums, would win Nobel Prizes for *consistency* in terms of the songs and arrangements and the overall vibe. I think Fire of Unknown Origin sounds more consistent than Agents. (And, OK, in this age of downloading single tracks from iTunes, I guess the need to make a consistent album is something that is rapidly losing importance, but I guess most of us still buy most of our music in packages of a dozen songs, so the first subconscious impression is probably still that what we got was intended to be a collection of related stuff.) > The thing is you don't really think about > how people will perceive your work. I just think about what I have to > say and how I want to say it. In that regard I will say that I had an > idea to make a kind of metal that I didn't hear anyone else doing > (except for maybe Last Crack, remember them?). Ross wanted to do a > metal album and I just said OK but let's make it about real stuff, > not norse gods or mythical creatures or how we can f$%k all night. ;) Probably a good plan -- and I say that as someone with degrees in Norse Gods and mythical creatures. But, ya know, well, Ross has certainly been there and done that and got T-shirt :) > Once we got into it, of course, we started trying to use those same > images for metaphors but that's song-writing. ;-) Bottom line is that > I think Jason nailed it when he said originally that this is a kind > of personal metal. These songs are not exercises. Every song is about > a real experience. Other songwriters do that all the time but it's a > first for me. I also think DoD sounds like a band that not only thinks they have something to prove but is confident that it is being proven to you in every note. That perception may be right or wrong :) but I perceive it more strongly here than on previous tBS albums or on most "post-ST" BOC albums. Perhaps that wells up out of the personal nature of the song-writing ... and Ross's undoubted guitar-maestro chops crank up the energy all around. Whatever it all is, it certainly seems to be working! :) > I'll try to get all the lyrics up on the cellsum site > this weekend. Cool. I was kinda missing them in the booklet, but hey -- these days, why print reams of lyrics on dead trees when it actually kind of makes more sense to put them in dead electrons :) Cheers, Carl, who is starting to get concerned that he's turned old before his time, noting that many of his favorite releases of the last year or so are from people who first made records around the time he was born if not before! ;) Oh well, if it rocks, it rocks :) -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From dave at ASSASSINSOFSILENCE.COM Fri Feb 17 08:22:03 2006 From: dave at ASSASSINSOFSILENCE.COM (Assassins of Silence) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:22:03 -0000 Subject: off: (mini) Space Rock Spectacular Message-ID: Buckingham 11th march. the Grand Junction High Street. Assassins of Silence + Dayshift + The Alice Syndrome DJ Terry Hawke. 8pm til midnight ?2 entry Grand prize raffle From dave at ASSASSINSOFSILENCE.COM Fri Feb 17 11:07:39 2006 From: dave at ASSASSINSOFSILENCE.COM (Assassins of Silence) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 16:07:39 -0000 Subject: off: (mini) Space Rock Spectacular Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: Assassins of Silence To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 1:22 PM Subject: off: (mini) Space Rock Spectacular Buckingham 11th march. the Grand Junction High Street. Assassins of Silence + Dayshift + The Alice Syndrome DJ Terry Hawke. 8pm til midnight ?2 entry Grand prize raffle From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Fri Feb 17 12:03:33 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:03:33 GMT Subject: Sonic Attack (Hoodies Only) Message-ID: This is just too funny and it'd go great with my TV-B-Gone and my Mobile Phone Jammer, but I fear the price is just too high.... http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1726378.html FoFP P.S. Be careful out there: Ananova is very addictive. From neiltoyne at NTLWORLD.COM Fri Feb 17 12:10:15 2006 From: neiltoyne at NTLWORLD.COM (Neil Toyne) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:10:15 -0000 Subject: Sonic Attack (Hoodies Only) Message-ID: I'll take a dozen........... Neil (hehe ) ----- Original Message ----- From: "M Holmes" To: Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 5:03 PM Subject: Sonic Attack (Hoodies Only) > This is just too funny and it'd go great with my TV-B-Gone and my Mobile > Phone Jammer, but I fear the price is just too high.... > > http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1726378.html > > FoFP > > P.S. Be careful out there: Ananova is very addictive. > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.10/263 - Release Date: 16/02/2006 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.10/263 - Release Date: 16/02/2006 From terry at TMK.COM Fri Feb 17 13:38:04 2006 From: terry at TMK.COM (Terry Kennedy) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 13:38:04 -0500 Subject: Maintenance on www.ispnetinc.net for Wednesday, February 22nd Message-ID: We will be performing a major software upgrade on the www.ispnetinc.net server (also known as listserv.ispnetinc.net) starting at 7 PM EST on Wednesday, February 22nd. This will affect the following services: o mailing lists hosted on listserv.ispnetinc.net o performance monitoring web pages on www.ispnetinc.net o the main www.ispnetinc.net web pages, including the speed test page We expect to have the bulk of the work completed by 11 PM; however, the various services will have to be reconfigured and started subsequent to that. In addition, we may perform additional reboots as needed. This will not affect any connectivity to customers - it is only work on the web server itself. As always, if you experience any issues you believe are related to this work but not covered above, feel free to contact us via the normal support channels. Terry Kennedy http://www.tmk.com terry at tmk.com New York, NY USA From jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK Fri Feb 17 14:44:21 2006 From: jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK (Jonathan Jarrett) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:44:21 +0000 Subject: tBS: more Denial of Death In-Reply-To: <43F5B19E.4010707@carlaz.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 11:21:02AM +0000, Carl Edlund Anderson typed out: > Carl, who is starting to get concerned that he's turned old before his > time, noting that many of his favorite releases of the last year or so > are from people who first made records around the time he was born if > not before! ;) Oh well, if it rocks, it rocks :) Carl, has this ever not been the case, really? Or have you escaped it by buying records by people who wish that they themselves were the people who were recording when you were born? Besides, all this shows is that you need to buy more Clutch :-) Yours, Jon ObLP: ST37 - _Secret Society_ -- Jonathan Jarrett Birkbeck College, London jjarrett at chiark.greenend.