Absinthe Chat

Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Archives Thru July 2001: Absinthe Chat
By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, July 03, 2001 - 01:08 pm: Edit

Don,

No problem Don my friend, I understand you.

Hobgoblin

By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, July 03, 2001 - 05:35 am: Edit

Lord H, all I mean to say is that I'd rather agree with you than dispute with you. Ted says you're a nice guy, and that's good enough for me, and besides, you are Irish. So I am predisposed to like you.

Therefore, let's not bicker. If that means eschewing topics that would set us at odds, so be it.

By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, July 02, 2001 - 12:13 pm: Edit

Don,

So long as we understand each other. If you choose not to discuss politics with me then so be it, it means I'll never be on the receiving end of strong coherent political arguments such as :

"D. Take all your postindustrial antocorporate claptrap and SHOVE it."

On the other hand I will still choose to get involved in political (or other) threads and conversations on this forum whether you are involved in these or not.

Nothing personal and no ill-will intended. I have many friends across the political (far right(much, much further right than you) to far left) and religious spectrum.

Hobgoblin.

By Bjacques on Monday, July 02, 2001 - 06:43 am: Edit

Head,

Because it looks better than tilting the camera and making everyone lean or fall over. Don't ask me how the actors learned to shimmy, though.

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, July 01, 2001 - 06:10 pm: Edit

Heiko, is your name Don?

By Heiko on Sunday, July 01, 2001 - 06:03 pm: Edit

Head,
I think the spaceships stretch because of the time-size relation. No wait, then they'd get shorter.
I must disappoint you, it's only a bad comic effect aimed to please the general public.

By _Blackjack on Sunday, July 01, 2001 - 04:47 pm: Edit


Quote:

it might be the only way to save us from skin cancer



Rur? The Kyoto Protocols relate to greenhouse emissions. They have nothing to do with ozone depletion (halocarbon limits wer imposed by the Montreal Protocols some time ago...) Besides, the only skin cancers directly related to UVB-spectrum exposure are the usually non-fatal squamous and basal cell carcinomas, and ozone depletion only had a significant effect on the rates of these in extreme northern and southern regions, where the rates were relatively low to start with. Ozone depletion posed no more of a health risk in the short-term than moving a few hundred miles closer to the equator.

The more dangerous malignant melinoma does not seem to be caused by simple UVB exposure. Since other animals don't get it (except some fish, I have discovered recently) it is hard to be sure. It may be related to UVA-spectum exposure, but that radiation is not blocked by the ozone anyway. It is also not blocked by sunscreen, and there is some suggestion that sunscreen use may CONTRIBUTE to malignant melinoma.

None of this should be taken as an endorsement of continuing to deplete the ozone, BTW. I am just seeking to dispell some myths. Ozone depletion was a long-term, not a short-term danger, and the same is true of global warming. I dislike the use of immediate scare-tactics--like encouraging people to confuse climate and weather by blaming global warming for normal weather fluctuations--to compell people to do things that can be better justified on their real long-term merits.

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, July 01, 2001 - 04:10 pm: Edit

Don,

Why do ships on "Voyager" go all stretchy when they take off into warp?

Head_Prosthesis

By Don_Walsh on Sunday, July 01, 2001 - 02:35 pm: Edit

Lord H., you're my friend, and that is why I'd just as soon not argue politics with you. That way, I wouldn't have to point out that your positions are puerile whining and kneejerk blather, and you wouldn't have to call me a running dog of the neo-imperialists or whatever is the latest doggeral from your fountainhead of far-left banality.

About absinthe, however, we are in substantial agreement.

By Tavarua on Sunday, July 01, 2001 - 02:19 pm: Edit

Bob:

Sorry about that hoss. It was my interpretation that you had jumped into the thread, without checking it out in full. And that you had misread my posting, believing that I had said fifteen dollars for a bottle of Absinthe was excessive. I didn't notice the "owe well" was bolded and that was what you were commenting on. Feel free to comment on my brilliance whenever possible, whether or not it was intentional. I really hate people misconstruing my shit. Again, I apologize.

Head:

"FUCK 'EM"

Well

FUCK OUM

LORD H.:

Yea, I am satisfied. Unfortunately, I stepped away for a few days and the thread has kept going. I am not going to try to catch up, at least not at this point. Maybe a little later. I am taking a week off of work and will spend little time on the computer during my vacation, would rather enjoy the sunshine and surf. But I will dip in and out from time to time. Hachet done and baried.

Blackjack:

To be continued.

By Bjacques on Sunday, July 01, 2001 - 01:41 pm: Edit

Here's another non-communist beef about [corporate] globalization. Don, I hope you'll still ship to us Eurocommies! We may hate global capital, but we pay cash! ;-)

If nothing else, it's leading to a serious imbalance of power. Corporations have always been more unified than the governments that regulated them. The former answer only to stockholders; the latter, to their constituents, *including corporations*. When corporate lobbies can outspend other interests, that unity provides a real advantage. This is even more true against global regulators, which seldom have enforcement authority. That may be a simple contest, if a bit skewed. Often, corporations rewrite the rules to favor them and legality becomes moot. Decent beer came late to Texas because Anheuser Busch and Coors kept out competition, via distribution laws.

Against individuals, corporations have a massive advantage. In court, where most battles are fought, even when the individual wins, he/she loses, because of the cost. Even the threat of litigation can bring victory. If this imbalance isn't unfair enough for the Darwinists out there, see above.

This isn't a "left/right" issue. A lot of opponents fighting "globalization" are just working people standing up for themselves. Lots of people--farmers, janitors, small business owners-- stand to lose when speculation replaces solid investment. Each of the opponents to the WTO has agreed to fight in its own way, and not to presume to speak for the others. The problems of globalization are too complex to be solved one way, overseen by a single group.

The mistake of classic leftists was that they spoke for you whether you wanted them to or not, you ingrate. That gave them the right to run things after the revolution. Whenever they got a little power, the old leftists proved themselves worse bosses than the people they fought against. They aren't missed.

By Heiko on Sunday, July 01, 2001 - 08:24 am: Edit

"Not one of these people can define 'globalization' in a real world way without dipping into the old communist manure that is the core of their repetoire."

Unfortunately, some can't (and of course the media likes to show them like that). But I can: if I say corporate "responsibility" will destroy our environment rather fast, it has nothing to do with old communistic opinions.
Example: Bush didn't sign the Kyoto protocol with the excuse that in his opinion it was "not good for the US economy". Well, he's right - it's also not good for any other economy, but: it might be the only way to save us from skin cancer, floods and all the other crap that will happen to us when we continue without any change. But of course, we can't save our planet on the expense of 0.5% loss in economic growth as the bible already says "economy is thy lord and thou shallst have no others"

It is hard enough to make a government change some things to the better for the future, but it's impossible to make corporations change anything to the better (unless, of course, it's good for their profit as well).

Where's the communism behind these thoughts? I can't find any.

By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, July 01, 2001 - 06:57 am: Edit

Don,

If you wish to avoid bullshit ideological wrangles or talking politica then don't get involved, nobody forces you to get involved, you choose to get involved out of your own free will. This may not be the "PINKO forum", but nor is it the RIGHT WING REACTIONARY CONSERVATIVE forum either. We'll talk about what we choose to and if that involves "singing the Internationale" then so be it (nobody is forcing you to join in with the chorus). If you don't want to get involved then that's your choice, but you do choose to get involved.

If it's ok for other threads to discuss sex, gun-control, films, music and every other topic under the sun then it's ok for a discussion on politics. Is it the discussions on politics that you dislike or the fact that some views expressed are very much at odds with your own views?

Hobgoblin

By Head_Prosthesis on Sunday, July 01, 2001 - 06:29 am: Edit

There's always the archives. I read 'em on slow days.

By Don_Walsh on Sunday, July 01, 2001 - 05:03 am: Edit

Sorry, Marc, but I must demurr. The forum is often boring, and especially so recently. This little lapse back into being intersting may be but a gasp. For weeks the forum has been dimwitted and when it hasn't been, it's been for the wrong reasons.

The longwinded, man-the ramparts, kill-the- corporations Old Left crap is just part of it. That's just standard old anti-Wall Street agitprop wine in new bottles. Not one of these people can define 'globalization' in a real world way without dipping into the old communist manure that is the core of their repetoire.

The problem is that I have nothing against these folks on the forum, I wish we could avoid the bullshit ideological wrangles, as I have no wish to hassle with my forum friends, if they want to talk politica I am sure there are places out there to do it. This is the ABSINTHE forum not the PINKO forum. They should go sing the Internationale somewhere else.

By Verawench on Saturday, June 30, 2001 - 09:11 pm: Edit

Motherfuckers and the motherfuckerettes. Right? ::wink::

By Marc on Saturday, June 30, 2001 - 08:32 pm: Edit

Agree or disagree, I love the motherfuckers in this forum. Brilliant minds. We've veered from absinthe chat to a heady discussion of world politics. This forum is never boring, always energetic, and thoroughly entertaining. I bow to you all.

Peace and love, Marc

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, June 30, 2001 - 01:34 pm: Edit

Heiko,

"I guess as soon as it gets a lot worse than now, more people will stand up and do something about it"

The trouble is that by then it will be too late and there will be precious little left to save.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, June 30, 2001 - 12:34 pm: Edit

Don,

"the UN is a corrupt, wasteful, graft ridden, fraud-prone, inefficient organization"

You may well be right, but is the WTO the embodiment of benevolence, fairness and integrity?

Surely a body that represents all the people of this planet and their interests rather than the financial interests of corporate CEOs and shareholders would be a more appropriate guardian of our planet. Whatever organisation is to police the activities of major corporations on our planet (and their activities do need policing), it needs to be accountable to all the people of this planet, not just the West and certainly not accountable to the corporations it is supposed to police.

On another note for me one of the most sickening things in recent years has been the lack of power of the UN. I'm talking about it's lack of power to enforce it's own 'safe havens'. The 'safe haven' of Srebrenicia did nothing to stop General Mladic slaughtering the entire male population young and old there, and the UN and us in the West lead these people to believe that they would be safe in these havens. Before the massacre we advised these people to stay in these havens rather than flee, because they would be safe there. I recall BBC TV footage of the women being loaded onto coaches at Srebrenicia and Mladic himself reassuring them and giving them his word that their menfolk would be safe. I suppose we should be glad that Milosevic will now be tried for war crimes but we need to get those bastards Mladic and Karadzic as well and we need to be proactive rather than reactive (as is the case at the moment) about it.

Hobgoblin

By Heiko on Saturday, June 30, 2001 - 11:38 am: Edit

Lord H,
"...we are now in a world were major corporations have more power than governments."
I absolutely agree and I don't like it because corporations only know one responsibility: the responsibility against their shareholders to make more money. Any thoughts about environment or whatever else cannot be considered (unless a certain environmental friendly behaviour will result in more money).
I guess as soon as it gets a lot worse than now, more people will stand up and do something about it. Just like the people at some point in history rebelled against the feudalistic systems.
Right now I think it's too early to convince people in western countries that something must be done about it. Too many people still profit too much (including all of us). But the time will come when most people will not like the system anymore. Then we'll have a revolution, I'm sure about that.

The only thing I really worry about is if humanity in its whole will at some point be able to get rid of the concept of steady growth. Earth doesn't grow, so humans must be able to stop at some point and start to live instead of grow.
Well, I don't worry too much, because when we'll extinct ourselves - who will be there to give a shit about it?

-- just the disillusioned youngster's 2 cents...

By Bjacques on Saturday, June 30, 2001 - 09:16 am: Edit

Well, Don, I stand corrected on the Taliban item. The aid to Afghanistan is $43M in food and medicine, going via NGOs and the UN, not through the Taliban.

I stand by the Hussein/Cheney story, as the London Financial Times (06 Nov 2000) is fairly reliable. It's technically legal, but it's hypocritical. We cheerfully trade with China and Russia while ignoring their corruption and cruelty, as do other western countries. The Soviet Union backed its share of scum, too, in its day. I *did* mention Kosygin, after all. 1989 and the early '90s offered an opportunity to junk realpolitik, but now it's become the domain of corporations too.
Don't support global bad actors, whatever their supposed ideology. They won't thank you and they'll eventually screw you too. Don, imagine Phillip-Morris buying Hill's and getting a WTO ruling that efectively bars your product from global market because it doesn't have enough blue dye in it.

Col-tan (niobium-tantalum ore, used in PCs and cel phones) is about companies taking the goods while leaving locals with the mess. Buying from local warlords feeds all those little wars. That may change, as a similar issue with the diamond trade and Sierra Leone seems to be prompting action. Ignoring global misery is one thing, but profiting from it is another. One might as well be dealing in crack or human kidneys.


You don't have to be Gus Hall (longtime head of the CPUSA, for you non-Americans) or Andreas Baader to question global capitalism. Communism died, more or less, but the conditions that made it so attractive as an ideology did not. The Zapatistas are doing a good job of addressing those conditions without resorting to Marxist-Leninist or Maoist theory or rhetoric, or violence against civilians, and they're much more popular than the Shining Path or FARC. In the Old New Left, the SWP are considered pathetic dinosaurs even as they try to attach themselves to the anti-WTO protests.

By Don_Walsh on Saturday, June 30, 2001 - 04:50 am: Edit

Lord H, the UN is a corrupt, wasteful, graft ridden, fraud-prone, inefficient organization, if you lived in the Third World as I do you would see evidence of that every day. You want to give it MORE power and money and scope? That's a major mistake.

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, June 30, 2001 - 01:02 am: Edit

Heiko,

The problem is that the nature of Capitalism is changing radicaly with Globalisation and we are now in a world were major corporations have more power than governments. Who do we want controlling the planet, it's people or the major corporations? The planet, with it's resources, inhabitants and governments, is currently being carved up to suit the financial interests of these corporations. People are expendable commodities. For example indigenous Mexican people are being killed and forced from their homes by right-wing guerrillas to make way for corporations who want to exploit the rain-forests (I'm sure these people are very grateful for NAFTA). This sort of thing is happening all over the world.

Is it ok for us who are protected from such exploitation to be blase and accepting of this while we directly benefit from such exploitation of others? Do we say "We'll never change it so just accept it"? If we do so then we too are guilty.

Instead of just bowing down and accepting that our lives and destinies will be determined by major corporations we have to take control. There are workable alternatives to the WTO (to which your government pays handsomely) and the OECD. Instead of the United Nations being a powerless entity we should give it some power. Link the World Bank (and the IMF) to the United Nations (as was the intention when it was founded). Fund it not from our wallets but tax international currency movements, it doesn't take much of a tax on the £2 trillion a day that floats about the world to make a big difference. Empower the UN to police the activities of corporations and to act where necessary. Also if we are to incentivise and subsidise business as we do then attach tight conditions to encourage them to act responsibly.

There are alternatives to Globalisation and the WTO. We don't just have to roll over and die, if everybody made just a little effort then the combination of these efforts would be enough to cause change.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, June 30, 2001 - 12:12 am: Edit

Tavarua,

Ok fair enough. I'm admit that I often get a little too hot under the collar too quickly. I'm happy to bury the hatchet if you are.

Hobgoblin

By Don_Walsh on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 09:33 pm: Edit

Bjacques:

Ariel Sharon may be a fat old fascist pig (as one of my editors once descrtibed him) but he ain't no dictator, nor is the five-o'clock shadowed guy in the cheap tablecloth headdress next door. The Chinese communists, well, as the US spent a long time trying to topple them and then ignoring them I hardly think we can be blamed for their existance. How is the Taliban 'business friendly' unless you mean the heroin business? The Pakistanis installed them not the US, and they harbor our worst enemy, Bin Ladin. We bombed Afghanistan not all that long ago.

Yes Africa is a shambles but that's not our doing, either. So what the fuck are you talking about? I asked for the names of those US-backed distators, and you gave my a pile of horseshit.

Kindly be more responsive if you can. Or admit that you are peddling outdated party-line propaganda.

By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 08:56 pm: Edit

Bob, sometimes genius is not recognized by said "genius". If they can't understand their own jokes, FUCK 'EM!!!

HEAD_PROSTHESIS

By Bob_Chong on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 08:26 pm: Edit

Tav:

I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. The "owe well" was intentional instead of "oh well"? Is that what you're saying? OK then. I thought it was an accident. Nice pun either way. Fucking hell. Try to compliment a guy for his wit and he insults you...

BC

By Netsurfer on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 08:07 pm: Edit

Capitalism: the best government money can buy. :-)

By Heiko on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 02:23 pm: Edit

I also think capitalism is not a perfect system. But do we have a good idea how we could change it? I think no. So we have to live with it and make the best out of it.
My only fear is that the ever growing market will become the world's new feudalistic system as soon as governments have no control anymore. It has more than begun - how often do governments decide something to support the market? Almost always...it has become the new law of all democratic governments that the market and business growth is the most important thing to deal with. Can we change it? I don't think so.
But if the market becomes the one and only government of this world, it will also not be forever: panta re, all things change.

I guess we shouldn't complain about how the world is. If you want to change something, do it. If you can't change anything, live with it. I know what I'm speaking about - we Germans tend to be the masters of complaint ("could someone change that please, I don't like it"...)

By Bjacques on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 01:10 pm: Edit

Communism died in 1989 (...), so now we can take a harder look at capitalism. Its relationship to democracy or any other human value has been incidnetal at best. Only now can we look at it without the HUAC looking over our shoulders. Maybe it needs a little whack on the nose.

There are a few business-friendly dictators left. For the US government, there's Ariel Sharon (Arafat's no better), the Chinese government, the Taliban, and whoever's sitting on the African col-tan reserves this week. Cheney did business with Saddam until a few months before the election. EU countries are guilty too ("our" vs. "their" dictators are no longer rated by Kissinger or Kosygin, but by the IMF and World Bank members). Nice friends you've got there.

By Tavarua on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 12:30 pm: Edit

Blackjack:

Unfortunately, and I am ashamed to say, I have not done any research on this issue, Pinkochet, and cannot contribute to this issue. This is something that I will study up on someday and will be better equipped to deal with. Regarding the other thoughts that you have had, I will deal with them soon.


Don:

For someone who is sick of seeing and is bored with topic, you sure did go to some length to add your two cents.

But you will have to forgive me, I have not been with the forum as long as others, therefore am unaware that these topics have already been addressed, but a little recycling is bound to happen here and there.

By Tavarua on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 12:16 pm: Edit

Lordhobgoblin:

Did you even read my last posting. Here, we will try this again.

“Yes, it is naïve, and I have never indicated that capitalism was perfect, I have simply said that it works, “Every single idealism has “solutions” around this problem, until it is put into place. In a perfect world any system would provide utopia for all of its inhabitants, but guess what.”, from one of my previous postings. I am not that arrogant that I would say the everyone should mirror our system, but if there was a universal system, holding true to regional tradition, that was used where everyone benefited and everyone had their own predominent industries, there would not be areas of the world that folded. Everyone would enjoy the benefits, Corporations would not be as powerful as they are, and their high end corporate officers would not make 1000 times more than a steal worker.”

This is my point, my ultimate point, plain and simple. I don’t understand how you could write those last remarks if you had read this. It responds to all of those issues, before you even put them forth.

By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 11:15 am: Edit

Jesus Christ Don, have you even read my posts? My postings on this thread do not contain any Marxist-Leninism, no defence of Communism or indeed no references to re-distibution of wealth. Read my posts before you attack me.

My argument was that if you're going to defend capitalism then defend it as the best workable system available, but don't insist that it is by nature a fair system that offers equal opportunities to all peoples. If the market was fair and just then why the need for legislation controlling corporations, minimum wage etc etc.

Tavarua you seem to want to defend Capitalism as fair and just but conveniently exclude the international activities of trans-national corporations. You (and I, I am not attacking the USA as you accuse me) are supplied with a vast range of cheap materials and components because (unlike us) workers in the countries that supply these do not have the benefit of legislation to protect them. Do the trans-national corporations want these workers to have legislation to protect them? Certainly not, all they want is cheap goods and cheap labour (and I'm not talking about the tiger economies here) so that they can supply you and I and make a bundle.

And Tavarua if you're going to be petty and make a point of correcting my spelling then don't tell me that labour is spelt as labor, not everybody lives in the USA, but then I'm not surprised that you seem to think they do. There is a world beyond the USA.

Hobgoblin

By _Blackjack on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 08:30 am: Edit

Oh, Don, I'm not endorsing communism. I'm just contesting the assertion that capitalism doesn't contribute to poverty under certain conditions. Obviously, other economic systems do also, in some cases moreso, but that does not mean that capitalism hasn't done its share.

Regardless of the present state of things, I doubt even you would agree that the US (both its government and its corporations) only intervenes in other nations for the good of humanity, and rarely acts purely out of self interest. ALL nations act out of self interest. We just happen to be in a better positon to push our self-interest in other's faces.

By _Blackjack on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 08:18 am: Edit


Quote:

Ex. – Napster, Priceline, E-Bay. Not agriculture, but barter driven non-the-less.
These are companies that are driven by advertiser’s dollars, not the consumer.



Um, they are still profit and market driven. They are still very much capitalistic. Just because an enterprise fails to turn a profit due to a bad business model, it doesn't mean their goal wasn't profit. Napster has some very angry investors who are losing a lot of money...


Quote:

Yes, I think Sadaam is probably the most evil man in power right now.



Well, you're wrong. Not that he isn't a bastard, but he is no worse than a dozen regimes that I can think of off the top of my head. And he was just as bad back when we were funnling arms to him. Unless you somehow think gassing Iranian civilians is better than gassing Kurdish civilians.

And you didn't address the issue of Pinochet. How exactly were we benefiting humanity by orchestrating the overthrow of a democratically elected government to install a mass-murdering dictator?

By Don_Walsh on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 08:07 am: Edit

Lord H., I commend to you the 'Dennis Moore' sketch from Monty Python. Remember? "Bring me your lupins"

The tag line was "Blimey, this redistribution of wealth is more difficult than I thought..."

Idealism under 30 is no crime. Realism over 30 is no crime.

By Don_Walsh on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 08:02 am: Edit

God, the same old boring economic argument.

A. The Communist system, as espoused in the Soviet Union and all its satellites/client states/captive slave states -- ask anyone from the Baltic nations or eastern Europe, i.e., east or south of Austria, what rhetoric applies -- not to mention Cuba, N.Korea, Vietnam,, Laos, Cambodia, this system collapsed of its own dead weight a decade ago. Yeah Cuba, N.Korea, and Laos and Vietnam linger on. Barely. I live two hours by car from Cambodia and 1 hour by air from Laos, so pls don't tell me about these places if you have never been there and especially don't lecture me about Vietnam, my left eyeball, what's left of it, aches when people do that and it makes me have an attack of breakbone fever.

B. So, romatically inclined folks pine for Communism? God, you are spoiled, idle, worthless, and the sort of people the communists love to kill. You sound like the S.African Communist Party, which is dead white at its roots, and whose leading lights in the present regime ache to prove that they can make communism work better than it ever did in the USSR. God help the people of southern Africa, because their black governments never will.

C. Enumerate for me the US-backed 'dictators' that are still extant pls. Who might they be? Don't hand me Allende, that's ancient history and entirely justifiable in his day. The dictatorships in Brazil and Argentina are long gone. Chile and Peru are democratic. NAme me a dictator in the Carribean, unless you mean Fidel? In the mideast, name me a pro-American dictator? Qaddafi? Assad? Saddam? Come ON. In Africa the old standbys are gone, in Zaire and Nigeria. In Asia, what dictators do you see? Suharto is GONE. Marcos is GONE. I would argue Mahatir of Malaysia is a dictator, but he's hardly an American pawn. Thailand is a democracy, a semichaotic one but functional.

Is Japan a dictatorship?

Is S.Korea?

Get REAL.

D. Take all your postindustrial antocorporate claptrap and SHOVE it.

E. I have seen the damage that YOUR philosophy can do, to nations, to regions, to populations, to individuals, and to generations. And to me.

F. Which is the greater environmental disaster, the American nucelar weapons program' aftermath or the Soviets'? The Americans' chemical and bilological weapons programs aftermath or the Soviets' ?