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------- "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." (Tom Waits) From paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU Fri Feb 17 15:50:10 2006 From: paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU (Paul Mather) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:50:10 -0500 Subject: Sonic Attack (Hoodies Only) In-Reply-To: <200602171703.k1HH3XRl023843@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 17:03 +0000, M Holmes wrote: > This is just too funny and it'd go great with my TV-B-Gone and my Mobile > Phone Jammer, but I fear the price is just too high.... > > http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1726378.html Actually, it sounds more to me like a device to repel people with good hearing. I suppose they'll sell well to put up outside the entrance to Bose retailers... >;-) Cheers, Paul. -- e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --- Frank Vincent Zappa From alastair_sumner at HOTMAIL.COM Fri Feb 17 18:35:20 2006 From: alastair_sumner at HOTMAIL.COM (Alastair Sumner) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:35:20 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: Anyone noticed how BBC Group-Think has started to call Mohammed...The Prophet Mohammed? As if they would ever call Jesus...The Lord Jesus. Too much deference towards an ethnic or religious group often strikes me as being an inverted form of racism prompted by fear. That's the legacy of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism in the UK today. From drakrats at AOL.COM Sat Feb 18 05:41:59 2006 From: drakrats at AOL.COM (Mark Darkstar) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 05:41:59 -0500 Subject: hawks new cd Message-ID: any ideas what the 'previously unseen video footage' on the new hawkwind cd will be? From cea at CARLAZ.COM Sat Feb 18 09:28:26 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:28:26 +0000 Subject: tBS: more Denial of Death In-Reply-To: <20060217194421.GG10553@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Message-ID: On 17 Feb 2006, at 19:44, Jonathan Jarrett wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2006 at 11:21:02AM +0000, Carl Edlund Anderson > typed out: >> Carl, who is starting to get concerned that he's turned old before >> his >> time, noting that many of his favorite releases of the last year >> or so >> are from people who first made records around the time he was born if >> not before! ;) Oh well, if it rocks, it rocks :) > > Carl, has this ever not been the case, really? Or have you escaped > it by buying records by people who wish that they themselves were the > people who were recording when you were born? Huh, well, yeah, those are all fair points. I guess nothing has changed! > Besides, all this shows is that you need to buy more Clutch > :-) That's also a good point :) Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson http://www.carlaz.com/ From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Sat Feb 18 12:53:04 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:53:04 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Alastair Sumner's message of Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:35:20 -0500 Message-ID: Alastair Sumner writes: > Anyone noticed how BBC Group-Think has started to call Mohammed...The > Prophet Mohammed? As if they would ever call Jesus...The Lord Jesus. > Too much deference towards an ethnic or religious group often strikes > me as being an inverted form of racism prompted by fear. That's the > legacy of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism in the UK today. Could be. I'm now considering getting a t-shirt done with one of the cartoons on it and "Free Speech!" underneath. I figure either that one with the eyes joke or the one where the artist is drawing Mohammed in the dark... Anyway, the Sunday Times (obLeftie: gutter Murdoch Press) had quite a good article last week about how Islam is being used for cover to prevent dissent with what are political views: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2036284,00.html FoFP From js3619 at ACMENET.NET Sat Feb 18 18:20:12 2006 From: js3619 at ACMENET.NET (Jason Scruton) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:20:12 -0500 Subject: tBS: more Denial of Death In-Reply-To: <200602161734.k1GHYvoe006407@mail25.atl.registeredsite.com> Message-ID: The lyrics are indeed up now on Cellsum.com. enjoy! J. From jkranitz at AURAL-INNOVATIONS.COM Sun Feb 19 05:17:18 2006 From: jkranitz at AURAL-INNOVATIONS.COM (Jerry Kranitz) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 05:17:18 -0500 Subject: OFF: Aural Innovations: New Space Rock & Drool Trough Radio shows Message-ID: http://Aural-Innovations.com February 19, 2006: NEW RADIO SHOWS + MAIL ORDER GOODIES We've just uploaded new shows from Aural Innovations Space Rock Radio (show #144), and Drool Trough Radio (show #44). See the playlists below. Aural Innovations broadcasts 24 hours a day in hi and lo bandwidth Mp3 and RealAudio editions. You can go directly to the Radio shows page at: http://aural-innovations.com/radio/radio.html STAY TUNED FOR AN ALL ESCAPADE SPECIAL ON THE NEXT AURAL INNOVATIONS SPACE ROCK RADIO!!! MAIL ORDER NEWS: Lots of new stuff the past couple weeks. I?ve restocked the Darxtar CD?s which sold so quickly, and now have the gatefold LP version. New CD & LP by German psych rockers Treacle People. Plus a couple other LP only releases from Nasoni Records , one by HARD jamming psych rocking power trio Johnson Noise, and a split Sula Bassana/Vibravoid LP. I?ve got the debut CD by German Stoner-Psych-Space band Spaceship Landing. Several CD?s from the Elektrohasch label ? 3 titles from Stoner-Psych jam rockers Colour Haze (?Periscope?, ?CO2? and ?Los Sounds de Krauts?), ?Munchen Sessions? by Argentinian Stoner-Psych band Los Natas. And the Elektrohasch reissue of Sula Bassana?s ?Dreamer?. In anticipation of the new Jet Jaguar album, to be released soon by Black Widow Records, I?ve restocked their last CD, Billion Year Spree. Jet Jaguar are the ultimately marriage of Hawkwind and Chrome. Finally, we?ve got the latest from the Meteor City label, a monstrously heavy split CD from Spiritu and newcomers, Village of Dead Roads, in addition to restocking Meteor City titles that sold out (Gallery of Mites and The Ribeye Brothers). Get all the details at http://www.aural-innovations.com/store For all those who emailed inquiries - the new Space Mirrors CD, titled ?Memories of the Future?, has just been released by Sleaszy Rider Records. I should have it in stock in the Aural Innovations store in the next couple weeks. Aural Innovations Space Rock Radio (show #144) Brainstorm ? ?The Light? (from Desert World) Census of Hallucations ? ?Love is the Answer? (from Apparitions: The Definitive Collection 2006 Part 2) Spaceship Landing ? ?Still Hanging? (from Spaceship Landing) Darxtar ? ?We Came Too Late? (from We Came Too Late) La Ira de Dios ? ?Perdido en el Espacio? (from Hacia el Sol Rojo) Alien Dream ? ?Misty Mountain Peak? (from Alien Dream 8) Kaabel ? ?The Lake? (from Sabanas Forest) Avant Garden ? ?Into the Maelstrom? (from Maelstrom) Mandragora ? ?Xylem? (from Earthdance) Census of Hallucations ? ?Land of Mirrors? (from Apparitions: The Definitive Collection 2006 Part 4) Initial Prayer ? ?In Defence? (from The Last Men in Europe) Drool Trough Radio (show #44) Drool Trough is an all genres show featuring cool music from the underground. Anything is game for Drool Trough, and from one track to the next you will hear completely different sounds and styles, all from homemade musicians and teeny weeny but ultra fiesty labels. Adam Rich ? ?Go Away Mr Telemarketer? (from You Can?t Escape Life) The High Violets ? ?Cool Green? (from To Where You Are) Concept 7 ? ?Corporation Tank? (from The Undeniable Constant) The Defilers ? ?One More Time? (from Metal Mountains) Eftus Spectun ? ?The Bantum and the Baylor? (from The Tocks Clicking) Germano Seggio ? ?Green Pink? (from Back to Life) Little Fyodor ? ?I Thought People Liked Fools? (from The Very Best of Little Fyodor?s Greatest Hits!) Harm ? ?Beneath the Lamps? (from The Blue Globes) Toothfairy ? ?West Mountain? (from Does Not Work Well With Reality) Yanka Kozyr?s Orchestra - "Zozulenka" (from web site download) Onid + Isil ? ?Jam 3? (from Onid + Isil) John William Gordon ? ?Quidnunc Mo? (from John William Gordon) InAdaze ? ?Miracle? (from Finding Time) Skinbat Scramble ? ?Flares (Stone White Darts)? (from Volume 5: The Lost Book of the Psychedelic Pirates) Rustcycle ? ?Scsi Navel? (from Daisho) The Machine Gun TV ? ?Bored? (from GO) Crawlspace ? ?Batshit Man? (from Crawlspace) Stabilizer ? ?Industry Standard? (From A Project Called Red) Hematovore ? ?Blasting Through the Back Nine? (from Untitled) Gezoleen ? track 4 (from Black Spaces Between Stars) http://Aural-Innovations.com From jill.strobridge at BLUEYONDER.CO.UK Sun Feb 19 07:48:01 2006 From: jill.strobridge at BLUEYONDER.CO.UK (Jill Strobridge) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 12:48:01 -0000 Subject: Fw: Re: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring Message-ID: Really? jill ============================================== Jill Strobridge ============================================== From a.f.wilson at GMAIL.COM Sun Feb 19 11:44:51 2006 From: a.f.wilson at GMAIL.COM (Andrew Fergus Wilson) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 16:44:51 -0000 Subject: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring In-Reply-To: <003601c63552$b8040760$6865a8c0@jillspc> Message-ID: What?! With new songs'n'everything?! > -----Original Message----- > From: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List [mailto:BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET] > On Behalf Of Jill Strobridge > Sent: 19 February 2006 12:48 > To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET > Subject: Fw: Re: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring > > Really? > > jill > > ============================================== > Jill Strobridge > ============================================== From alastair_sumner at HOTMAIL.COM Sun Feb 19 17:50:51 2006 From: alastair_sumner at HOTMAIL.COM (Alastair Sumner) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 17:50:51 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: Thanks for the link. That was a really interesting article. Politicised Islam is now starting to take on the mental characteristics of the Inquisition in Europe with the complicity of governments and mainstream media. Freedom of thought and information is moving over to the Internet. On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 17:53:04 GMT, M Holmes wrote: >Alastair Sumner writes: > >> Anyone noticed how BBC Group-Think has started to call Mohammed...The >> Prophet Mohammed? As if they would ever call Jesus...The Lord Jesus. >> Too much deference towards an ethnic or religious group often strikes >> me as being an inverted form of racism prompted by fear. That's the >> legacy of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism in the UK today. > >Could be. I'm now considering getting a t-shirt done with one of the >cartoons on it and "Free Speech!" underneath. I figure either that one >with the eyes joke or the one where the artist is drawing Mohammed in >the dark... > >Anyway, the Sunday Times (obLeftie: gutter Murdoch Press) had quite a >good article last week about how Islam is being used for cover to >prevent dissent with what are political views: > >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2036284,00.html > >FoFP From paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU Sun Feb 19 21:00:02 2006 From: paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU (Paul Mather) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:00:02 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sun, 2006-02-19 at 17:50 -0500, Alastair Sumner wrote: > Freedom of thought and information is moving over to the Internet. Next time, please give a bit of advance warning before you go and say something hilarious like that. I ended up spraying my cuppa all over my keyboard when I caught a butchers at that one! > >Alastair Sumner writes: > > > >> Anyone noticed how BBC Group-Think has started to call Mohammed...The > >> Prophet Mohammed? As if they would ever call Jesus...The Lord Jesus. > >> Too much deference towards an ethnic or religious group often strikes > >> me as being an inverted form of racism prompted by fear. That's the > >> legacy of Political Correctness and Multiculturalism in the UK today. I guess it's all in the perception. When I read the above, my immediate take was that they're just compensating for general audience ignorance (who probably don't know Islam from Adam:); your take was Political Correctness. Who's to know? I guess if they really wanted to toady out of fear, they'd append "(peace be upon him)" after every mention of the term "The Prophet Mohammed..." ;-) What next, though, gripes that they're calling Burma Myanmar and Peking Beijing these days? Some people are just too sensitive... Cheers, Paul. -- e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --- Frank Vincent Zappa From deadearnest at BTOPENWORLD.COM Sun Feb 19 20:15:20 2006 From: deadearnest at BTOPENWORLD.COM (Cyberkrel) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 01:15:20 -0000 Subject: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring Message-ID: Come on - it's hardly surprising!! They took two years between recording TMTYL and releasing it. You think they'd have just decided not to compose anything for two whole years? It's just good to know they've had a reality check as regards release dates. Andy G. ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Fergus Wilson To: Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 4:44 PM Subject: Re: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring > What?! With new songs'n'everything?! > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List [mailto:BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET] > > On Behalf Of Jill Strobridge > > Sent: 19 February 2006 12:48 > > To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET > > Subject: Fw: Re: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring > > > > Really? > > > > jill > > > > ============================================== > > Jill Strobridge > > ============================================== From alastair_sumner at HOTMAIL.COM Mon Feb 20 04:22:00 2006 From: alastair_sumner at HOTMAIL.COM (Alastair Sumner) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 04:22:00 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: > I guess if they really wanted to toady out of fear, they'd append "(peace be upon him)" after every mention of the term "The Prophet Mohammed..." ;-) According to one source, they once did. I don't have time to verify that so take it as you like. > What next, though, gripes that they're calling Burma Myanmar and Peking > Beijing these days? Some people are just too sensitive... Do I sense sensitivity to criticism of a hallowed British institution? The BBC are not unaware of it and perhaps they still have some chromium heros. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/4696668.stm From sunboxhouse at HOTMAIL.COM Mon Feb 20 05:46:40 2006 From: sunboxhouse at HOTMAIL.COM (pete howe) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:46:40 +0000 Subject: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring In-Reply-To: <010901c635c4$344902a0$92118351@andy> Message-ID: Well, we already know theres a whole bunch of unreleased tracks left over from TMTYL-"reality of poverty"(with Arthur Brown),"string theory",Simon Houses song "cyberspace",Daves" long-time friend",the new recording of "silver machine"(featuring Lemmy)...Or is it this "rerecording of old songs album" they keep mentioning?? Anyway, my cynical mind tells me that if they say a new album is coming out in late Spring, they mean 2008! ;-) pete >From: Cyberkrel >Reply-To: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List >To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET >Subject: Re: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring >Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 01:15:20 -0000 > >Come on - it's hardly surprising!! They took two years between recording >TMTYL and releasing it. You think they'd have just decided not to compose >anything for two whole years? >It's just good to know they've had a reality