All this tired old Marxist-Leninist rhetoric (or dialectic if you prefer) is just post Cold War puke. Wake up and smell the roses, get them out of the coloration of your glasses.

By Tavarua on Friday, June 29, 2001 - 07:27 am: Edit

Chong Donger:

I am referring to the money, 15 USD, that Wiz is charging per SHOT of Absinthe, which was referenced in that very posting. You didn’t even have to read the whole thread to pick up on that.

Black Jack:

“Do you think Sadaam Hussein is really worse than dozens of other dictators around the world? And do you think he suddenly BECAME bad, coincidently, when he stopped being usefull as a pawn against Iran and started being a threat to our president's and secretary of defense's oil interests?”

Yes, I think Sadaam is probably the most evil man in power right now. Sadaam began testing chemical weapons on his people after he had supported him. And yes, oil interests were the predominant factor, but was it evil to combat him. Not at all, as I have said, we occasionally act in our own interests and back it up with the betterment of man, but it was for the betterment of man that we do fight him. His own people hate him, they do not respect him, they fear him. I am sure that you have seen the footage of Iraqi soldier, that at times, heavily outnumbered American soldiers, throwing down their weapons and running to the American soldiers.


“Please give me examples of transnational corporations under a fuedal system (unless you count the church), or a hunter-gatherer corporation, or a cororation founded on barter and subsistance agriculture? You MIGHT be able to make a case for corporations under totalitarian socialist systems, but you're not talking about the same kind of profit-seeking, private entity.”

Ex. – Napster, Priceline, E-Bay. Not agriculture, but barter driven non-the-less.
These are companies that are driven by advertiser’s dollars, not the consumer.

Are you saying that, the baring communist system, where everyone supposedly shares the same wealth, Capitalist systems are the only systems, that actual exist, that endorse Corporations?

“Keep in mind, I am significantly more pro-capitalism than LH (not too difficult, but hey...) Nevertheless, it is absurdly naive to think that capitalism is free from sin. If you want to argue for capitalism, argue that its benefits outweigh its evils, not that its evils don't exist.”

Yes, it is naïve, and I have never indicated that capitalism was perfect, I have simply said that it works, “Every single idealism has “solutions” around this problem, until it is put into place. In a perfect world any system would provide utopia for all of its inhabitants, but guess what.”, from one of my previous postings. I am not that arrogant that I would say the everyone should mirror our system, but if there was a universal system, holding true to regional tradition, that was used where everyone benefited and everyone had their own predominent industries, there would not be areas of the world that folded. Everyone would enjoy the benefits, Corporations would not be as powerful as they are, and their high end corporate officers would not make 1000 times more than a steal worker.

By Bob_Chong on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 09:18 pm: Edit

Tav:

You are the Yogi Berra of slips. Here's another gem:

"any schlep that has not done the faintest bit of research on Absinthe and thinks 15 is a fair price, owe well..."

BC

By Bob_Chong on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 08:55 pm: Edit

Cheese (and Marc):

I know this was ages ago (I was gone for a few days and missed your response to what I had posted on Monday 6/26 at 10:24 p.m.), but when I wrote, "Nothing ever seems to cure your ill," it was the next line in "Funkentelechy" which you had quoted with "The bigger the headache the bigger the pill."

Just some words from Dr. Funkenstein back at 'cha. Nothing more. No malicious intent. I wasn't fucking with you: I just thought you were a George Clinton fan and knew what the fuck I was talking about. Mea culpa.

BC

By _Blackjack on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 06:00 pm: Edit


Quote:

Yes, occasionally, occasionally it does serve our purpose, but it is always done on the side of right, regardless.



Sigh...

I'm not even going to get deeply into the subject of corporate international aid because it can get pretty arcane, but you don't really think we only get involved on the side of right, do you? Do you think Sadaam Hussein is really worse than dozens of other dictators around the world? And do you think he suddenly BECAME bad, coincidently, when he stopped being usefull as a pawn against Iran and started being a threat to our president's and secretary of defense's oil interests? Do you think we were in the right when we installed Pinochet to murder people in the name of capitalism in Chile? Really? Because if you do, then you are the most amazingly optimistic person I've ever encountered.

By _Blackjack on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 05:51 pm: Edit


Quote:

And for the last time, if / when you respond, please do not link big corporations to capitalistic systems, once again, these organizations exist in every economic system.



Er, what? Please give me examples of transnational corporations under a fuedal system (unless you count the church), or a hunter-gatherer corporation, or a cororation founded on barter and subsistance agriculture? You MIGHT be able to make a case for corporations under totalitarian socialist systems, but you're not talking about the same kind of profit-seeking, private entity.

There have always been the strong who preyed on the week, yes, but capitalism does have its own unique way of preying on the weak. The idea that a private business enterprise can have rights and privilages like a human being (the definition of "corporation") is novel to capitalism.

Keep in mind, I am significantly more pro-capitalism than LH (not too difficult, but hey...) Nevertheless, it is absurdly naive to think that capitalism is free from sin. If you want to argue for capitalism, argue that its benefits outweigh its evils, not that its evils don't exist.

By Tavarua on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 03:34 pm: Edit

When I said look outside your own backyard I presumed you would look to nations outside of your own. Instead you look to other parts of your own country. Your outlook is even more 'small-town' than I expected.”

Don’t come to me with that bullshit, I am quite conscience of the welfare of others, and the environments that they live in. It was YOU, YOU who said “take a look in YOUR OWN backward.” This is a phrase that is used to describe your immediate surroundings. Do I have to break this phrase up word by word and describe it to you. You are not even conscious of what you are saying. I don’t mind the debate, but do not attack my character, you don’t know me.


“No, one chooses from the choices that are available.”

You create your choices, with resistance albeit, but you do.


“You are fortunate to live in a powerfull (powerful)country that can act in this fashion. What happens to people living in countries that in themselves are less powerfull (powerful) than the trans-national (transnational) corporations that take advantage there? They get screwed as these corporations have them over a barrell. (barrel) l But hey why should you give a shit, virtual slave labour (labor) in the cocoa fields of West Africa gives you cheap chocolate.

Owe yea, I forgot, we are the “ugly Americans.” We are like the Wizard behind the current, pushing buttons that control the fait of the world. It is often seen in a negative fashion when we step in to aide another Country, which we do on a constant basis. Yes, occasionally, occasionally it does serve our purpose, but it is always done on the side of right, regardless. We are powerful and we have a strong economy, but this should be used in a positive fashion to help others.


“But hey why should you give a shit, virtual slave labour (labor) in the cocoa fields of West Africa gives you cheap chocolate. "One chooses what is in ones best interests." so these stupid lazy people working in these conditions should have chosen to become highly paid lawyers or accountants instead.”

If you were familiar with the whole thread, you would have seen that in these situations, choosing your own fate, so on and so fourth, was used in reference to capitalism in this Country, which is how this whole debate actually started. Which brings me to my conclusion, how should I say this, owe yea, let’s use your words, “You are fortunate to live in a powerful country that can act in this fashion.” I am fortunate, very fortunate, don’t think I do not realize this. I know that this is going to be taken the wrong way, but wouldn’t it be nice if everyone had prominent industry, if everyone had the choices and opportunities that we do. We are probably the best example of Capitalism proper, and I wouldn’t want to live anywhere else.


And for the last time, if / when you respond, please do not link big corporations to capitalistic systems, once again, these organizations exist in every economic system. They are not exclusive to capitalistic systems.

By _Blackjack on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 02:37 pm: Edit

Just to be clear, I want you to understand, it isn't the farmers who are going: gee, I think I'll sell risky imports instead of being self-sufficient. Under capitalism, the people who own the land and the indutry, not the workers, get to make these decisions. Since there is more profit in exports, the owners, often foreign anyway, devote their land and resources to these instead of producing food for local consumption. Keep in mind that some of the poorest countries in the worlds EXPORT FOOD to the US. Is this because the people are too stupid to eat it themselves? No, it is because the food belongs to the profit-seeking capitalists who own the land and not to the people who do the work.

Bloody hell, I'm starting to sound like Hobgoblin...

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 02:35 pm: Edit

Heiko,

"Something's wrong - I believe a lawyer shouldn't be more important than a doctor..."

You're right Heiko. But then capitalism is not about fairness. If we look at society, occupations that are motivated by contributing to people's well-being are under-valued, whereas occupations that are motivated by generating monetary value are over-valued. Capitalism is not interested in people's well-being, only in the monetary value. People's worth is reduced to what they can produce for the CEO and shareholders.

Hobgoblin

By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 02:27 pm: Edit

Tavarua,

“Take a look outside your own backyard.”

"I can only assume that you mean the less fortunate areas of the Country."

"ANYONE, ANYONE can achieve that they truly desire in this country"

There is more to this planet than the country you live in. The world does not begin and end at the boundaries of the USA (nor does capitalism or the effects caused by the benefits you gain from capitalism). When I said look outside your own backyard I presumed you would look to nations outside of your own. Instead you look to other parts of your own country. Your outlook is even more 'small-town' than I expected.

"One chooses what is in ones best interests."

No, one chooses from the choices that are available.

"If a company takes advantage of consumers and charges an unreasonable amount, the Government steps in, ex. – gas prices."

This very statement shows that capitalism is exploitative and the free-market is unfair. If it was fair then there would be no need for government regulation and intervention. You are fortunate to live in a powerfull country that can act in this fashion. What happens to people living in countries that in themselves are less powerfull than the trans-national corporations that take advantage there? They get screwed as these corporations have them over a barrell. But hey why should you give a shit, virtual slave labour in the cocoa fields of West Africa gives you cheap chocolate. "One chooses what is in ones best interests." so these stupid lazy people working in these conditions should have chosen to become highly paid lawyers or accountants instead.

Hobgoblin

By _Blackjack on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 01:48 pm: Edit


Quote:

You are saying that if they cannot sell their food, then they will have no money, and starve.



No, I said if they can't sell the products that they produce instead of food...I mean, unless you want to eat rubber or wood...


Quote:

I don’t want to hear that farmers will ever starve, unless the crop fails, which can happen anywhere, not just third world countries, and is not attributable to capitalism.



It is directly attributable to capitalism. If they were operating under a non-profit-based, subsistance economy, they could devote their resources to growing food and be self-sufficient (like they had been for the past several thousand years). By pursuing profits, they place themselves at the mercy of the market. The margins of the market place such a demand on ther resources, especially labor, that they can't put enough into producing enough foor to be self sufficient.

This isn't something I'm making up. This is widely accepted economic theory. Really. I know it may seem anti-intuitive at first, but if you start doing the research, you'll see what I mean.

By Heiko on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 11:54 am: Edit

I haven't read every post in this thread, nevertheless I want to add one thought:

A normal doctor in a hospital earns only a pretty normal wage -good, but not really good- and has to work 30 hour night shifts and 60 hours per week minimum. The nurses at the hospital work a little less, but only get paid minimal wages. The insurance companies take a lot of money from people saying the medical service is so expensive on the other hand. I believe that any lawyer in these insurance companies earns twice as much money as the normal doctor in a hospital.
Something's wrong - I believe a lawyer shouldn't be more important than a doctor...

(this applies to how it is in Germany, I guess it might be a little -but not totally- different in other countries)

By Tavarua on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 11:25 am: Edit

“Think about it: is the work the CEO does really 1000 times more important than that of the assembly line worker?”

Maybe not, but that is the choice the assembly line worker chose. Had he the desire to pursue a more lucrative career, monetarily speaking, he vary well may have. One chooses what is in ones best interests.


“since he is taking more money than he needs.”

How much exactly is this. You probably only “need” a hundred dollars, or less, a week to live. Is this what you “take”. Probably not. Everyone has his or her comfort level. There is no central, secret pot of money that is hoarded by the well off, by them earning a hire income, they are not taking it out of the less fortunate pocket. And prices are set by fair market value, so don’t reply with “The more they earn, the more the customer pays.” If a company takes advantage of consumers and charges an unreasonable amount, the Government steps in, ex. – gas prices.

“If the demand for their export goes down, they have no money to import food, and they starve.”