check as regards release >dates. >Andy G. >----- Original Message ----- >From: Andrew Fergus Wilson >To: >Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 4:44 PM >Subject: Re: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring > > > > What?! With new songs'n'everything?! > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List >[mailto:BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET] > > > On Behalf Of Jill Strobridge > > > Sent: 19 February 2006 12:48 > > > To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET > > > Subject: Fw: Re: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring > > > > > > Really? > > > > > > jill > > > > > > ============================================== > > > Jill Strobridge > > > ============================================== _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN Search Toolbar now includes Desktop search! http://toolbar.msn.co.uk/ From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Mon Feb 20 05:53:39 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:53:39 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Paul Mather's message of Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:00:02 -0500 Message-ID: Paul Mather writes: > I guess it's all in the perception. When I read the above, my immediate > take was that they're just compensating for general audience ignorance > (who probably don't know Islam from Adam:); your take was Political > Correctness. Who's to know? I guess if they really wanted to toady out > of fear, they'd append "(peace be upon him)" after every mention of the > term "The Prophet Mohammed..." ;-) Heh, friends of mine who aren't active or even particularly interested in the FoS arena have started using "Mohammed, peace be upon him" as a kind of caricature. These are Leftie sorts who'd rather cut off their own balls than be thought racists and I think it's a sign that even they think the pudding has been overegged by protesting Muslims. For myself, I find it absolutely bizarre that in a week of new revelations about abuse at Abu Ghraib that there are still people marching to whine about cartoons. The Alliance should move everyone out of Abu Ghraib and raze the frigging place to the ground by way of demonstrating our disgust at what Saddam did with the place and at ourselves for allowing our own guys to follow his example. FoFP P.S: Went to see "Munich" this weekend. Spielberg seems to have exorcised his Schmaltz Demon. It makes for an interesting if overlong movie, though I wish I knew which parts he'd just made up. From IainFerguson at AOL.COM Mon Feb 20 06:12:43 2006 From: IainFerguson at AOL.COM (IainFerguson at AOL.COM) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 06:12:43 EST Subject: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring Message-ID: Well I for one can't wait for the new LP. great news... now if they could only find the audio to go with that film they've got, i'd be the happiest. From cea at CARLAZ.COM Mon Feb 20 06:13:03 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:13:03 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602201053.k1KArdcI024662@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On 20/02/2006 10:53, M Holmes wrote: > P.S: Went to see "Munich" this weekend. Spielberg seems to have > exorcised his Schmaltz Demon. It makes for an interesting if overlong > movie, though I wish I knew which parts he'd just made up. It was kind of long, no? I started wondering "Blimmin' 'eck, are we going to have to sit through hits on all 11 of these guys?" ;) Could have stood a little editing and been punchier. On the other hand, I no longer have to scratch my head in "Hassan I Sabha" trying to remember who the hell Black September were! :) (<- token on-topic remark!) Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From webmaster at ANCIENTEUROPE.INFO Mon Feb 20 06:02:44 2006 From: webmaster at ANCIENTEUROPE.INFO (Webmaster@ancienteurope.info) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:02:44 -0000 Subject: Space Rock and Heritage In-Reply-To: <010901c635c4$344902a0$92118351@andy> Message-ID: I see, as I suspected, my path and that of my beloved band Hawkwind are destined to have a shared destiny. I see we loyal bunch have got Hawkwind to number 56 in the www.icons.org.uk vote, which is exremely good going. Sitting at number 57 is my own campaign - Thornborough Henges. It entered the listings on Thursday morning and has risen to 57th in just four days. Given that I love my Hawkwind, but it looks likely that I'm going to push them down one I have come up woth a scheme to move past without altering their position. Though its controvercial and not something I'd normally do (well....) Here is the action: Vote yes for Hawkwind - http://www.icons.org.uk/nom/nominations/hawkwind? Vote Yes for Thornborough - http://www.icons.org.uk/nom/nominations/thornborough-henge? Vote no for Fox hunting - http://www.icons.org.uk/nom/nominations/fox-hunting? I'm certain, once the animal rights activists wake up to this one, fox hunting will start to drop down the table. George From sunboxhouse at HOTMAIL.COM Mon Feb 20 06:21:21 2006 From: sunboxhouse at HOTMAIL.COM (pete howe) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:21:21 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <200602201053.k1KArdcI024662@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: or..freeeeeeedom for George Bush to do as he pleases???(And Tony Bliar the nodding dog to suck up behind him?) When youve got a leader who says "most of our imports come from abroad", and "God spoke to me and told me to go and finish the job my father couldnt finish" ..be afraid..be very afraid!! pete p.s.-however... I can forgive Dave Brock for constantly saying "skellingtons" instead of "skeletons"(!) :-) ~ "when i pay my rent, the police come round to ask me where i got the money from" (Alexei Sayle) ~ "i was born with nothing, and i still have most of it" ~ >From: M Holmes >Reply-To: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List >To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET >Subject: Re: OFF: Freeedom of Speech >Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:53:39 GMT > >Paul Mather writes: > > > I guess it's all in the perception. When I read the above, my immediate > > take was that they're just compensating for general audience ignorance > > (who probably don't know Islam from Adam:); your take was Political > > Correctness. Who's to know? I guess if they really wanted to toady out > > of fear, they'd append "(peace be upon him)" after every mention of the > > term "The Prophet Mohammed..." ;-) > >Heh, friends of mine who aren't active or even particularly interested >in the FoS arena have started using "Mohammed, peace be upon him" as a >kind of caricature. These are Leftie sorts who'd rather cut off their >own balls than be thought racists and I think it's a sign that even they >think the pudding has been overegged by protesting Muslims. > >For myself, I find it absolutely bizarre that in a week of new >revelations about abuse at Abu Ghraib that there are still people >marching to whine about cartoons. > >The Alliance should move everyone out of Abu Ghraib and raze the >frigging place to the ground by way of demonstrating our disgust at what >Saddam did with the place and at ourselves for allowing our own guys to >follow his example. > >FoFP > >P.S: Went to see "Munich" this weekend. Spielberg seems to have >exorcised his Schmaltz Demon. It makes for an interesting if overlong >movie, though I wish I knew which parts he'd just made up. _________________________________________________________________ Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger 7.5 today! http://messenger.msn.co.uk From Tjackson at SYR.EDU Mon Feb 20 07:26:33 2006 From: Tjackson at SYR.EDU (Ted Jackson) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:26:33 