Think about this statement for a second. You are saying that if they cannot sell their food, then they will have no money, and starve. If you are not speaking of food, then consider this. If you can grow nonfood crops, then you can grow at least a small portion of food. I don’t want to hear that farmers will ever starve, unless the crop fails, which can happen anywhere, not just third world countries, and is not attributable to capitalism.


“Granted, some of the world's poor really do live in margnal environments, but that alone cannot account for all the poverty. South America is one of the most abundnant places on earth, yet it is still poor.”

Poor according to our standards. Yes, they may get paid 2 USD a week, but that is comparable with their cost of living. Also, industry is seriously lacking, who’s fault is that. Their Government’s. Talk about corruption, where do you think their Country’s money, money meaning budget, is going.

By Tavarua on Thursday, June 28, 2001 - 11:24 am: Edit

“Think about it: is the work the CEO does really 1000 times more important than that of the assembly line worker?”

Maybe not, but that is the choice the assembly line worker chose. Had he the desire to pursue a more lucrative career, monetarily speaking, he vary well may have. One chooses what is in ones best interests.


“since he is taking more money than he needs.”

How much exactly is this. You probably only “need” a hundred dollars, or less, a week to live. Is this what you “take”. Probably not. Everyone has his or her comfort level. There is no central, secret pot of money that is hoarded by the well off, by them earning a hire income, they are not taking it out of the less fortunate pocket. And prices are set by fair market value, so don’t reply with “The more they earn, the more the customer pays.” If a company takes advantage of consumers and charges an unreasonable amount, the Government steps in, ex. – gas prices.

“If the demand for their export goes down, they have no money to import food, and they starve.”

Think about this statement for a second. You are saying that if they cannot sell their food, then they will have no money, and starve. If you are not speaking of food, then consider this. If you can grow nonfood crops, then you can grow at least a small portion of food. I don’t want to hear that farmers will ever starve, unless the crop fails, which can happen anywhere, not just third world countries, and is not attributable to capitalism.


“Granted, some of the world's poor really do live in margnal environments, but that alone cannot account for all the poverty. South America is one of the most abundnant places on earth, yet it is still poor.”

Poor according to our standards. Yes, they may get paid 2 USD a week, but that is comparable with their cost of living. Also, industry is seriously lacking, who’s fault is that. Their Government’s. Talk about corruption, where do you think their Country’s mon

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 02:36 pm: Edit


Quote:

horrible misconception is that successful are inertly evil, that they have done horrible things to achieve their status and that they do not care about other humans.



I guess it's a question of whether you think it is evil to take more than your own fair share of the profits from your company. Think about it: is the work the CEO does really 1000 times more important than that of the assembly line worker? I have trouble fathoming that. I'm not saying that the CEO shouldn't be allowed to make that much, but by chosing to do so, he acts in a manner that I find morally questionable, since he is taking more money than he needs that is, ultimately, coming from underpaying his workers and ovecharging the public.

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 02:30 pm: Edit


Quote:

Yes, some people are unfortunate enough to be born in an area that is baron and can produce no fruit, an area with no industry nor the resources to ever have industry, but does this have anything to do with Capitalism or any economic system for that matter.



Um, no, actually, much of the poverty in the world is a direct result of capitalism. You see, manyof the "poor" places in the world have plenty of natural resources to produce enough food to feed themselves. However, in the pursuit of profit, they have chosen to gear their economies toward export corps instead of feding themselves. As such, they are totally at the mercy of the market and the elements. If their export crop fails, they have no money to import food and they starve. If the demand for their export goes down, they have no money to import food, and they starve.

Moreover, some of the benefits of capitalism, like medicine, have allowed their populations to grow faster than their economic infrastructures. In a matter of a few decades, their economy was being forced to sustain a number of people it took centuries for America and Western Europe to reach.

Granted, some of the world's poor really do live in margnal environments, but that alone cannot account for all the poverty. South America is one of the most abundnant places on earth, yet it is still poor.

I'm not saying that Capitalism hasn't brought some benefit to the poor of the world. It may well have done more good than harm, tho that is hard to quantify. It most certainly has benefited the rich far more than the poor.

By Tavarua on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 02:10 pm: Edit

“Does capitalism do this?”

Hell yes capitalism does this, this is its premise. ANYONE, ANYONE can achieve that they truly desire in this country, if they try hard enough. We all have the same rights and privileges, some of us are lucky enough to realize opportunities in a less pain staking manner than others. I admit it, I was fortunate in that I was born as a white middle class citizen, with parents that could help scrap together enough funds to get me through college, but regardless, I would have made it in life no matter what status I was born under. My life has not been peaches and cream, I have had my struggles, more than many others I would say.


“Take a look outside your own backyard.”

I can only assume that you mean the less fortunate areas of the Country. That’s fine, now show me one country, one economic system that has not produced a lower social class, or a “bad part of town.” Every single idealism has “solutions” around this problem, until it is put into place. In a perfect world any system would provide utopia for all of its inhabitants, but guess what. When you have a realistic plan for the betterment of man, let me know.


“Wow those people living in the third world must really be passive lazy bastards.”

I knew I should have left this one out, it’s a little advanced for some. Yes, some people are unfortunate enough to be born in an area that is baron and can produce no fruit, an area with no industry nor the resources to ever have industry, but does this have anything to do with Capitalism or any economic system for that matter. NO, nothing, nada. I am speaking of those that operate in a capital market, more specifically, within the realms of the U.S. However, one can take this argument out of the U.S. as long as they stick to the premise of the system and not throw in pity points that do not pertain to the real discussion.


“The CEOs of the multinational corporations on the other hand must be really hardworking.”

As a matter of fact, they are. I am not saying they are entitled to vast amounts of wealth that enable them power over everyone else, but they do deserve more than someone who sits on the couch all day collecting a check. A horrible misconception is that successful are inertly evil, that they have done horrible things to achieve their status and that they do not care about other humans. Successful people are successful for one reason; they worked extremely hard and achieved what they set out to.
Ex. Jim Croche – he came from a poor background and became extremely successful, and he is a hell of a nice guy that gives back to the community that supports him.


“Do you really think multinational corporations would not try to get as much as they could for their products if they could get away with it?”

Of course they would, but once again, you are off subject. Corporations exist in virtually every system, not just Capitalism. However, I will say that is the U.S. at least, we ban such activities as monopolies, predatory pricing, price fixing, etc. Once again, I will refer to Dabeers. They are a monopoly, a true monopoly, and are not allowed to operate in the U.S. Same as Bell and Microsoft were before being broke up.


“Tell that to Aids and HIV victims in Africa.”

I have to check on this, but it is my understanding that AIDS Research companies do indeed supply African clinics with substantially more inexpensive treatment. By the way, how much do you give to fund the AIDS relief in Africa every year.

By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 11:31 am: Edit

Tavarua,

"Every human being should be allotted the same rights, privileges, and opportunities."

Does capitalism do this? Take a look outside your own backyard.

"However, not all humans are equal. Some people actually work hard to accomplish everything they desire, this is not only referring to money, i.e. love, friendship, creation, even autonomy. Some people are lazy or passive and do not strive to get anywhere in life."

So you believe that with capitalism we have a system that enables all humans through hard work and effort to achieve their potential. Wow those people living in the third world must really be passive lazy bastards. The CEOs of the multinational corporations on the other hand must be really hardworking men (and a few women) who certainly deserve all the vast wealth that they possess.

I've seen people put up strong arguments that capitalism is a necessary evil or that it's the only workable system around. Sure it can be argued that capitalism encourages enterprise and economic growth but fairness and capitalism do not go hand in hand. An argument based on capitalism being fair is laughable and fatally flawed.

"A system which says that it is ok to get as much money as we can from our fellow man in order to line our pockets."

Capitalism does exactly this. Capitalism makes no moral judgements whatsoever, the only thing it values is capital and reduces everything and everyone involved in the process to having a purely monetary value. Do you really think multinational corporations would not try to get as much as they could for their products if they could get away with it? Do you really think that no, they'd stop and say "we are charging too much these poor people are in dire need so we should charge less while still making a fair profit", or "we won't monopolise the market with genetic patenting, let's not hinder the well-being of our fellow man"? Tell that to Aids and HIV victims in Africa.

If you want to defend capitalism then don't bring the notion of fairness into your argument.

Hobgoblin

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 11:27 am: Edit

I did once have some vegetarian duck at a little place near Washington Square that was so close to real duck it was fucking eerie. I mean, it was greasy and everything.

And, yeah, it appears that Morningstar accidentally ended up with some Starlink genetically modified corn in their corn dogs. This is becoming pretty common, since it's pretty hard to tell the GM stuff from not. I don't get what the big deal is, personally, since we've been genetically modifying crops for millenia through selective breeding and grafting. Why is it suddenly an issue when we can do it MORE precisely? The stuff is pest-resistant, but the quantities of the actual endogenous pesticide generated by the genes are less than that which is left residually from external peticides. I mean, they have to do genetic tests to tell Starlink from regular corn. The pesticide itself is not in measurable quantities.

And the genes come from a bacchilus bacterium, not a jellyfish.

By Melinelly on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 11:24 am: Edit

next time you're in berkeley, hit up the andronico's on telegraph. they've got soyrizo =)

or i can bring you some on bastille day.

By Melinelly on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 11:23 am: Edit

probably not an exageration. i think they got caught up in that same bit that taco bell taco shells did. they had been made with gmo corn not approved for human consumption (but good enough for animal feed heh). jellyfish genes ARE just some of the things being spliced into veggies, but whether they were used in this particular case, i don't know.

By Admin on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 11:06 am: Edit

oh and the veggie chorizo, I could live on that stuff.

moved to the burbs and no one carries it. neither does webvan. shame on them.

its all about the spices, and they add a bunch of fat to it too.

By Admin on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 11:03 am: Edit

Ok, fact or rumor...

morningstar corndogs (my favorite) were pulled from the shelves because they were made with genetically modified corn that was spliced with some jellyfish thing?

they're back on the shelves now, but is this some grevious exaggeration?

I wanna know, because not only is it EVIL, its a damn fine sick joke.

By Verawench on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 10:59 am: Edit

Tsk.. "fake meat" sounds so biased..

For a little bit more compassion, try saying "meat-challenged" or "animal-free".

By Melinelly on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 10:50 am: Edit

fake meat has a long history with dual roots in asia and the middle east. a lot of the fake meat products we see coming out are the result of the meeting of these old ways into "western" vegetarian culture.

unfortunately, there aren't many truly guilt-free products... gardenburger's parent company are union busters and utilize underpaid migrant labor... boca burgers, morningstar, and a few other big brands are made with genetically modified foods... who knows, maybe boca tastes best because they've got beef infused wheat lol...

anyhoo. it's great to see more and more alternative products in the marketplace. one of my favorites is a vegetarian pepperoni log! mmmmmm... can't remember who makes it, but it's kinda hard to find. now and again i'll see some in a supermarket and buy like ten cuz i know i won't find them again soon... also, vegetarian chorizo called Soyrizo, fuckin rocks! when i first went veggie, oddly enough, one of my biggest cravings was for chorizo and eggs... even though i hadn't had any in several years... then i found soyrizo, and it was good...

used to be an awesome little vegetarian chinese restaurant on clement in sf called Red Crane. it had been there for decades. my dad used to eat there. then they shut down sometime in the last year. i was sad. no more vegetarian sweet and sour chicken... oh man, was that stuff good... and the veggie prawns! my god, you couldn't tell the difference! mmmmmm... veggie duck in spicy black bean sauce... veggie wonton soup... bah! damn gentrification!

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 10:30 am: Edit


Quote:

I love Boca burgers with a slab of processed cheese, two pickles, raw onion, lettuce and tomato and barbecue sauce. Tastes as good as a flesh burger.



I quite like Boca Burgers, not because they taste like hamburgers, but because they are quite yummy in their own way. I do a lot of my cooking without meat, and I've never quite understood the desire to simulate meat, since there are plenty of very tasty things one can make with no meat-like componant at all.

By _Blackjack on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 10:22 am: Edit


Quote:

My motto was "I like meat, I just choose not to eat it right now" and folks still got all up in my shit.



Damn. There goes that theory. It sounded so good on paper, too. Maybe meat-eaters are just too prone to perceive anything eating plants as prey or something.

By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 06:57 am: Edit

My Freudian slip just hit the ground...

By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 06:55 am: Edit

I wasn't refering to Tabreaux, I was speaking of Ted Nugent salty. Ted's batch of meat was a little saltier than usual. I mean his Billtong. I mean the jerky. I mean ...

Oh dear, this hole I'm digging is getting bigger and bigger...

PRETEND YOUR FACE IS A MAZERATTI!!! Check out the hood scoop...

By Verawench on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 06:36 am: Edit

"I must admit this batch was a tad (or Ted) salty"

How would you know how salty Ted is?

Damn, now my inner fag hag is getting aroused.

By Don_Walsh on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 01:20 am: Edit

No problem, blackjack, like Whitney Houston, I will always love you.

By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 12:38 am: Edit

Once my friend and I made gluten spare ribs. They were in the oven too long and they were all tough and leathery. I'll be damned if they weren't as good if not better than most low grade beef jerkys!!!

By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 12:37 am: Edit

After awhile even the Not-Dogs grossed me out the way regular hot dogs did.

By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 12:35 am: Edit

Me too! (The classic responce, simple yet sincere)

By Marc on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 12:32 am: Edit

I love Boca burgers with a slab of processed cheese, two pickles, raw onion, lettuce and tomato
and barbecue sauce. Tastes as good as a flesh burger.

By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, June 27, 2001 - 12:29 am: Edit

I love it when I can please my Queen.

You're all wondering, "what did Head have for dinner?" Well on the way home I wolfed down some Billtong (Regular Flavor), I must admit this batch was a tad (or Ted) salty. When I got home I took a shot of 151. Chased it with a Lime and Corona. Took a shower and made an onion and Boca burger on rye sangwich with A-1 doused on it. Then I made rum and cokes for desert...

There's a new diet book in there somewhere.

By Admin on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 11:59 pm: Edit


Quote:

Get up on the bone pony! Hoss!!!





tee-hee-hee. ha! hehe ... heh.

I'm just tickled.

Now, back to that *other* thread where we were, uh, actually discussing absinthe. right.

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 11:10 pm: Edit

My motto was "I like meat, I just choose not to eat it right now" and folks still got all up in my shit.

You (Blackjack), need to start having recreational sex and discussing it on the forum for those of us who live vicariously through others experiences so that we can lead more fullfilled, morally and physically safe sex lives... Get up on the bone pony! Hoss!!!

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 10:44 pm: Edit


Quote:

As an eight year old vegetarian I put up with carnivores telling me I couldn't live without meat.



I was discussing this recently with this same friend. Many omnivores become defensive when faced with a vegetarian because they feel as if the vegetarian is judging them and saying they are morally inferior for eating meat. The vegetarian then feels attacked, and wants to defend their choice, and the whole thing starts to, well, look like the conversation I was just having with Don.

What my friend and I figured out (and what I failed to do with Don) was that the key is the association of morality with the refusal of meat. Now, if the vegetarian really DOES consider the omnivore morally inferior, well, then, there isn't a lot to be done to avoid a fight. However, if the vegetarian isn't really interested in the other person's morals or eating habits, and just wants to avoid getting a chunk-o-cow dropped in front of them instead of saying:

"I don't eat meat,"

say

"I don't _like_ meat."

I don't eat turnips, for instance, and I've never had to justify that fact on moral grounds. Obviously, the second statment is less than a complete evaluation of the vegetarian's opinion, but it isn't inaccurate (even if you still like the taste of meat, you probably don't like the killing or the cholesterol or the cruelty, so it's not a lie.) And by phrasing it as a personal preference, instead of as a moral position, you don't put anyone in the position of having to defend their own view.

What will this accomplish? Well, it will cut down on the omnivores' feelings of being judged, if you're prone to weep for the bruised feelings of the majority, bit more importatnly, it will cut down on the hostile reactions to a innocuous request not to be served pieces of things that once had faces and mothers.

Now, I know, for many, avoiding meat is in fact a moral thing, but, as I just illustrated with Don, it is hard to express moral positions without making others feel judged. If you get to know the person well enough that they can understand your moral model, then you can go into more detail of your reasons.

Likewise, had I simply said "BDSM isn't my style" (or not brought it up in the first place) I'm sure Don would have had no problem with it.

"Y'see, we learned something today..."

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 10:27 pm: Edit


Quote:

However I am obliged to point out that you are being awfully judgemental and insensitive; while my skin is pretty thick, others may not be so absent of personal hurt. I doubt you would, these days, have made a similar remark about a homosexual or lesbian lifestyle choice.



Hmm, I think I'm not communicating well, because I'm really not judging. Some of my best friends, as they say... I'm just saying that it is inconsistant with my...aesthetic. I guess what gets me in trouble is that I don't really discern between morals and aesthetics, since I think the two are inexorably linked. As such, I come of sounding like I'm saying "this is EVIL" when what I mean is "I don't like this." I try to maintain a very consistant, sometimes rigid, model of behavior FOR MYSELF, but that model is by no means essentially superior to others. It is just the one which pleases me.

As an example, my friend in question tends to model her behavior more on a standard of creating as much happiness and joy as she can. For this reason her behavior is often much less consistant and predictable than mine, but, likewise, she is less prone to hurt people's feelings or piss them off. To her, BDSM is just one more way to give others (and thus herself) pleasure, and thus it is totally consistant with her moral model.

My moral model, however, is based on standards of fairness and equality, so, particularly, the D/s aspects of the scene grate against that particular aesthetic, even tho it is consentual and, ultimately, it is the bottom who sets the limits. To my friend, there is no conflict, because the joy and pleasure both parties gain from the power exchange is more pleasing to her than my unrealistic ideals of absolute equality.

Like I said, this was a horrible example of what I was trying to illustrate and I really wish I hadn't brought it up. I have nothing but warm feelings for the BDSM scene, because I know, "come the revolution," they are on the same side as me.

Unlike, say, Starbucks or the heroin dealers.

PS: I have no problem saying that I don't consider having sex with men to be consistent with my PERSONAL ethics, but that has more to do with my low opinion of most men in general than any problem with the idea of homosexuality. I also have strong problems with the mainstream concepts of heterosexual marriage, too. Have I pissed off everyone yet?

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 09:36 pm: Edit

...And that's why a bar owner has a faithful clientel as opposed to the travelling snake oil salesman. Hitting the next Barnumite at each stop.


Quote:

He's a Music Man but he dosen't know the territory...


By Marc on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 09:25 pm: Edit

The bars I operate work on a 500% booze markup.My bartenders generally comp a customer a drink for every 3 purchased. So that works out to less than
a 400% markup overall. We also run specials:
shots of tequila for as little as 25 cents. Lonestar Beer for a buck a bottle.
Out of the profits I have to pay rent, I have the cost of a liquor license, payroll, insurance, utilities and I offer free entertainment (no cover)....
Wiz, the ripoff, has no overhead. Sheer profit.

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 08:54 pm: Edit

On the flipside...

As an eight year old vegetarian I put up with carnivores telling me I couldn't live without meat. I did without anyway. All the while telling them I would eat meat again (so I was a "carnivore on hold"). However, they still insisted on telling me how wrong I was for not doing so. Which only made me want to say "I hope you die of a massive blockage of the coronary, like my Father did!!!".

They were as bad as Chritians trying to witness to Atheists. Or Jehovah's to Christian's... The same sick loop. I say "Fuck you and your "I WANT TO STUFF MY IDEOLOGY DOWN YOUR THROAT" Mother Fuckers..."

Wow, I didn't know I had it in me. Must be the jerky.

Proudly Sponsered by Ted Nugent's Billtong Meats


Quote:

They brought me out of the vegetarian coma. They are tastey and test driven by Uncle Tedly himself...


By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 08:12 pm: Edit

I guess that's the point about idiosyncratic, personal ethics: they should stay personal. The proslytizing and militant vegan is a good example. Don't get between me and my ribeye!

A long time ago Andrew Offutt, the sf and porno writer, told me about being visited by an sf writing couple (who shall remain nameless) at his farm in Morehead KY. Andy and his wife Jody put up with these folks for a couple of days. They were vegans, and not only did they demand a vegan fare as houseguests, they demanded, DEMANDED, that no one else in the house east any meat in the house as long as they were in residence.

ASSHOLES!

By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 08:00 pm: Edit

Well, blackjack, it seems you were just being philosophical. I have no problem with your personal ethic, as you describe it, and no one is going to compel you to either participate in or approve of a lifestyle you either haven't chosen or have chosen to leave (nor am I particularly interested in which of those applies in your instance.)

However I am obliged to point out that you are being awfully judgemental and insensitive; while my skin is pretty thick, others may not be so absent of personal hurt. I doubt you would, these days, have made a similar remark about a homosexual or lesbian lifestyle choice. Not because you give a damn about the p.i. of it but because you wouldn't want to gratuitously offend the gays and/or lesbians on the forum.

I much prefer the attitude of G.B.Shaw's longtime mistress, who said she didn't give a toss what people did (sexually), as long as they didn't do it in the streets and frighten the horses.

By Head_Prosthesis on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 07:40 pm: Edit


Quote:

I guess I had let some tangents run away in my head and assumed others would see the connection.




You know what fella, I have that problem all the time...
The runaway train of thought

There was a train, I met a dame, she kinda fancy, but she looked obscene, her name was Shmitty, from the Motor City, A BIG DICK DITTY, With heave an' a Ho, I jus' couldn't let'er go... Or something

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 07:07 pm: Edit


Quote:

Jeez, blackjack, are you being philosophical or was that a dig on me?



It wasn't a dig. I can see now how it came out of left field, tho. I guess I had let some tangents run away in my head and assumed others would see the connection. I brought up the idea of cinsentual violence, and I was anticipating the reply: is it OK to hurt someone if they enjoy it? My answer is: it is not something _I_ would do, but that is not an ethic to which I would hold others. It is a personal preference and not a universal moral judgement.

Anyway, my point is that we bear more responsibility to one another, as human beings, than simply to get permission. I think I used a bad example simply because it created enough tangents in my own head that I got off topic. Running a BDSM club is not equivalent to selling heroin, obviously. A heroin dealer actively contributes to someone's self-destruction. A pro-domme is just doing something that I, myself, would not do.

There's no need to publically go into my feelings or knowlege of BDSM. Suffice it to say, my ex-domme friend and I eventually came to the understanding that I felt about her practices wuite the same way she felt about the fact that I eat meat: eating meat is not consistent with her model of ethics, and treating someone like an inferior, even within a consentual context where they are the ones making the rules, is not consistent with mine; but she doesn't impose her model on me, and I don't extend mine to her.

So, sorry, Don. I was really trying to make it clear that I DIDN'T consider what you do to be wrong, but I was assuming that you were already on the same tangent as I. It's what I get for not showing my work...

By Don_Walsh on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 06:00 pm: Edit

Jeez, blackjack, are you being philosophical or was that a dig on me? I am the only BDSM professional on this forum so far as I know. And I can tell you this: good Scene professionals are performing a much needed service. This is therapy. This relieves a lot of stress for a lot of people.

I'm not really sure what sort of practices you think go on in the Scene, but what makes you think that spanking someone's butt is in any way analogous to selling heroin? The bywords in the Scene are SAFE SANE and CONSENSUAL. And sadomasochism is no longer considered to even be a neurosis. At least not by the American Psychiatric Association.

You got one thing right. Your pro-Domme friend was doing it because she loved it. If you are good at doing what you love and decide to turn professional, where's the harm?

Assuming that you, yourself, are not in the BDSM Scene, then I submit that you don't have much of an information base on which to make a condemnation like that. It's uncalled for. Scene people in my experience, and we have catered to almost 500 submissives from 100+ nations in the last 3.5 years, are highly intelligent, sophisticated, funloving, and well adjusted people, who just like their lives a little kinkier than most, and whose idea of stimulation is a little more intense (sometimes a lot more intense) than most. They aren't serial killers, nor psychos, nor basket cases.