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech Message-ID: >>> alastair_sumner at HOTMAIL.COM 2/17/2006 6:35 PM >>> Anyone noticed how BBC Group-Think has started to call Mohammed...The Prophet Mohammed? As if they would ever call Jesus...The Lord Jesus. Great observation, but I think maybe they do that, in part, because Mohammed is a man's name in much use throughout the world, so they use it to differentiate the prophet from Mohammed, the used-car king. Then again, Jesus is a pretty common name in the Spanish-speaking world... theo From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Mon Feb 20 07:32:26 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:32:26 GMT Subject: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring In-Reply-To: IainFerguson@AOL.COM's message of Mon, 20 Feb 2006 06:12:43 EST Message-ID: IainFerguson at AOL.COM writes: > now if they could only find the audio to go with that film they've got, i'd > be the happiest. What film? FoFP From IainFerguson at AOL.COM Mon Feb 20 07:51:06 2006 From: IainFerguson at AOL.COM (IainFerguson at AOL.COM) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:51:06 EST Subject: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring Message-ID: Hi, a couple of years back the band mentioned that they had unearthed 60mins of professionally shot film footage from approx 1973. Unfortunately there is no sound with it. Hopefully someone is scouring the planet for it So when Rob Aling wrote on the voice print web site about a big announcement and said it would bring hawkwind fans to their knees. This immediately made me think this would be the only thing that would do that to me. Iain From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Mon Feb 20 08:40:04 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:40:04 GMT Subject: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring In-Reply-To: IainFerguson@AOL.COM's message of Mon, 20 Feb 2006 07:51:06 EST Message-ID: IainFerguson at AOL.COM writes: > Hi, > a couple of years back the band mentioned that they had unearthed > 60mins of professionally shot film footage from approx 1973. > Unfortunately there is no sound with it. > Hopefully someone is scouring the planet for it If it can't be found then we do do worse than pair it up with the two Brian Matthews BBC Disc songs (Brainstorm and Silver Machine) in the way that Top of the Pops did with the video from Maida Vale and the Silver Machine single. Not perfect, but better than not releasing it at all. FoFP From cea at CARLAZ.COM Mon Feb 20 09:03:27 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:03:27 +0000 Subject: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring In-Reply-To: <200602201340.k1KDe4GG007728@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On 20/02/2006 13:40, M Holmes wrote: > IainFerguson at AOL.COM writes: >> a couple of years back the band mentioned that they had unearthed >> 60mins of professionally shot film footage from approx 1973. >> Unfortunately there is no sound with it. >> Hopefully someone is scouring the planet for it > > If it can't be found then we do do worse than pair it up with the two > Brian Matthews BBC Disc songs (Brainstorm and Silver Machine) in the way > that Top of the Pops did with the video from Maida Vale and the Silver > Machine single. > Not perfect, but better than not releasing it at all. Or that "Immigrant Song" video on the Led Zep DVDs, which has different audio and video sources (though not hugely far apart in date, as I recall). It looks and sounds cool enough that you quickly stop caring that its a bit of an artificial creation! :) Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From IainFerguson at AOL.COM Mon Feb 20 09:07:43 2006 From: IainFerguson at AOL.COM (IainFerguson at AOL.COM) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:07:43 EST Subject: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring Message-ID: Completely agree there, there is so much footage out there of bands where the music bears little or any relation to the video footage actually being played. especially the bigger groups from the 60's. At least you could match it up fairly closely with those BBC live recordings & the film footage.. Just the chance to see the bloody stuff, even in silence would be better than never seeing it. iain From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Mon Feb 20 09:26:43 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:26:43 GMT Subject: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring In-Reply-To: IainFerguson@AOL.COM's message of Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:07:43 EST Message-ID: IainFerguson at AOL.COM writes: > Completely agree there, > > there is so much footage out there of bands where the music bears little or > any relation to the video footage actually being played. > > especially the bigger groups from the 60's. > > At least you could match it up fairly closely with those BBC live > recordings & the film footage.. > > Just the chance to see the bloody stuff, even in silence would be better > than never seeing it. Well, I could take the BBC Disk into a local studio and get the best cleaned up sound possible from the vinyl. Do we have anyone here who has the skills to pair up audio and video? Maybe Captain Dave would let us try for a fan-grown project and then release it through the band? If the real audio turns up, then all the better to do a better version later. FoFP From m.j.crook at TALK21.COM Mon Feb 20 13:46:50 2006 From: m.j.crook at TALK21.COM (Michael Crook) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 18:46:50 +0000 Subject: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring In-Reply-To: <200602201426.k1KEQhBS020495@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: Where does it say that the footage dates from the 70s? The Voiceprint site just states that it is "drawn from the band's extensive archive" which could make it quite recent. Mick --- M Holmes wrote: > IainFerguson at AOL.COM writes: > > > Completely agree there, > > > > there is so much footage out there of bands where > the music bears little or > > any relation to the video footage actually being > played. > > > > especially the bigger groups from the 60's. > > > > At least you could match it up fairly closely > with those BBC live > > recordings & the film footage.. > > > > Just the chance to see the bloody stuff, even in > silence would be better > > than never seeing it. > > Well, I could take the BBC Disk into a local studio > and get the best > cleaned up sound possible from the vinyl. > > Do we have anyone here who has the skills to pair up > audio and video? > Maybe Captain Dave would let us try for a fan-grown > project and then > release it through the band? > > If the real audio turns up, then all the better to > do a better version > later. > > FoFP > ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Photos ? NEW, now offering a quality print service from just 8p a photo http://uk.photos.yahoo.com From paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU Mon Feb 20 15:50:54 2006 From: paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU (Paul Mather) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:50:54 -0500 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 04:22 -0500, Alastair Sumner wrote: > > I guess if they really wanted to toady out of fear, they'd append "(peace > be upon him)" after every mention of the term "The Prophet Mohammed..." ;-) > > According to one source, they once did. I don't have time to verify that so > take it as you like. I was reading one comment article in the Guardian and came upon that appended phrase. I thought it was odd, so I scrolled back up and saw that the author was the head of some Muslim council or similar, so figured it was force of habit/required and made sense. It would be odd to hear the main newscasters or reporters say the phrase, but not someone being interviewed or taking part in a roundtable discussion. > > What next, though, gripes that they're calling Burma Myanmar and Peking > > Beijing these days? Some people are just too sensitive... > > Do I sense sensitivity to criticism of a hallowed British institution? No, it just reminded me of the contradictions I see in people whingeing about Political Correctness. But, I will go on record and say I appreciate the BBC infinitely more since being in the USA than when I lived in Blighty. To be honest, I'd swap any channel I get here for the BBC in a heartbeat. You never miss the water until the well runs dry. Cheers, Paul. -- e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --- Frank Vincent Zappa From cea at CARLAZ.COM Mon Feb 20 15:59:50 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 20:59:50 +0000 Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: <1140468654.807.12.