By Alphasoixante on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 04:02 pm: Edit

"*There is the somewhat more complicated question of BDSM professions...my best friend was a pro-dom, but I, personally, would never do that to
a person for money, no matter how bad they wanted it. Then again, I wouldn't enjoy doing it like she did..."

Reminds me of a joke:

A masochist said to a sadist: "hurt me".
The sadist said "no".

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 03:45 pm: Edit


Quote:

Don’t twist what I said into a fanciful breakdown of your interpretation. If someone has the money to obtain what they want, no matter how obsorbanant, then that is their agenda, let them live with their decision. You can be hurt doing anything in life.



That still does not absolve you of your responsiblity to others. If somebody was to offer me $50 to kick them in the head, I, personally, would not do it, simply because I don't think it is right to kick people in the head, even if they want it.* Likewise, I wouldn't sell heroin to someone, even if they were fully aware of what it does and consented. Now, I don't believe consentual acts should be criminalized (assuming the parties are adults of sound mind), but that does not mean that I think they are the right things to do.


___
*There is the somewhat more complicated question of BDSM professions...my best friend was a pro-dom, but I, personally, would never do that to a person for money, no matter how bad they wanted it. Then again, I wouldn't enjoy doing it like she did...

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 03:26 pm: Edit

Profit as an end-in-itself seems pretty hollow to me. If capitalism has any virtues, it is in its ablity to stimulate new ideas and create wealth (albeit on a grossly unequal basis) for the entire society. Pure profiteering comprimises these virtues because it eventually DISCOURAGES innovation (cf. Microsoft) and minimizes the positive impact of wealth on the lower classes by inflating prices.

A reasonable profit can be a good thing, if kept in perspective. People do deserve to benfit from their labor, and I think economic growth has many benefits. In my opinion, however, the goal profit should be secondary to benefitng mankind through enterprise. Capitalism can be useful as a means of improving the quality of the human condition, since it relies on some of man's basic tendencies (laziness, greed, etc.) as its motivations. However, it is ONLY a means, not an end. If you are making a profit at the expense of the good of mankind, then you have made no profit at all.

(This message has been brought to you by the Tax and Spend Liberals of America. Keep making that money boys, so we can take it from you and use it!)

As far as Wiz goes, I'd have more respect for him if he wasn't just reselling somebody else's product. His profits do not come from his own labor. I'm almost tempted to follow him around and set up shop next door, selling absinthe at cost. THAT will give him a little lesson in capitalism...

By Tavarua on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 02:54 pm: Edit

Everyone:

On the profiteering bit. You are right, the formal definition is fairly heinous, that is not what I was going for.

Lordhobgoblin,

Every human being should be allotted the same rights, privileges, and opportunities. However, not all humans are equal. Some people actually work hard to accomplish everything they desire, this is not only referring to money, i.e. love, friendship, creation, even autonomy. Some people are lazy or passive and do not strive to get anywhere in life.


“A system which says that it is ok to get as much money as we can from our fellow man in order to line our pockets can never result in us personally developing a compassionate attitude with equality of worth and respect for our fellow man.”

This is not the definition of Capitalism, it is merely your inflated interpretation and has no real bearance.


“The major corporations are capitalism (as opposed to Giuseppe's family run coffee bar in Little Italy).”

This is just a flat out inaccurate statement. Giuseppe’s family run coffee bar is a prime example of capitalism. You do not have to be a huge corporation to exhibit capitalism, you merely have to promote your service for a fee, a fee that you and you alone have the right to collect, plain and simple.
Alphasoixante,

That’s better, know I have something to work with.


1. “This is apparently a self-evident truth, since no argument was offered. (1. "they [starbucks] were exceptionally good at their business")”

Gee, maybe the argument is that they have a coffee shop in pretty much all of town throughout the U.S., I’d say that makes them damn good at business.


2. ditto. though perhaps there's an implied argument. something like: 1. Starbucks is successful. Therefore, Starbucks is good at their business and makes great coffee. (2. "and they made great coffee.")

Refer to point 1.


3. "Capitalism is what this country, the US, is built on, it is in essence 'The Dream.'"
Yes, a bad dream.

Easy solution, move to China. Try and talk about how bad the country is there. Which is to say YOU CAN’T if you enjoy breathing. We are a great and free and country, one that allows deutsche bags to burn the flag and it is their right, let them do it, just don’t do it in front of me.


4. "Profiteering is good, it provides what others want."

This was an inaccurate statement to make, I realize.



5. “The implied argument seems to be: 5a. The consumer willingly participates. 5b. Harm can be done to someone only against that person's will. Therefore, 5c. no harm can be done to a willing consumer.” (5. "If others are willing to pay where is the harm?")

Don’t twist what I said into a fanciful breakdown of your interpretation. If someone has the money to obtain what they want, no matter how obsorbanant, then that is their agenda, let them live with their decision. You can be hurt doing anything in life.



6) “True. But "nobler" than base is not "noble". A more accurate way of putting it would be: this is much less base than inherited wealth.” (6. "This is a much nobler method of acquiring equity than through family handouts and hand-me-downs, which is where ninety percent of wealth in this country comes from.")

No, the way I said it is fine, I never said acquiring wealth was noble on it’s own, I merely said that it is nobler than having it fall into your lap.


7. “Says who?” (7. "you have to take the good with the bad")

What is good without evil, it is a paradox, one is indecipherable without the other. Oddly enough, there would be no good in the world, if there were no evil.


8. “The essence of capitalism is "capital"--i.e. surplus and accumulation. "Smaller scale" cannot be exemplary of capitalism, which is a principle of uncontrolled growth. It is not accidental that smaller businesses disappear with the success of capitalism; they are systematically eliminated.” (8. "those little coffee shops are also a fine example of capitalism on a smaller scale.")

NO

Now, here is the proper definition of “capital” - Wealth in the form of money or property, used or accumulated in a business by a person, partnership, OR Corporation. Nough said.

By Chrysippvs on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 01:30 pm: Edit

"Capitalism is more like an uncomfortable and awkward transitional stage. Like human beings are."

LOL..Plontius would be proud.

By Alphasoixante on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 01:24 pm: Edit

"You address capitalism as if it is a dirty little trick."

No. We've all been tricked, which leaves no one to play the trick on us. There is no dirty "they" to do the job. Capitalism is more like an uncomfortable and awkward transitional stage. Like human beings are.

By Alphasoixante on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 01:05 pm: Edit

some "logic":

1. "they [starbucks] were exceptionally good at their business"

This is apparently a self-evident truth, since no argument was offered.

2. "and they made great coffee."

ditto. though perhaps there's an implied argument. something like: 1. Starbucks is successful. Therefore, 2. Starbucks is good at their business and makes great coffee.

3. "Capitalism is what this country, the US, is built on, it is in essence 'The Dream.'"

Yes, a bad dream. Perhaps the implied completion of this thought is: 3b. What the US is built on is good. Therefore, 3c. Capitalism is good.

4. "Profiteering is good, it provides what others want."

Formally stated with implied second premise:
4a. What provides others with what they want is good. 4b. Profiteering provides others with what they want. Therefore 4c. Profiteering is good.

Both premises are false. The goodness of something is not determined by desire for that thing, and profiteering manufactures desire rather than responding to it. You will do what we say and like it. And we do.

5. "If others are willing to pay where is the harm?"

The implied argument seems to be: 5a. The consumer willingly participates. 5b. Harm can be done to someone only against that person's will. Therefore, 5c. no harm can be done to a willing consumer.

The second premise is false.

6. "This is a much nobler method of acquiring equity than through family handouts and hand-me-downs, which is where ninety percent of wealth in this country comes from."

True. But "nobler" than base is not "noble". A more accurate way of putting it would be: this is much less base than inherited wealth.

7. "you have to take the good with the bad"

Says who?

8. "those little coffee shops are also a fine example of capitalism on a smaller scale."

The essence of capitalism is "capital"--i.e. surplus and accumulation. "Smaller scale" cannot be exemplary of capitalism, which is a principle of uncontrolled growth. It is not accidental that smaller businesses disappear with the success of capitalism; they are systematically eliminated.

P.S. Please don't call me Alph.

By Pataphysician on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 12:38 pm: Edit

>Profiteering is good

Uhhh, no... no it's not. By definition "profiteering" is making an unreasonable profit.

I don't buy into this idea that capitalism is some natural phenomenon, but I do concede that it's the only game in town. I work for money and I buy things, I've got no other choice. None of us do. ("Freedom" is now the name of a convenience store chain.) But it's pretty clear that capitalism has a corrupting influence on people's souls.

And Heiko is right, Wiz, connecting Rastafari to selling alcohol is pretty despicable. Alcohol is not ital. Jah will get you for that. As the Rasta say:

"Hey, hey, big man,
You know that your wealth can't save you now,
Riding in your big Cadillac,
Chaffuer-driven and you're sitting in the back...

In time I know,
Fire's gonna burn you dead,

Ball, ball of fire
Ball of fire,
Lapping up Babylon!"

By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 12:35 pm: Edit

"Profiteering is good, it provides what others want."

Capitalist profiteering is not an act providing for the needs and wants of other, it is in effect providing others with what it suits your interests to provide them with at the highest cost you can possibly squeeze out of them. Profiteering is all about making as much as possible for oneself with no genuine regard for the well-being of other fellow human beings involved in the process. All your fellow human becomes is a means to increase your wealth. Mankind deserves better than this.

Making a reasonable profit to enable you to cover your costs and live moderately on the other hand is perfectly reasonable. This does not regard the ultimate worth and value of human beings as being monetary. We should regard our fellow humans as being as equal to ourselves and in this regard we all should strive to regard their welfare as being of equal value and importance to our own. If we are to empathise with our fellow man (with all his suffering and pains) as being our equal and to view his suffering as being of equal value to our own then we cannot look on him as being a means to line our pockets. A system which says that it is ok to get as much money as we can from our fellow man in order to line our pockets can never result in us personally developing a compassionate attitude with equality of worth and respect for our fellow man.

"I am not speaking of monopolies, Dabeers, that control an entire market"

You cannot defend capitalism but conveniently leave out the major corporations who control capitalism, that's like saying defending facism but conveniently ignoring Hitler (before anybody jumps on me I am not in any way equating capitalism with facism and it's evils). The major corporations are capitalism (as opposed to Giuseppe's family run coffee bar in Little Italy). Capitalism is not about offering choice it is ultimately about large corporations controlling the market with no regard for anything at all except profit (in the process brutally stamping out the little guys you admire) leaving us less choice, giving them more power and in the end these small handful of corporations end up sucking up all of the capital on the planet. That is capitalism, the only thing it values is profit, a long way from the activities and ethos of your founding fathers.

Hobgoblin

By Heiko on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 12:33 pm: Edit

in addition to my last post:

I was referring to rastafarianism when I read "jah love". This religion is not really applicable to capitalism, it considers it to be sin and babylon (whatever, I'm not an expert).

Other religions of course work very well together with capitalism: If you're catholic, pray 1000 ave marias and get one sin free! ;-)

By Tavarua on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 11:32 am: Edit

I will definitely agree with you in that often, larger corporations are not nearly as socially resonsible as they could be, if at all, in giving back, but there are those that do contribute. Bill Gates, while I despise his business tactics, does give 100 million a year to aids research, and Ben and Jerry’s gives 6 percent of their before profit earnings to various charities. They are to be commended and should be followed by the other giants. While it will never happen, it would be nice. Business is seen as business. It’s only purpose is to make money for the Chairmen and Stockholders. I might subscribe to this theory myself, if it did not steal away resources and hurt the smaller venues.

By Melinelly on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 11:11 am: Edit

in general.

i'm a socialist. not as well read or scholarly as others here, but a socialist nonetheless. at least that's where my economic and political leanings lie. i don't agree with putting monetary value on self worth... and that's basically what capitalism does. it creates values and imposes them on people via material and labor "costs" and supply/demand. the hardest working folks generally are amongst the lower tiers of social class... and capitalism in practice is just as corrupt as any socialist system...

as it should work, profiteers would give back to society to ensure a happy consumer base... but as it does, it's all about cutting corners and screwing people. just like practicing socialist systems have been... in theory, "from each of their ability, to each of their needs" is how it should be, but in practice it's been "from each as is demanded, to each as is seen fit"

personally, my own economic/political ideology is more along the lines of "from each of their ability, to each as society is able" in other words, we don't need television, computers, etc... but given the abilities of the human race as inventors and producers, we are able to provide a level of comfort above subsistance, and no one should have to struggle to survive given our abilities to provide...

now, abilities aside, the desire of the empowered to provide for those in need is another question and is one of the driving forces behind the evils perceived in capitalism.

By Tavarua on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 10:42 am: Edit

Damn,

Starbucks bad. I guess I used a shitty example. There are shady Corps out there, but you have to take the good with the bad. But don't forget, those little coffee shops are also a fine example of capitalism on a smaller scale. I know you don't want to dwelve into this issue, but answer me this, are you apposed to capitalism in general, or just large scale corporate capitalism?

By Melinelly on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 10:18 am: Edit

ack... starbucks good? maybe if you like your coffee burnt =P blech... i never understood how so many people could like their coffee when there's so much better out there... then again, i've wondered the same for budweiser, nike, etc...

guess it goes along the lines of the whole distilling cost vs. quality of absinthe...

what got to me more than their bad coffee were their business practices... always opening up across from, next to, or nearby some independent coffee house, inevitably driving them out of business not because of a better product but because of better product recognition... i've lost many a favorite coffee house to some fucking starbucks opening nearby... not just mom and pop stores either... one of the best coffee chains in the bay area fell to them (san francisco coffee company) a few years back... thank god for peets and the anti-starbucks movement...

i'm too tired to get into the whole capitalism thing...

By Tavarua on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 10:15 am: Edit

That last posting was for Alphsoixante.

Blackjack's argument makes more sense as he justifies his remarks. I am not trying to cut you down, but give logic Alph, not sarcastic blabbering.

By Tavarua on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 09:57 am: Edit

You address capitalism as if it is a dirty little trick. I hope that you can back up your angst with more than the traditional “Starbucks bad, Starbucks is capitalism, capitalism bad.” Don’t forget, they started out as a small mom and pop shop at one point as well, but they were exceptionally good at their business and they made great coffee. Capitalism is what this country, the US, is built on, it is in essence “The Dream.” Profiteering is good, it provides what others want. If others are willing to pay where is the harm? I am not speaking of monopolies, Dabeers, that control an entire market, but rather individuals who start with an intangible idea and end up with something that is great. This is a much nobler method of acquiring equity than through family handouts and hand-me-downs, which is where ninety percent of wealth in this country comes from.

By _Blackjack on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 09:47 am: Edit


Quote:

Native American Art. What's that? Shit you buy in Taiwan?



You know, the feds would be more concerned with that than they would with anybody selling absinthe. I have a good pal who is an enforcement officer at the Interior's Indian Arts and Crafts Board, and they take no prisoners.

I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with price gouging and taking advantage of those too free with their money, but there is nothing RIGHT about it, either. It isn't something I would be particularly proud to do. Just because somebody is willing to give you their money doesn't absolve you of all responsiblity for your own actions. If it did, everybody would become TV evangelists or lawyers...

By Alphasoixante on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 09:34 am: Edit

“It’s immoral to let a sucker keep his money.”

??

"capitalism is what makes the world go round"

oh yes. how did the earth ever turn on its axis without it. gravity, thermodynamics, and capitalism: mysterious and marvellous laws of nature against which we can do nothing. nevermind the continued participation of people, who make _capitalism_ go round, and keep going, and going...

By Chrysippvs on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 09:27 am: Edit

Religion and capitialism go hand in hand. I don't buy into that dualistic ascetic garbage.

Piety bears no confilct with Profit.

By Heiko on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 09:18 am: Edit

You have to be very careful on what you spend your money in capitalism. There's so much overpriced shit sold in this world, why not overpriced absinthe?
When we're talking about making false comparisons to certain drugs, don't you think there's a 2500% markup on these as well? At least...

I know that in every bar drinks, and especially longdrinks are overpriced. There are some bars though where I rather pay some more bucks on a longdrink because I know good ingredients are used and there's enough good booze in it. Most bars will give you 7 Euro longdrinks that contain the cheapest ingredients and only half a shot of booze...

I have only one complaint: Wiz, cancel the "jah love" greetings. You profit from capitalism by selling alcohol, there can't be much more cynicism than shouting "jah love" then... The only people who can say this with a good conscience live in the woods without any personal belongings. I know, tell that to the rolex-wearing, coke-sniffing dj's in Kingston JA...

By Pataphysician on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 08:38 am: Edit

"capitalism is what makes the world go round"

or, spin out of control.

By Verawench on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 08:09 am: Edit

Wiz, you're the coolest.

By Tavarua on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 08:07 am: Edit

I still think Justin has a point,
Yes, 25 USD is extremely excessive, 15 a little less, but still excessive, but come on, any schlep that has not done the faintest bit of research on Absinthe and thinks 15 is a fair price, owe well. Don’t forget, “It’s immoral to let a sucker keep his money.” And yes, capitalism is what makes the world go round, now if Wiz is lying about the affects, that is a different story. I’ll have to check out the lot the next time “The Incident” comes to town, which they do.

Marc,

If you run night-clubs then you are very familiar with the mark-up. I don’t think I have ever been to a club / bar and paid less than 3-4$ for a shot of gin that costs $10 a bottle wholesale, especially in New York. Although, as I have never been to any of your establishments, I can not say definitively whether or not this is the case, but I have to imagine it is. Given, if you do pass out free glasses to travelling wanderers, then at least you are somewhat leveling it out.

Melinelly,

Yea, that was quite Freudian of me. I was in the midst of consuming several Pernod Paradises. SC will be on the door step within the week.

By Marc on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 01:31 am: Edit

wiz,

one last thing.

the only absinthe i've ever distributed, i've distributed for free. there are several people in this forum who will testify to that fact.

so, who's really spreading the good vibes?

I see that the moldy cheese band you're following around is coming to Vegas. I run a joint in the Venetian Hotel called VENUS. Come visit. Ask for Marc. I'm the guy who looks like Charley Manson on steroids. Come late, when I'm drunk and reckless.

By Marc on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 01:22 am: Edit

1500% markup. you're a fucking saint.

i don't sell absinthe in my bars.

which ones did you visit? when?

Native American Art. What's that? Shit you buy in Taiwan? or do you trade absinthe for silver bracelets from alcoholic Indians?

You represent everything that went sour with hip culture. You're a fucking phony. And yes, I'll be happy to say that to your face anyplace or anytime?

still love me, jah jiveass?

By Wiz on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 12:57 am: Edit

Marc I love how you put words in my mouth. You make up stories and over-exagerate everything.
You're just one of those cry-baby tattle-tales we all grew up with, you can read it in everyone of your boastful, braggart postings. Your whole life and everything you post here is most likely an over-exageration.
I have never told people that absinthe is a Psychedelic, or like acid, or X. I tell them exactly what their in for, nothing at all, I can't help it if there has been a market for the last 17 years in the lot scene. I also tell people where to get it to, at SC.
Get your facts straight Marc. It would be like me going around telling stories about your shitty bars I went to in NY last year. I met you and I know that your not all you say.
Yeah Marc stick to what you know. No false advertising or lies here, never have been. I did sell drinks for 25.00 in 99, this year they're 15.00, and a shot to me is three fingers in a twelve oz glass. I don't spill out a measley drink. I give the people what they want. A real good drink. If you don't like it, oh well. It would be interesting if the Feds would visit your bars to see your illegal stock of absinthe that you sell in your bar. I know, I purchased a glass from you personaly last year. You remember me, I know you funky twat. If your ever in the Az area or have the guts to visit me on the SCI tour, I wait for another coward to back up his lies. 2500% markup sounds more fabrication of a fantasy.

WIZ loves you too, Marc.

By Marc on Tuesday, June 26, 2001 - 12:09 am: Edit

justin,

listen up. you're not paying attention. wiz gets
a 2500% markup because he sells absinthe as a psychedelic. okay, do you get it now? It ain't capitalism, its false advertising. it plays into
the worst lie and rumor about absinthe, that it shares some of the same qualities as acid and exstasy.

by the way, its feng shui.
stick to what you know.

By Chrysippvs on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 11:52 pm: Edit

People like Wiz are people that make the world go round. We pay outrageous mark-ups for everything we purchase at the retail level. I am not supporting Wiz, I am supporting the nature behind Wiz's actions. It is rendering a product or service at a price, which is paid on free will and accord. If the people didn't want it they would not pay it.

I walked into a starbucks to see people pay nearly 5 dollars for coffee, milk, and sugar. I see ties made by Gucci for over 200 USD. I see manuscript reprints for £150 *I just bought 3 MSs for that much from the British Library). It is life, and if wiz can do it so be it.

What is a real shame to me are new agers that will take thousands of dollars to help people find something they don't need. I know aguy that just paid 4K to get his house Feung Shaied..what a horrible joke. That is 4 thousand dollars to get his PS2 moved in the courner and some rocks put on top of the fridge by some little chinese guy.

I dont see how wiz is anymore right or wrong than that.

By Marc on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 11:05 pm: Edit

bob,

josh is a good guy. he designed my website in exchange for absinthe. that's cool.
he's a youngblood. i'm glad he's posting here.

By Cheese on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 10:53 pm: Edit

Bob, I'm not ill. I'm not fond of either justin or the wiz. The remark was to try to lighten you guys up. Justin does it in his way, Betty does it in her way, and Wiz does it his way. They all do the same thing, just to varying degrees.

Why you try to fuck with me, I don't know. I've never posted/emailed/communicated with you, so whatever the reason, it's unjustified. In fact, I've rarely posted here.

Josh

By Bob_Chong on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 10:24 pm: Edit

Thank you Marc for cutting to the chase.

And apparently he's good at looking down his nose at customers. All that makes him is a snob.

BC


P.S. Cheese: Nothing seems to ever cure your ill

By Marc on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 10:21 pm: Edit

wiz charges $25 a shot. Justify that.

and the only time wiz posts, is to tell us about
his rip-off absinthe business. the guy is not a contributor to the forum. he's a pig profiteering from peoples' misunderstanding
of absinthe's "secondary effects". he tells druggies that they're going to have a psychedelic experience with the stuff. he's a bad dude.

By Cheese on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 10:12 pm: Edit

The bigger the headache, the bigger the pill.

By Wiz on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 10:01 pm: Edit

Hate to say it, but I've been participating and reading this message board for 4 years now Tavarua. Go into the deep archives.
Chong your so out of it, yes patch stinks, and I shower every day, and I've my own business that does very, very well. I sell Native American Art and Western Antiques in my Scottsdale AZ. shop. I tax people there too.
Following shows is just my release from the summer heat of AZ.
The parent thing don't exist, never have. I wish I had them around to talk to, I miss them very much.
Low blow chong, but I don't care. I made it on my own, and I love to take the money when I can, especially when they shove it in your face for services rendered. Artists rule. Everyone looks for Hope in a Hopeless World. Take a chill pill chong. You may live a bit longer.

WIZ loves you too.

By Melinelly on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 09:51 pm: Edit

"...distill the various myths..."

tav, that was a great freudian slip, one of the best forum related ones i've read here hehe. hope you meant "dispell"

By Bob_Chong on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 09:33 pm: Edit

Wiz:

Those who can, shower. Those who can't, reek of patchouli and follow jambands.

Are you independent from your parents yet, or do they still kick down, dude?

BC

By Tavarua on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 08:55 pm: Edit

I'm not going to say who is right or wrong in this, but don't come in here swingin Wiz. If you haven't been reading the threads, which you obviously haven't, you should expect to be chopped considerably in your first few postings. That's the way of the wok.

Chrysippvs has a point though. If you can charge some dumbass 5 bucks for a shot of absinthe, do it. They have never had it before, it is probably a real treat. At the least, after they have had five shots and still cannot see dancing yams, maybe they will distill the various myths and forget about it, or maybe they will just have a great night and attribute it to "this magic drink they have had", which is obviously bullshit, but hey, it's there dime.