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org> Message-ID: On 20 Feb 2006, at 20:50, Paul Mather wrote: > But, I will go on record and say I appreciate the BBC infinitely more > since being in the USA than when I lived in Blighty. To be honest, > I'd > swap any channel I get here for the BBC in a heartbeat. You never > miss > the water until the well runs dry. I love the BBC web site for news -- I hit it an the Google news aggregations almost every day. Strangely, for my quick news fix, I like the version of CNN that airs in the UK better than BBC 24, but can't stand CNN Headline as aired in the US. Go figure! Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson http://www.carlaz.com/ From IainFerguson at AOL.COM Tue Feb 21 04:27:27 2006 From: IainFerguson at AOL.COM (IainFerguson at AOL.COM) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:27:27 EST Subject: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring Message-ID: It doesn't this is old footage found a long time ago... different conversation From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Tue Feb 21 06:06:00 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:06:00 GMT Subject: OFF: Freeedom of Speech In-Reply-To: Paul Mather's message of Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:50:54 -0500 Message-ID: Paul Mather writes: > But, I will go on record and say I appreciate the BBC infinitely more > since being in the USA than when I lived in Blighty. To be honest, I'd > swap any channel I get here for the BBC in a heartbeat. You never miss > the water until the well runs dry. Not that I generally love the idea of institutions that extort money from the hardworking taxpayer but I gotta agree. The free to air TV in the US is dire. Unless you pay for cable there it's so choc full of adverts that it's impossible to watch a complete programme. I noted that an episode of "24" took an hour in the US, but once the ads had been clipped by the BBC, it was 41 minutes including 2 minutes of "Previously on 24..." and titles. Like everyone else, I found myself channel hopping with the remote and seeing 8 minutes each of several programmes until I switch off in frustration. FoFP From m.j.crook at TALK21.COM Tue Feb 21 14:31:50 2006 From: m.j.crook at TALK21.COM (Michael Crook) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:31:50 +0000 Subject: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I --- IainFerguson at AOL.COM wrote: > It doesn't > > this is old footage found a long time ago... > > different conversation > ___________________________________________________________ Win a BlackBerry device from O2 with Yahoo!. Enter now. http://www.yahoo.co.uk/blackberry From m.j.crook at TALK21.COM Tue Feb 21 14:45:45 2006 From: m.j.crook at TALK21.COM (Michael Crook) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:45:45 +0000 Subject: [Hawkwind] New album in Late Spring In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I wouldn't class it as a different conversation as you were hoping that the 70s footage would be on the new album. I think the film without sound was from April 1970 I recall reading it on the old Mission control - http://listserv.ispnetinc.net/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0103A&L=BOC-L&P=R8636&I=-3 Unless some more has turned up. Regarding using different sound and film sources, isn't this what we are seeing on the 'Love in Space' DVD? Cheers, Mick --- IainFerguson at AOL.COM wrote: > It doesn't > > this is old footage found a long time ago... > > different conversation > ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com From paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU Tue Feb 21 14:53:20 2006 From: paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU (Paul Mather) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:53:20 -0500 Subject: Space Rock and Heritage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 11:02 +0000, Webmaster at ancienteurope.info wrote: > Sitting at number 57 is my own campaign - Thornborough Henges. Speaking of the Thornborough Henges, congratulations on its recent reprieve! I just read about it in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,1714768,00.html Cheers, Paul. -- e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --- Frank Vincent Zappa From webmaster at ANCIENTEUROPE.INFO Tue Feb 21 14:53:17 2006 From: webmaster at ANCIENTEUROPE.INFO (Webmaster@ancienteurope.info) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:53:17 -0000 Subject: Space Rock and Heritage In-Reply-To: <1140551600.797.41.camel@zappa.Chelsea-Ct.Org> Message-ID: Thanks Paul, I'm sure its not over, but we made it national today which I hope will make a big difference. George -----Original Message----- From: BOC/Hawkwind Discussion List [mailto:BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET]On Behalf Of Paul Mather Sent: 21 February 2006 19:53 To: BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET Subject: Re: Space Rock and Heritage On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 11:02 +0000, Webmaster at ancienteurope.info wrote: > Sitting at number 57 is my own campaign - Thornborough Henges. Speaking of the Thornborough Henges, congratulations on its recent reprieve! I just read about it in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/conservation/story/0,,1714768,00.html Cheers, Paul. -- e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --- Frank Vincent Zappa -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.12/265 - Release Date: 20/02/06 From jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK Tue Feb 21 15:28:18 2006 From: jjarrett at CHIARK.GREENEND.ORG.UK (Jonathan Jarrett) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:28:18 +0000 Subject: HW: hawks new cd In-Reply-To: Message-ID: On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 05:41:59AM -0500, Mark Darkstar typed out: > any ideas what the 'previously unseen video footage' on the new hawkwind cd > will be? Having now been allowed by various subsequent posts to track this information to the Voiceprint site, I'm suffering my usual scepticism. If I'm keeping track all right, this would be perhaps the fourth time Voiceprint have announced a Hawkwind release that then turned to smoke and mirrors, even if one of those was the initial announcement of _Take Me To Your Leader_ which the band then denied they had yet decided on a label for (the others being the reissues of _Warrior_, ASAM, _Quark_ and 25YO that they had to withdraw before they even existed). (Has anyone worked out what the deal with those Rock Fever releases is yet?) However, there is this notice on Mission Control that there will soon be an important announcement. Why do they do that? But anyway. Leaving aside usual gripes about finding information in the maze of out-of-date pages hidden in the depths of the site, that doesn't seem to have happened yet, but neither has the Voiceprint announcement been denied. So it is tempting to support the two half-facts with each other. So what might it be? Dave said in at least one interview I dimly remember that the sessions for TMtYL had generated enough material for two albums, and we certainly saw a good few titles fly around, even if some of them were different names for single songs. So I suspect, unless the band has been feverishly composing during this brief downtime, which, you know, would be great, or even just jamming and keeping the best bits which would also probably be great, that we're looking at an out-takes album from the TMtYL sessions. I guess we'll find out more when we see if there's any new material at the Exeter gig. All the same I might permit myself a flicker of anticipation here. TMtYL must be almost the only HW album of which you can say that there are no bad tracks at all, or at least I think I can, and the band are all playing at close to full strength, Richard more so than the others I think as he seems to still have new strength to find. If it lacked the canonical blanga, that's as much that this version of Hawkwind is doing something else for a bit, and it'll be interesting, if this stuff really is new and does emerge anything like as soon as Voiceprint suggest, to see what that is going to be next. Yours, Jon ObCD: Daevid Allen's University of Errors - _E^2 x 10=Tenure_ -- Jonathan Jarrett Birkbeck College, London jjarrett at chiark.greenend.org.uk -------------------------------------------------------- "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." (Tom Waits) From mbraun at URBANA.CSS.MOT.COM Tue Feb 21 15:39:01 2006 From: mbraun at URBANA.CSS.MOT.COM (Matthew Braun) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:39:01 -0600 Subject: TBS: Ms. Wisconsin and Oh, there's Henry Message-ID: Hey, folks. Just got DoD last Friday. It's working its way into my brain. As others have noted, this album definitely has more of a consistent overall sound than the previous ones, with the guitars that go >crunch<. But not only is it consistant, it's consistently _good_. :-) Unlike many Surgeons albums, there's no a capella-messing-around song, which I have to admit, inevitably crack me up. ("Naked if I Want To"--always sounds great in the shower. ;-)) But the heavy sound is working for me on this album. There's a couple of tracks that ain't there yet, but I'll give 'em time. So, two questions for Albert, if he'll have them: 1) Was the original chorus for Swans?ng something like, "Here comes Ms. Wisconsin" 2) What was Henry's cue-dropper of a song? We Gotta Get Outta This Place? ;-) m@ P.S. Where is Henry now? http://www.smallworldstudios.com/ Oh, rhetorical question...right...I knew that... No, I did. Really... From ir004728 at MINDSPRING.COM Tue Feb 21 18:23:27 2006 From: ir004728 at MINDSPRING.COM (Albert Bouchard) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:23:27 -0500 Subject: TBS: Ms. Wisconsin and Oh, there's Henry In-Reply-To: <200602212039.k1LKd1a26360@udc.urbana.css.mot.com> Message-ID: 1) It was actually: Every day a piece of cake & Miss Wisonsin rides again 2) It was an Animals song called: I'm Gonna Change the World We worked really hard on the lyrics this time and a lot of things started out being about one thing and ended up being about something broader. That song started out about how we used to make fun of Henry (being smart-assed college kids) but he was really a talented cat and I wondered what became of him. Then it became about freedom and patriotism and Patrick Henry. Whew! Al On Feb 21, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Matthew Braun wrote: > Hey, folks. > > Just got DoD last Friday. It's working its way into my brain. As > others > have noted, this album definitely has more of a consistent overall > sound > than the previous ones, with the guitars that go >crunch<. But not > only > is it consistant, it's consistently _good_. :-) > > Unlike many Surgeons albums, there's no a capella-messing-around song, > which I have to admit, inevitably crack me up. ("Naked if I Want > To"--always > sounds great in the shower. ;-)) > > But the heavy sound is working for me on this album. There's a > couple of > tracks that ain't there yet, but I'll give 'em time. > > So, two questions for Albert, if he'll have them: > 1) Was the original chorus for Swans?ng something like, > "Here comes Ms. Wisconsin" > > 2) What was Henry's cue-dropper of a song? We Gotta Get Outta > This Place? ;-) > > m@ > > > P.S. Where is Henry now? http://www.smallworldstudios.com/ > Oh, rhetorical question...right...I knew that... No, I did. > Really... From fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK Wed Feb 22 12:58:15 2006 From: fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK (M Holmes) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 17:58:15 GMT Subject: Which video package Message-ID: I'm looking at buying a package to do sundry tasks: Copying CD/DVD Backups Photo editing and slideshow display Photo archiving to CD/DVD Producing CD/DVD including possibly DVD-A or Audio only in Wav/Mp3 Editing/clipping film for DVD/VCD Importing DV video and editing for DVD/VCD Importing MPG4,MPG2,AVI,WMA,RM Film/sound editing Support for DVD-R,DVD+R,DVD-RW,DVD+RW,DVD-RAM Nero 7 Premium looks good at the price. What else should be investigated? Thanks again... FoFP From stevefreight at GMAIL.COM Wed Feb 22 13:30:07 2006 From: stevefreight at GMAIL.COM (Steve Freight) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:30:07 +0000 Subject: Which video package In-Reply-To: <200602221758.k1MHwFJr015556@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: Mike, I use Easy Media 8 and I think it will do all you want. It also has function fro stripping the sound track from music DVD's in WAV so you can create a CD. Does not copy DVD's with copyright on though. Supports both single and dual layer. I have both Easy and Nero on as I prefer to copy entire discs via Nero as supports CDDB track naming (text writing) in copy mode. Steve On 2/22/06, M Holmes wrote: > > I'm looking at buying a package to do sundry tasks: > > Copying CD/DVD > Backups > Photo editing and slideshow display > Photo archiving to CD/DVD > Producing CD/DVD including possibly DVD-A or Audio only in Wav/Mp3 > Editing/clipping film for DVD/VCD > Importing DV video and editing for DVD/VCD > Importing MPG4,MPG2,AVI,WMA,RM > Film/sound editing > Support for DVD-R,DVD+R,DVD-RW,DVD+RW,DVD-RAM > > Nero 7 Premium looks good at the price. What else should be > investigated? > > Thanks again... > > FoFP > From ir004728 at MINDSPRING.COM Wed Feb 22 13:31:14 2006 From: ir004728 at MINDSPRING.COM (Albert Bouchard) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:31:14 -0500 Subject: Which video package In-Reply-To: <200602221758.k1MHwFJr015556@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: A mac with toast? On Feb 22, 2006, at 5:58 PM, M Holmes wrote: > I'm looking at buying a package to do sundry tasks: > > Copying CD/DVD > Backups > Photo editing and slideshow display > Photo archiving to CD/DVD > Producing CD/DVD including possibly DVD-A or Audio only in Wav/Mp3 > Editing/clipping film for DVD/VCD > Importing DV video and editing for DVD/VCD > Importing MPG4,MPG2,AVI,WMA,RM > Film/sound editing > Support for DVD-R,DVD+R,DVD-RW,DVD+RW,DVD-RAM > > Nero 7 Premium looks good at the price. What else should be > investigated? > > Thanks again... > > FoFP From paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU Wed Feb 22 13:54:30 2006 From: paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU (Paul Mather) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:54:30 -0500 Subject: Which video package In-Reply-To: <200602221758.k1MHwFJr015556@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> Message-ID: On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 17:58 +0000, M Holmes wrote: > I'm looking at buying a package to do sundry tasks: > > Copying CD/DVD Make sure you do a Web search and download a copy of DVD Decrypter. If you want to make backups to safeguard your commercial DVDs, Nero will refuse to copy them. So, you'll have to use DVD Decrypter to do that instead (or to copy them to your hard drive and then use Nero or DVD Shrink to shrink them to fit on the size of blanks you're using). Don't forget to switch off the check for automatic updates in DVD Decrypter because after Macrovision put the legal hurts on the author there won't be any. :-( Cheers, Paul. -- e-mail: paul at gromit.dlib.vt.edu "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." --- Frank Vincent Zappa From zim594j at TNINET.SE Wed Feb 22 14:24:25 2006 From: zim594j at TNINET.SE (Kenneth Magnusson) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:24:25 +0100 Subject: Which video package Message-ID: My thought exactly! Albert Bouchard wrote: > A mac with toast? > > On Feb 22, 2006, at 5:58 PM, M Holmes wrote: > >> I'm looking at buying a package to do sundry tasks: >> >> Copying CD/DVD >> Backups >> Photo editing and slideshow display >> Photo archiving to CD/DVD >> Producing CD/DVD including possibly DVD-A or Audio only in Wav/Mp3 >> Editing/clipping film for DVD/VCD >> Importing DV video and editing for DVD/VCD >> Importing MPG4,MPG2,AVI,WMA,RM >> Film/sound editing >> Support for DVD-R,DVD+R,DVD-RW,DVD+RW,DVD-RAM >> >> Nero 7 Premium looks good at the price. What else should be >> investigated? >> >> Thanks again... >> >> FoFP > > -- Some say that if you play a Microsoft disc backwards you can hear Satanic verses, but that is not the worst part, if you play it forward it will install Windows. From terry at TMK.COM Thu Feb 23 03:12:08 2006 From: terry at TMK.COM (Terry Kennedy) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:12:08 -0500 Subject: Upgrade of listserv.ispnetinc.net complete Message-ID: If you can see this message, it means that the upgrade was mostly successful. We'll probably be doing the occasional reboot over the next few days as we get settled in to the new system. Terry Kennedy http://www.tmk.com terry at tmk.com New York, NY USA From jguizar at STNY.RR.COM Thu Feb 23 13:31:36 2006 From: jguizar at STNY.RR.COM (Jerry Guizar) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 13:31:36 -0500 Subject: OFF: Prog rock CD In-Reply-To: <01LZAJUO1F040008EE@tmk.com> Message-ID: I was just browsing around Djam Karets site and came across a link to this page: http://afterthestorm.nearfestrecords.com/ Looks like an interesting album (and a worthy cause). I see music from Spock's Beard, Kraan, IQ, Nektar, Camel, Happy The Man, IQ, Caravan, Djam Karet, Arjen Lucassen and more. J From cea at CARLAZ.COM Fri Feb 24 11:08:23 2006 From: cea at CARLAZ.COM (Carl Edlund Anderson) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:08:23 +0000 Subject: tBS: more Denial of Death In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.1.20060218181949.021c5ab0@pop.acmenet.net> Message-ID: On 18/02/2006 23:20, Jason Scruton wrote: > The lyrics are indeed up now on Cellsum.com. And I discovered the "1864" video, too. Coolness :) Cheers, Carl -- Carl Edlund Anderson mailto:cea at carlaz.com http://www.carlaz.com/ From blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM Fri Feb 24 16:11:37 2006 From: blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM (blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 16:11:37 -0500 Subject: OFF: MP3s of bands coming to your town Message-ID: I thought this might be of interest to those of us who often wonder whether an upcoming local gig is worth seeing. From: http://www.podcastingnews.com/archives/2006/02/new_site_offers_5.html > Podbop is a unique search engine/podcast mashup that lets > users search for music events and MP3s by city. > > As the site puts it: > > Old way: Looking up concerts in your town on an event > site, googling 100 different bands, tracking down an MP3 > for each band, and then deciding which show you want to > go to. > > The Podbop way: Type in a city, get MP3s, discover a band > you like, and go see them. > > The site creates podcast feeds for search results, > letting users subscribe to a podcast of music for towns > that they are interested in. > > Podbop pulls events tagged with "music" from Eventful and > integrates them with a database of bands and MP3s. > > The site is encouraging bands and labels to contact them > with their information, in order to provide more complete > search results. > > Source: Podbop.org From mike.montfort at GMAIL.COM Sun Feb 26 00:09:43 2006 From: mike.montfort at GMAIL.COM (Mike Montfort) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 00:09:43 -0500 Subject: What ever happened to the Hawkfest Release Message-ID: *"Hawkfest 2003 * We held another three day long PRIVATE festival in summer 2003, this time in the North-West of England over the weekend of *8th/9th/10th Aug*. A 2cd release of the Hawkwind set entitled "Festival Nights" will be released in late 2005." Am I so obtuse that this is out and I missed it? Mike * * From management at HAWKWIND.COM Sun Feb 26 11:26:11 2006 From: management at HAWKWIND.COM (Hawkwind) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:26:11 -0000 Subject: HW: Mike King Message-ID: Hello folks Just to let you know that sadly the piano player Mike King died on Sunday. Mike was an old friend of Daves. They played together in the Dharma Blues Band in the 1960s. (http://www.hawkwind.com/db1.htm) Mike was a great character and will be sadly missed. Best wishes Kris From neiltoyne at NTLWORLD.COM Sun Feb 26 16:55:41 2006 From: neiltoyne at NTLWORLD.COM (Neil Toyne) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 21:55:41 -0000 Subject: Mike King Message-ID: My thoughts are with those who needed him and knew him and who will miss him. Neil. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hawkwind" To: Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2006 4:26 PM Subject: HW: Mike King Hello folks Just to let you know that sadly the piano player Mike King died on Sunday. Mike was an old friend of Daves. They played together in the Dharma Blues Band in the 1960s. (http://www.hawkwind.com/db1.htm) Mike was a great character and will be sadly missed. Best wishes Kris -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.1.0/269 - Release Date: 24/02/2006 From baj4164121 at AOL.COM Mon Feb 27 01:49:09 2006 From: baj4164121 at AOL.COM (Beverley Johnstone) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 01:49:09 -0500 Subject: Mike King Message-ID: My thoughts are with friends and family of mike i know he will be sadly missed. From blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM Tue Feb 28 13:55:30 2006 From: blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM (blackblade at BHALLIGAN.COM) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:55:30 -0500 Subject: test Message-ID: testing... From superskrull666 at YAHOO.CO.UK Tue Feb 28 10:43:26 2006 From: superskrull666 at YAHOO.CO.UK (Amphetamine Embalmer) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 07:43:26 -0800 Subject: hw: rock fever & sunrise reissues Message-ID: ...are not bad, better sounding, and with bonus tracks... seriously i thought they would be half -official kind of dodgy deal, though they look okay enough! party on... --- BOC-L at LISTSERV.ISPNETINC.NET wrote: > *"Hawkfest 2003 > * > > We held another three day long PRIVATE festival in summer 2003, this > time in the North-West of England over the weekend of *8th/9th/10th > Aug*. A 2cd release of the Hawkwind set entitled "Festival Nights" will > be released in late 2005." > > Am I so obtuse that this is out and I missed it? > > Mike > * * __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com