One more thing, profiteering off of Absinthe may be shitty, but hey, everyone here is contributing. Just look at what you paid the last time you visited Spirits Corner.

By Wiz on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 03:11 pm: Edit

I feel sorry for all of you shitters, ...If you're for real come out and see me and have a drink with me. Then shit all over me if you can. I don't care much what you think or how you feel about what I do. I have a product that is in demand and if a person wants to open their Widespread wallets..., I just got home from the Widespread Panic show where I banked big time on those rich custies. You're no better than me. You're all criminals in the legal sense when you purchase your Absinthe and have it sent to your crib in America. I just do it differently.
Karma Schmarma, when I die I least I will go with a clean conscious and not feel bad about a thing I lived, created or destroyed.
I hope to see at least one brave soul tell me to my face they don't like me. I know none of you will come. If you do then there's free drinks for you. In person you're just a coward, Bob. Those who teach, can't do... those who can do, do...


JAH LOVE
WIZ

By Chrysippvs on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 02:44 pm: Edit

Wiz is an American. If he can sell it at any price then go ahead. Karma is a joke. The world is mathematics, and economics pervade everything.

Wiz, profit on.

By Pataphysician on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 11:54 am: Edit

I'll wiz on the shit, for good measure. Absinthe profiteering is bad karma, dude.

By Bob_Chong on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 10:55 am: Edit

Third anyone? Do we have a quorum?

By Don_Walsh on Monday, June 25, 2001 - 04:38 am: Edit

I second that defecation.

By Bob_Chong on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 10:12 pm: Edit

I shit on the Wiz.

How much is a shot of Spanish for the gap-clad pseudo-hippies at SCI shows?

(and what is it about AZ and gazillion percent mark-ups?)

Eat me,
BC

By Bjacques on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 03:03 pm: Edit

"...sure, if you move the cat!"

By Wiz on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 01:03 pm: Edit

Negitive Vibes have been here for over 2 years!

I'm still at it, cheaper though. See you at String Cheese this summer.
Look for the Absinthe sign in the lot. I'm on the whole tour again.
Startin in sedona, AZ.
TAX TIME for you custies!
Ha Ha

WIZ

By Cheri on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 10:30 am: Edit

That's one BADDDDDD implant job...

By Petermarc on Sunday, June 24, 2001 - 08:08 am: Edit

beau

By Midas on Saturday, June 23, 2001 - 10:56 pm: Edit

artistry... me know spell yes.

By Midas on Saturday, June 23, 2001 - 10:55 pm: Edit

Ah, the Solid Gold dancers, the very height of poise and artisrty...

By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, June 22, 2001 - 11:16 pm: Edit

WWatching Solid Gold and The Sha-na-na show as a child... I sure could have used Absinthe then.

By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, June 22, 2001 - 10:17 pm: Edit

Hey Wolfie, where's my Maple Syrup Liquor?

By Wolfgang on Friday, June 22, 2001 - 10:14 pm: Edit

Boring.


(except for the cats poster...Thank you Oxy. )

By Verawench on Friday, June 22, 2001 - 09:45 pm: Edit

"oh, and so it was you, vera, who finally bought the absente poster?"

Yeah, I use it as a dart board. And I leave damp cloth to other uses.

By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, June 22, 2001 - 06:40 pm: Edit

I use my woobie to wipe the cat off. She says it makes her all tickely...

By Petermarc on Friday, June 22, 2001 - 11:46 am: Edit

oh, and so it was you, vera, who finally bought the absente poster? it's easily wiped off after wrestling...

By Petermarc on Friday, June 22, 2001 - 11:42 am: Edit

damn nice card, david...i was waiting for that...everytime i see 'chat' now, all i think is 'french for 'pussy''...

By Verawench on Friday, June 22, 2001 - 11:31 am: Edit

mreow

By Oxygenee on Friday, June 22, 2001 - 10:10 am: Edit

Absinthe Chats

Absinthe Chats

By Tavarua on Friday, June 22, 2001 - 07:18 am: Edit

"Hmmmm, no sir, I don't like it."

Horse after falling 30 stories. R&S

By Pataphysician on Friday, June 22, 2001 - 07:05 am: Edit

"Hmmm, people? Don't like 'em. Nope, I just don't like 'em."

- Horse on the Ren & Stimpy show.

By Head_Prosthesis on Friday, June 22, 2001 - 06:56 am: Edit

Schlameel, Schlamazel, Head Prosthesis Incorporated.

By Verawench on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 11:41 pm: Edit

thegates

By Verawench on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 11:35 pm: Edit

If you find that:

- you dump absinthe in your morning coffee and every cup of coffee thereafer
- instead of taking an altoid to freshen your breath, you figure you might as well take a sip of absinthe.. ahh.. anise
- your eyes are instinctively drawn to anything of an emerald or pale green hue, including clothing and things in your neighbor's garbage
- More than half the charges on your Visa are to some trusty delicatessen in Barcelona
- you find yourself easily annoyed at anything and anyone when not within reach of at least 3 oz of absinthe
- you raid your absinthe stash more frequently than ever cause, who knows, maybe it DOES give you sexual powers... then..

You need professional help.

This has been a public service announcement. We now return you to your regularly scheduled flame war and clever quip exchange from Sepulchritude Forum.

Good Night.

By Bob_Chong on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 11:21 pm: Edit

Head, are you Lennie in that scenario?

By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 08:50 pm: Edit

Save me some rabbits.

By Anatomist1 on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 08:35 pm: Edit

Marc is right, but it's not just the forum, it's people. I'm sick of 'em. I'm seriously considering moving out to the middle of fucking nowhere and abandoning the human race altogether. Fuck everyone.

K.

By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 06:28 pm: Edit

Oh Ladies. Please don't fight over me. Let's just all "love" together.

Doc'O, I got soul way down in the hole.

By Verawench on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 06:13 pm: Edit

Well, unless someone happens to log it all :)

By Dr_Ordinaire on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 06:11 pm: Edit

I like the chat room. Just imagine, we could have had the same fights without leaving a long trail of posts to embarrass us forever...

By Verawench on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 06:10 pm: Edit

"CRUSH, KILL, DESTROY!!!"

You promised to do that to my ex's first. Plz?

By Chrysippvs on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 06:09 pm: Edit

hmmm..nothing like a civil war to curdle up the blood

By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 06:07 pm: Edit

CRUSH, KILL, DESTROY!!!

By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 06:05 pm: Edit

The great minds at the Forum are brewing up another civil war. Brother against brother.

My friends enemies are my enemies.

By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 06:02 pm: Edit


Quote:

"Yak yak yak

Yakkita yakkita yak
yakkita yakkita yak
Yakkita yakkita yak

Uh!!!...

Yakkita yakkita yak
yakkita yakkita yak
Yakkita yakkita yak
YAK YAK YAK"


-Ramayana and the Dirty Monkey Chat Chant

By Chrysippvs on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 05:58 pm: Edit

How does chat suck?

I perfer it over the relay method.

By Heiko on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 05:53 pm: Edit

Vera,

Don is perfectly right on that one: "Chat sucks"

By Verawench on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 05:28 pm: Edit

Marc, come join us...

The "bashing" comment was a joke. Same as you calling us fucking nerds. Chill, hon :)

By Marc on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 05:19 pm: Edit

Justin,

I don't know what you mean.

By Chrysippvs on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Still with the crying Marc...I bet you go through tissues like a madman.

By Don_Walsh on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 05:06 pm: Edit

Chat sucks.

And Marc is right.

By Marc on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 04:51 pm: Edit

The last thing this forum needs is more inane chatter. As one member of this forum said to me
"the signal-to-bullshit ratio is getting awfully
low" around here. Most of the original members of this forum have left or post infrequently. I've stuck around because I enjoy having a place where I can post some of my writing and get instant feedback. I ran out of things to say about absinthe years ago. I enjoy head's surrealism, though he probably wouldn't call it that. I consider kallisti, blackjack, anatomist, bob,petermarc, Don, mellinelly and a few others friends. Most of the other posters that I respect have left.

Vera's comments about people "happily bashing" a forum member (me) in
an offsite chatroom is really quite sad. Up until now, we've been open and honest with each other,
even when we passionately disagreed. There's a new vibe flowing thru this forum, a bad one, and I for one find it disheartening.

By Marc on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 04:30 pm: Edit

"bashed you last night cause you weren't there."

What a sad waste of time. And gutsy too.

By Verawench on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 03:15 pm: Edit

Heiko, want to be the floormat for that fight?

Two rubenesque girls body slamming each other on your skinny ass. Fun! Messy!

Anyway, when are you gonna hop on over to #LaFeeVerte, my darling deutchlad?

Kallisti? Will you stop by for a visit? You know you've got immediate op priviledges, girl.

By Heiko on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 12:18 pm: Edit

"my mod privs could top your mod privs. *puts up fists*"

Are we going to see the forum's first girls' fight now?
I'd love to see some mud wrestling! ;-)

By Chrysippvs on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 11:00 am: Edit

No wonder marc doesn't like when I call people cry babies..he takes it personally..

By Dr_Ordinaire on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 10:55 am: Edit

"And Head, remember, I can give you something Kallisti never could... moderator priviledges ::grins:: "

Hey, Vera, I bribed him first! His soul is mine, mine, HA, HA, HA...

What? What you say? Forum seniority? Are you SURE about that rule? Well, OK...

His soul was too big for my living room, anyway...

By Admin on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 10:41 am: Edit

my mod privs could top your mod privs. *puts up fists*

By Verawench on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 10:27 am: Edit

oh, but we had fun, did we not? i encourage everyone to come, it's truly a different experience from the forum antics.

And Head, remember, I can give you something Kallisti never could... moderator priviledges ::grins::

By Verawench on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 10:11 am: Edit

"what a collection of fucking nerds"

fucking nerds that verbally - and happily - bashed you last night cause you weren't there ::blows raspberry::

Sucker.

By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 08:39 am: Edit

I woke up in the middle of the morning and threw up... NO MORE CHATROOMS FOR ME!!!

What a hangover....

By _Blackjack on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 05:46 am: Edit

Well, if you're going to be a nerd, isn't it better to be a fucking nerd, instead of one who sits at home alone...?

By Marc on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 02:49 am: Edit

what a collection of fucking nerds.

By Head_Prosthesis on Thursday, June 21, 2001 - 12:56 am: Edit

What a devil you are, VERA! YOu see what you started???

By Verawench on Wednesday, June 20, 2001 - 10:21 pm: Edit

woohoo! we have liftoff.. 6 peeps in channel already

By Verawench on Wednesday, June 20, 2001 - 09:52 pm: Edit

www.mirc.co.uk

download the software, Headbabe, and let the fun begin... the frat boys are there :P

By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, June 20, 2001 - 09:33 pm: Edit

How does that work... I still have rotary service here... Oh it's all so confusing...

By Jk_Deth on Wednesday, June 20, 2001 - 09:27 pm: Edit

Hey...he chat is OPEN come on into Vera's room!

By Verawench on Wednesday, June 20, 2001 - 09:09 pm: Edit

YAY! We have our first visitor.

Head, come on, boy... we're waiting

By Verawench on Wednesday, June 20, 2001 - 08:57 pm: Edit

On irc, connect to Dalnet ( irc.dal.net ) and type /join #LaFeeVerte or #Absintheurs

Ny nickname on irc is Derivative.

By Verawench on Wednesday, June 20, 2001 - 08:50 pm: Edit

I can register one on IRC, if anyone's interested...

By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, June 20, 2001 - 08:44 pm: Edit

Besides I'm not a very fast typer...

By Mr_Rabbit on Wednesday, June 20, 2001 - 08:42 pm: Edit

We kicked that around awhile back. Everyone kind of ended up deciding to just stay here, because we are so scattered over the globe, the times everyone in would be too different.

By Head_Prosthesis on Wednesday, June 20, 2001 - 08:39 pm: Edit

Just this one... I know, I know it's not a chat room, but you should see it some nights...

By Jk_Deth on Wednesday, June 20, 2001 - 08:36 pm: Edit

Hey, do you any of you regularly frequent chat rooms that might be absinthe related?

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation