|By Bob_chong on Monday, October 30, 2000 - 02:41 pm: Edit|
You are right on when you said:
The problem with [stealing from giant heartless corporations] is that somewhere down the chain, the little guy is getting screwed.
I'd add that a lot of little guys get screwed. David Geffen doesn't run a one-man shop, burning CDs and selling them out of the trunk of his car. Big businesses employ lots of people, all the way up and down the supply chain. Oh, yeah...the artist is included in all of this. ;-)
|By _blackjack_ on Monday, October 30, 2000 - 12:33 pm: Edit|
Incidentally, reproducing out-of-print works for personal or educational use is protected as "fair use." To what extent "personal" means "sharing with anyone who downloads Napster" has yet to be determined.
|By _blackjack_ on Monday, October 30, 2000 - 12:27 pm: Edit|
I wouldn't copy mp3's and software if they didn't call it "piracy." It just makes it sound so romantic and swashbuckling. ;)
I am ambivolent on Napster, and on the mp3 thing in general. On the one hand, it is an excellent opportunity for artists to be able to market and distribute their wares without being a slave to the record companies. But, on the other, it can, as Marc has said, deprive the artist of their royalties.
I know a lot of folks who rationalize stealing, be it as piracy or shoplifting, on the grounds that they are stealling from giant heartless corporations, that they would never steal from a small mom-and-pop. The problem with that model is that somewhere down the chain, the little guy is getting screwed, be it because the company jacks up prices to make up for theft loss or downsizes, or, in Marc's case, refuses to re-release something.
What has to happen--and what will happen--is that new models of profit and distribution are going to have to evolve. Theft was a pretty clear-cut thing when we were talking about an object than could only be possessed by one person. Now we are looking at people trying to make a living by creating things that, one made, can be reproduced instantly and distributed worldwide with almost no cost or time. The models we use today just aren't going to do. New models are starting to emerge--things like Open Source--but we are still years away from something that would be workable for things like music. I just hope the courts don't stifle the process.
So really, I just don't have an answer. I know I'm a hypocrite; I haven't paid for a piece of software in years. I don't even register my shareware.
But I think letting artists (and coders) live and eat for free would be a good idea...
|By Anatomist1 on Sunday, October 29, 2000 - 05:34 pm: Edit|
I've had a chance to log on to Napster several times now, and the reality of it may not be what you think. It is portrayed in the media as being a place where you can effortlessly download any CD you want for free, but it's a bit more complicated than that. You can only download files from currently logged on members who choose to share those files. With a popular "artist" such as Britney Spears, you might not have any trouble getting a whole CD of hers in one session, but with lesser known recordings, you might have a difficult time finding even one song, much less an entire CD.
For the sake of argument, I looked up The Nails, on 3 separate occasions, and only found "88 lines for 44 women" listed one time: no other Nails songs whatsoever. Over 11,000 users were logged on each time. At that rate, it might take me a year of nonstop searching to finally come up with a whole Nails CD. If that's the reason the record company gave for not releasing Marc's CD, they're full of shit. Even if I had no concern whatsoever about the artist's cut, working for 6 hours and paying $50 would be a much more cost-effective use of my time.
As a place for the hardcore to trade live and unreleased tracks, I still think it is one of the best things ever.
|By _blackjack_ on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 09:36 pm: Edit|
It just occured to me that the Russel quote about Liberalism never appeared... Here it is:
"The essence of the liberal outlook lies not in what opinions are held but in how they are held: instead of being held dogmatically, they are held tentatively, and with a consciousness that new evidence may at any moment lead to their abandonment. This is the way opinions are held in science, as opposed to the way in which they are held in theology."
|By _blackjack_ on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 09:31 pm: Edit|
Well, since any one-word attempt to summarize ones view of the universe is going to be innacurate to a great extent anyway, making the judgement as to what extent your audience will understand what you mean probably won't make much of a difference. The point Bertrand was making, and with which I agree, is that, though one cannot rule out the existence of gods or invisible purple unicorns or the easter bunny--since they exist outside the realm of scientifically testable phenomena--a person can be fairly confident in expressing a lack of belief in such things, for all practical purposes. It's a question of denying gods special status among all the other possible, but highly unlikely phenomena.
And I remembered the gist of the quote, but I did have to look up the phrasing. I do have the Liberalism quote memorized, because I need to use it a lot to defend my position.
|By Jkk on Saturday, October 28, 2000 - 05:13 pm: Edit|
I read the Grove Press ones. Could read the French easily if I wanted, but they are more expensive and harder to obtain. Still think his "philosophy" ridiculously simplistic and so repetitive it's like watching the same loop of film over and over again. As for the pornographic side--I can go along with rape, beatings, whippings, etc., when I'm in the mood--after all, it's only in print--but when it comes to child molestation, arson, torture, mutilation, murder and coprolagia--sorry, count me out. Also I'm not fond of the writers of the French 18th century enlightenment at all. They deny the existence of everything except the coarsest materialism. Some freedom that is! Also their vocabulary is unbelievably limited. A child can read them easily. Their whole conception of art is narrow and gray and sad. A damned good thing romanticism came along, as far as I'm concerned.
|By Anatomist1 on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 10:49 pm: Edit|
Your Russell quote was impressively pertinent. (Did you have to look it up, or was it on the tip of your brain?) While it makes a certain amount of sense, doesn't there seem to be some practical difficulty with his distinction? When someone asks you about your religious orientation, it appears you are required to discern whether they are 'ordinary' or not. In making this judgement on the basis of what is most likely slim evidence, one is setting oneself up for a most distasteful form of snobbery, I would think. I prefer to assume everyone is not of a merely 'ordinary' disposition and argue as though we were all of a similarly lofty intellectual disposition. Unfortunately, such is a tortured road...
|By Black_rabbit on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 08:24 pm: Edit|
JKK, I think you might want to re-read DeSade. The sex is just window dressing (he *was* a big ol'pervert, but he could have used anything shocking in it's place.) He really does raise good questions, on the nature of freedom, of justice, and of morality. Give him another shot. Have some saltpeter first if you must... And make sure you aren't getting one of those debased versions with all the good parts taken out (there have been several that were cut up so only the sex remained. Not that I've anything against sex and all, but they butchered his work.)
Grove press in the US puts out good ones.
|By Jkk on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 03:00 pm: Edit|
Again, no criticism of Joyce intended. He is one of my favorite writers. I didn't put him on the level of Sade at all. I was a French major and I'm damned sick of hearing the ridiculous glorifications of the marquis. He's good to beat off with when he's not too extreme, but that's all. My point was that they both--and a number of other famous writers--have an attraction to excrement. Sade at least came out and said that he adored eating it. The others half-heartedly try to hide their predilection behind a "realist" front. I wondered if this psychological aberration was connected somehow with syphilis.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 11:00 am: Edit|
I believe that this comment of mine was meant for yourself and not for Black Rabbit.
"When some nosey bureaucrat asks you what religion you are, you should tell him to f*ck off and mind his own business."
You make a good point on the agnostic/atheist thing.
However for myself atheism is about belief rather than necessary proof. I believe there is no God because the existence of God would contradict some basic principles of the philosophy of which I choose to view the world. In this context the existence of a God would not make sense, Mankind is and must be his own "God", forging his own consciousness and destiny. Therefore I am not sceptical about whether God exists or not, and therefore cannot be an agnostic.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 08:56 am: Edit|
SIH "Syphillis Is Hip." , very droll Bob.
|By Bob_chong on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 05:41 am: Edit|
There are many things for which Pound should never be forgiven...
But I wanted to address your statement from the SIH forum: "Libertarians like yourself should learn to do as you're told by those of us who know what's best for you."
That Hobgoblin wit always brightens my day. If you're going to be an authoritarian, you might as well be cynical. I like that. Keep it up!
And if Relrella is reading, I find it funny that you equate personal liberty with lawlessness.
For those debating Joyce's syphillitic views of DeSade's atheism, or whatever, I apologize for inserting this post in your thread, but the SIH forum is no place for this discussion. In fact, SIH might benefit from your discussion. "Syphillis Is Hip."
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, October 27, 2000 - 01:13 am: Edit|
Joyce did have venereal disease in his early years, but apparently recovered from it, (could have been syphilis I suppose). Not surprising really considering his usage of Parisian brothels. Although Joyce seemed to equate prostitution as a sort of manifestation of modern liberation. Many of his books, including of course Ulysees were very unfairly branded as obscene by the prudish establishment at the time and Ezra Pound should never be forgiven for his unjust criticism of Joyce's poetry.
A damn fine man in my opinion.
|By Jkk on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 06:02 pm: Edit|
Yes, James Joyce. I agree he was a genius, and Ulysses is next to Proust's A la recherche du temps perdu as the greatest novel of the 20th century for me, but he had some bizarre attraction to feces, just as Hasek--of Soldier Svejk fame--did. Since he had a number of degenerative ailments, and his daughter was insane, I've wondered if he wasn't syphilitic. Any ideas?
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 02:23 pm: Edit|
When some nosey bureaucrat asks you what religion you are, you should tell him to f*ck off and mind his own business.
Although I may be an atheist, unlike DeSade I've never despised religions. In fact I respect people who have strong convictions and beliefs, many people with strong religious beliefs fit this category.
Thanks anyway, I'll think about it.
|By Tabreaux on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 01:55 pm: Edit|
Want to see how the respective Gore and Bush tax plans affect your absinthe budget? Check out this website. Use the simple tax calculators.
|By Black_rabbit on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 01:20 pm: Edit|
LH, keep in mind if you are going to the trouble of getting a DeSade book: Icky, icky things will happen. Spankings. Murder. People eating poo-poo. People eating people. Incest. You get the idea.
He wrote that way in part for shock value, and in part because he was exploring the concept of absolute freedom (and he despised the church and it's teachings- a lot of this was just to piss them off.)
So you are definitely going to have to get past that if you are to get anything from the experience beyond an urge to say 'eeew.'
"People, who eat people, are the luckiest people in the wooorld!" - Barbara Striesand, from the unreleased album Soilent Green
|By _blackjack_ on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 01:06 pm: Edit|
When in doubt, quote Bertrand Russell:
"Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.
I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.
On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.
Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line. "
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 11:45 am: Edit|
Thanks for the advice.
Coprophilia's not my cup of tea either. Anyway even if it was a good book I don't think I could face going up to some pretty girl serving at the till of the bookshop, slapping a copy of "120 days of sodom" on the counter and saying, "I'll have this book please".
When you say Joyce, you don't mean James Joyce surely? I wouldn't exactly group him along with DeSade. Although as to whether he had the pox or not, who would know, it can happen to the best of men :-)
|By Jkk on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 10:55 am: Edit|
Make the "tropism", not "trope". Sorry.
|By Jkk on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 10:28 am: Edit|
Do not read "The 120 Days of Sodom"--the most anerotic book I can think of--unless coprophilia is your bag. By the way, has anyone ever seen research on the connection between coprophilia and syphilis? You find the same trope in Smollett, Sade, Joyce and Hasek. I'd be willing to bet that they all had the pox.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, October 26, 2000 - 10:16 am: Edit|
The only DeSade book I've seen on shelf in the UK was called 120 days of sodom. From the title I'm not sure if this book would be quite my cup of tea, (no offence intended to anyone who's cup of tea this is). Maybe I'll look for the one you suggest called Justine, at least the title doesn't put me off.
|By Bob_chong on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 09:37 pm: Edit|
You're so predictable. Thanks for avoiding it all, once again. The perfect finish.
How's your blood pressure?
|By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 08:29 pm: Edit|
You're a man of social science. I invite you to take your act out into the field. Go to a bar, get in a heated argument with a man. Make sure to call him the 'world's ultimate hypocrite', a 'thief', make fun of his name, and liken him to a tiny insect... Then, affect a touchingly conciliatory tone for the benefit of bystanders whilst simultaneously calling him a weakling, a sneak, and a little girl... Be sure and write the Forum from the hospital when you're able.
You put me in the difficult position of trying to ignore you, when ignoring you gives you an unrebutted forum to talk trash at my expense. Starting now I'm going to try harder not to give in to temptation. Hopefully, the erudite and the observant will see through you, even if they don't say so.
|By Bob_chong on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 04:43 pm: Edit|
Any Canadians reading? Tell me about Chretien. Will you wacky Cannucks punish him for calling an early election, just to spite yourselves? If so, I admire that kind of electoral cyncism.
|By Bob_chong on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 04:13 pm: Edit|
I will try the Serpis next time. You seem to be its biggest advocate, and what do I have to lose? I've been wanting to hold an absinthe tasting anyway, so I might as well round out the selection a bit.
I find sober Hobgoblin's posts to be as entertaining as drunken Hobgoblin's. Keep up the good work.
|By Bob_chong on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 03:56 pm: Edit|
How was I provoking you to violence? Give an example. My last post was quite cordial, considering.
I am glad that you will ignore me. Maybe that means you will stop talking about me behind my back (i.e., and stop acting like a pre-adolescent girl). I've actually tried a few times to make semi-nice, and have gone as far as to say that I respect your opinions and posts. But you have never once backed down from your stance against me, never once admitted you could be even slightly wrong.
What's the point of learning anything if you think you already have all the answers? The Napster debate was getting interesting, but you were never willing to budge past your rationalizations. Have you ever said the words, "I never thought of it that way," or, "maybe you're right," or, "You bring up some good points." And I don't care if you say those words to me--I don't give a shit--but you are like this in every discussion you have with others, too. The fact is, there is little evidence that you could budge on any position or even simply validate any idea that was not your own.
In regards to the insult to my profession, you couldn't even muster a "gee, I didn't realize you were passionate about your work." Instead, you continued to attack me and my work. Are you trying to save face by not backing down? Is being courteous or contrite a sign of weakness? I don't get it. You seem to profess being so enlightened, but you have never attempted to win me over...just beat me instead.
The open hand is mightier than the fist.
|By Black_rabbit on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 03:12 pm: Edit|
Any of em, really. Try the one you can find (they can be hard to come by at least in the US. Might be different in the UK.) 'Justine' is a good one.
But they pretty much all follow a standard DeSade formula- Wild sex scene, pause for the characters to wax philosophic, hot sex scene, pause for philosopy, just plain disturbing sex scene... etc, etc, etc.
Also, he takes some effort, at least on my part. The philosophic bits are somewhat repetitous.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 01:53 pm: Edit|
Black Rabbit, Bob & Anatomist,
Interesting discussion though, anyway I've had too much too drink to go on with it. You never did tell me which DeSade book I should read first.
Bob and Anatomist,
Bury the bloody hatchet, (and not in each other). Why don't the pair of you get together one evening and sink a couple of bottles of absinthe between you, this should put things in perspective.
I've had a few glasses of your favoured nectar this evening, and I can see the attraction with Segarra, that nice honey sort of taste. Still a bit too bitter for me though, although I could get use to it. Bob I don't know if you'd tried Serpis yet but if you havent then order a bottle with your next Spirits Corner order. Its the fucking business and good fucking secondary effects too.
|By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 01:43 pm: Edit|
You're such a humorless sorehead, and, ever since I criticized your profession, you have done virtually nothing but spew condemnation and epithets in my direction. Now it appears you are trying to provoke me to violence. My change in behavior came from the fact that I no longer consider you worth expending the effort of observing common courtesies. I believe I'll downgrade you to not worth paying attention to at all.
|By Bob_chong on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 12:17 pm: Edit|
Interesting analogy (though the Mets' $79M payroll doesn't exactly make them the Ramones, mind you, but I get your point).
|By Marc on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 11:56 am: Edit|
I'm a Met fan. If the Yankees were a rock band they'd be some slick corporate group like Foreigner or Journey. The Mets are The Ramones.
|By Bob_chong on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 11:43 am: Edit|
How 'bout those Mets?
I had given you guff about being a Mets fan before, but that was only because I'm a Cubs fan. Hating the Mets is hardwired in every Cubs fan's soul (since 1969).
But I am more tired of the Yankees. I'd like to see the Mets win, believe it or not.
|By Black_rabbit on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 11:31 am: Edit|
'The "Self" will be no more, we will be dead. '
That kind of depends on how you define self, and how linear your view of things is.
'In your mind it may be possible that we can both be right on this point, for me this cannot be possible. One of us must be wrong. '
Yeah- there's that whole objective reality hobgoblin again (pun intended.) Since your thinking is based on that and mine isn't... this is where we will never agree. But it is a good discussion.
I do think though that one of your assumptions is flawed: '...as this results in a phenomenum even more difficult to explain in rational terms...'
Why is it you think that all phenomena are explainable in rational terms? Since your brain is pretty definitely encoding data somehow (using a language as it were) that language will by it's very nature be unable to cope with certain things very well or at all.
|By Bob_chong on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 11:25 am: Edit|
Your post is neither a very good rationalization nor an admission of wrongdoing. (It's a variation of "if you hit me, I'll hit you back," except in this case, "I'll hit you now because you might hit me later.)
It is typically your choices and behavior I insult, and it is always when we are engaged in a dialogue. I choose not to make future predictions ("at the risk of Bob exploiting this information") in posts that have nothing to do with our conversation.
All I am asking is that you flame me in person instead of acting like a weakling by talking behind my back, as it were (i.e., in posts and threads that have nothing to do with me).
|By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 10:46 am: Edit|
Since lately your insults at me have only been lightly peppered with conversation...
|By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 10:44 am: Edit|
I am not an atheist out of a desire to get something out of it. It is possible to hold firm beliefs without having to resort to the Metaphysical. You may be surprised to learn that other belief systems have strong moral codes. As for sacred artifacts etc., these may all be very appealing but they are at best fine works of art. As for community ties, well common bonds of Humanity form the basis for the best community ties. I don't hold much store for most wise men.
(Anyway I have to cut and run as I've been told my dinner is ready, which is why this post is probably a bit disjointed.)
BTW No offence intended for any Theists reading this
|By Bob_chong on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 09:16 am: Edit|
Why must you pepper so many of your posts, regardless of the thread, with some backhanded comment about me? I am not involved in your atheism discussion, nor the discussion of your evil girlfriend (a term I use to designate that one heartbreaker we all seem to have had at one point, the girl who provides an unwelcomed awakening...), but you still conjure my name. Why must you insult me so? If we are involved in a discussion, so be it. I expect it from you. But when I post about Segarra or poetry or anything else, I don't bother to insert a "BTW--Anatomist is a poopy-head." I know this is the asbestos underwear consortium, but can't I take them off for a bit and let my doo-dads rest before they resume being kicked and flamed by you?
|By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 09:02 am: Edit|
If you are not a skeptic, then you are no friend of science. Instead, you appear to have concocted your own metaphysics of absolute certainty about things which cannot be known or proven based on who knows what. I think you need to look up basic logical fallacies and 'the problem of induction'. I only believe in what I have experienced and what can be explained to me in a way that makes sense. To go around proclaiming that vast categories of possible phenomena do not exist, of which you cannot conceive and have no means to perceive, and furthermore that you are certain of this, is sheer nonsense.
Theists at least have a tradition of belief to continue. They believe in sacred artifacts and texts that, for them, constitute a reason to believe in a deity or deities. Moreover, their belief often comes along with moral codes, wise older persons to consult with, community ties, etc... I have no idea what you get out atheism, but on the plus side, you're not nearly as vicious as Bob, the theist.
God, in the way I think you mean God, whether he/she/it exists or not, seems pretty irrelevant to my life... so far. If bushes start bursting into flames, oceans part, and booming voices start coming from the sky, I'm open to changing my mind.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 08:23 am: Edit|
If as a sceptic you argue "..it's silly to believe for certain there is no God...", then by your logic it would also be silly to believe for certain that God does exist. So on this issue you have no beliefs. Is this your position, sitting on the fence believing that neither side can be right? You end up acting as devil's advocate between 2 things that are false. A bit of a waste of time, can't think of anything sillier myself.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 08:04 am: Edit|
Anatomist and Black Rabbit.
You make the false assumption that I am a sceptic. I am not a sceptic, I am not an agnostic, I am an atheist, I have made up my mind, I do not sit on fences. Atheism is not as you put is "...unfounded certainty in the name of skepticism...". Agnosticism may well be the proper position of the sceptic, I however am not a sceptic.
Just because a phenomenum cannot be currently easily explained in rational terms doesn't mean it should be attributed to something metaphysical, as this results in a phenomenum even more difficult to explain in rational terms, (i.e the metaphysical being used to explain the original phenomenum). This is a self-defeating cop out, the excuse of a lazy man.
I see your line of reasoning, our existence does consist of a set of relationships between various bits and pieces. As a materialist however I cannot accept that any of these bits and pieces are anything other than material, physical forms. These material things will continue after our death but this will be a result of our decay as the "Self", i.e the relationships that manifest the "Self" will have broken down. The "Self" will be no more, we will be dead.
You say, "...It is perfectly possible for you to observe there is no God, and me to observe there is, and we are both right, at the same time..."
In your mind it may be possible that we can both be right on this point, for me this cannot be possible. One of us must be wrong.
I'm glad to see you don't fear death, as fear of death limits the ability to enjoy life.
BTW you still haven't told me where I should start to read DeSade.
|By Bob_chong on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 07:26 am: Edit|
Your "regarding Napster" post was excellent. You should post something similar on your website, if you haven't already. Let the people know your position on Napster.
|By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 06:58 am: Edit|
I find it interesting how ahistorical all the bellyaching about Napster is. Pop/rock musicians have enjoyed an opportunity at fame, wealth, and power that is unprecedented in the history of civilization for the past 30 years or so. Why? Technology. More specifically, because technology was at a particular stage. Before the phonograph, there was no way to record and sell music. In the last half of the 20th century, the 'recording artist' was born. This process was about the free distribution of their work via radio, coupled with the fact that the sound quality was generally low. The consumer is lured in by free introductory goodies, then required to pay for the good stuff. Now, all this is about to change. Technological evolution is leaving this condition behind, and people have to adapt. Humans have always had music. It's not going to die from technological change.
|By Black_rabbit on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 06:42 am: Edit|
People use Napster because the recording industry is corrupt and fixes prices on CDs, and because you just can't get some titles. I would love some of the Virgin Prunes older stuff, but it ain't out there.
I would rather have a system like Napster, with *reasonable* (non-fixed) prices. That would let the artist get paid, and let me get my damn Virgin Prunes. There would be *no need* for a record company there, aside from perhaps starting capitol for studio time. The artists could all own their own recordings. Advertising could be done word of mouth, and that would mean artists would try to make good music, and pre-fab boy bands might evaporate. Everybody would win there (except the boy bands, and screw em anyway.)
Of course, the big five record companies would do anything necessary to stop that from happening.
And the underlying problem with it (and the current system) is that it is easy and cheap to move data, getting easier all the time. And recordings are just data. So the ethics of the consumer must be changed. Or art must become free, and artists have another source of income.
|By Black_rabbit on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 06:28 am: Edit|
LH, actually, what I believe is not so simple. It would take awhile to write it down, so I am gonna put the cliff notes version here. If anyone wants a longer one (unlikely I know :-) I will email it to ya.)
I don't think the rules are unchangeable. In fact, I think they change for everyone constantly. Going with my observed-result-Heisenberg thing. I know my Heisenberg is sloppy- understand, I am not saying this is a specific physics thing, I use these words as shorthand to communicate the concept quickly. I think this is a basic feature of reality.
So is there a God? For me there is. There are lots of em, and I personally owe aleigance to none of them. For you, in my way of thinking, there isn't.
Gods are of the ineffable, as are such concepts of life after death, the origin of the universe, etc. I think they are unobserved (and for some, unobservable) phenomena, and as such *the observer creates the result.* Which is why they are to be called ineffable to begin with. It is perfectly possible for you to observe there is no God, and me to observe there is, and we are both right, at the same time.
As to fear of death, I don't consider my individual existence anything more than an illusion. 'I' am a set of relationships between many things. I could take any one bit of me and call it 'me' (which most folks do with their brains.) Without getting too much more long-winded, parts of me will continue, and parts won't.
So no, my belief in God is not based on fear of death, rather on the fact I decided He was there. As to why I did that... long story :-P
Hey, you asked.
|By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 04:58 am: Edit|
I think you should read more carefully. I did not say I believed in God, I said it's silly to believe for certain there is no God. Atheism is unfounded certainty in the name of skepticism. Agnosticism is the proper position of the skeptic.
|By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 04:55 am: Edit|
I spend a pretty big chunk of my meager income on music: live shows and CDs. I just got Napster, and I'm not sure exactly how I'll use it. For now my primary interest is in getting songs that I previously had no way of getting (live and unreleased recordings)... or paying $30 per CD for a bootleg, none of which would go to the band anyway. Believe me, if I'm begging to get my hands on some crappily recorded bootleg, I've done bought all there is that the artist has for sale.
I'm not much into one-hit wonders, but my feeling about them has always been: if they want me to pay, play more than one good song.
As far as my homemade compilation gift CD goes, SleaterKinney, et. al. should see that as free advertisement. It's a way of sharing music I like and paid for with others who haven't/wouldn't buy any of it, because they aren't currently aware of it. Once they hear a few thoughtfully selected songs from a band, they might just become future customers.
As far as the super-bands like U2 and Wallflowers go, they can take care of themselves OK without getting into my little wallet...
I don't understand the economics of producing CD's. I've been told that from the sticker price, something like 10% or so goes to the band, and actual material costs are less than 1%. Several of the major producers were caught price-fixing and just lost a class action suit to the tune of millions of dollars. CDs have been a corporate wet-dream and a consumer ripoff for a long time. Something like Napster was bound to come along. Now that it's here, file sharing is here to stay in one form or another. I'm sorry about your plight. If I end up downloading your CD, I'll mail you $5. As a visual artist, I have very little hope of ever making a living off of making what I want to make. If I used to be able to, and technology slapped me back to where I am now, I'd be pissed too. Nevertheless, reality is what it is: welcome to the 21st century.
|By Perruche_verte on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 04:53 am: Edit|
I had no idea it was that bad. Thanks for putting the issue in perspective.
From what you wrote, I'm assuming that someone took the records and made MP3s of all the tracks -- you need a good turntable and a DAT or CD recorder, and it'll never sound as good as a CD made from the masters, but it can be done.
Probably this person was operating on the assumption that "they're out of print anyway, man... it's not like I'm stealing or anything." And now look what happens.
Not long ago I spent a few bucks on some out of print vinyl by one of my favorite musicians. I was planning to make MP3s of it for my own use -- the one aspect of digital I really like is its relative permanence. Then a demon whispered in my ear and I thought, hmmm, maybe I'll put them up on a fan site somewhere... I never got around to making the files. Since then I heard one of the records is coming out on CD. Now I can't believe I was so stupid as to think I was doing anyone any good whatsoever.
Won't RCA just sell you the masters?
|By Absinthedrinker on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 04:48 am: Edit|
You mean you didn't know about Marc? Those with the dark gift only go to sleep at sunrise...
|By Canute on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 04:43 am: Edit|
Oi Anatomist -
This Ayahuasca vine stuff.
Does it get you wasted?
D'Y'Know where I can get hold of any seeds?
|By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 02:55 am: Edit|
Do you ever sleep? It's 11am in London now so I guess it must be about 4am in New York.
|By Marc on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 01:51 am: Edit|
My band, The Nails, released two albums on RCA records in the mid-80s. Their combined sales were approx. 200,000 copies. Not enough to recoup the cost of recording, promoting and distributing the albums. Over the course of the past 15 years both albums have become highly sought out collectors items, selling for about $50 each. So at a time when everything is being re-released on cd and there is a demand for Nails music on cd, why hasn't RCA made The Nails music available on cd?
Because of fucking Napster, that's why! The content of both of my RCA records is available for free via Napster. There is no compelling reason for RCA to re-release my music on cd. It's in the public domain. Suddenly my copywright and publishing rights on my music mean shit. I no longer own my creations. The artist is fucked once again. Napster is anti-art. It diminishes the value of an artist's worth. It says art has no value. Napster is Jesse Helms. Anatomist, shame on you. In your zeal to cop free music, you are devaluing the very thing you say you love.
Yes, art belongs to the people, but, the people should honor their artists by supporting them, not by stealing from them.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 01:45 am: Edit|
I find it odd when people seem to view it acceptable to give away someone elses music for free, when they wouldn't find it acceptable to go into someone's home, take their stuff and give it away. People believe this because it suits them to do so, rather than spend their own money on CDs, it is a way of justifing their own unscrupulous actions.
"...When artists get to live and work for free, then we can make art free..."
Good point PV, well said.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 01:34 am: Edit|
Black Rabbit and Anatomist,
Black Rabbit, you say,
"...Kind of like a kid given candy once, and only once in his whole life (just to show him what he was missing.) Like building sand castles with the tide coming in- but you will be washed away with your castle, never to build another..."
So Black Rabbit like so many believers your belief in God is as a result of your failure to come to terms with your own mortality. Every second that goes by you are one step closer to your death.
Anatomist, you say,
"...The position that God absolutely does not exist is pure frivolity, especially when you are confronted by inexplicable wonders at every turn...."
Anatomist, so your belief in God is an attempt to explain the things that cannot as yet be easily explained, understandable. To Ancient Man the Moon was inexplicable, so he decided it was a God, who could blame him as there was no other practical explanation available. Just because things cannot be properly explained in material terms at this moment in time, doesn't mean this will always be the case.
Belief in God is certainly more romantic than not believing, but I suppose the idea of the Moon and the Stars being Gods is also very romantic.
BTW Black Rabbit, maybe I should read DeSade. What do you suggest I start with?
|By Bob_chong on Wednesday, October 25, 2000 - 12:21 am: Edit|
I'm not a bitter person. I just play one on TV.
|By Chrysippvs on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 11:30 pm: Edit|
that is classic...Bobsinthe..it wonder if it is a bitter as bob C?
|By Bob_chong on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 11:16 pm: Edit|
Check it out. From Peter.
|By Bob_chong on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 11:12 pm: Edit|
Have you replaced Donahue? Like him, you love to hear yourself speak. Prattle on.
And I forgot--in Anatomistland, honesty is condemned as "haughty self-righteousness."
Keeping with tradition, the best questions (i.e., in this case, PV's) go ignored. Better to insult Bob than answer the questions. Nice work. You'd make an excellent legislator.
|By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 11:03 pm: Edit|
As usual, Bob assumes too much. As far as my word goes, I'm much more likely to back up what I say with what I do than most anyone I've ever met. I don't see what this has to do with one's position on abstract issues of intellectual property rights. Everyone has differing ideas about what they would do as an individual in a particular situation, and what they would advocate as a policy for all of society.
I love the musicians in my life way more than Bob loves all his maxims, unbendable rules, and haughty self-righteousness... rest assured that I'll do my part to keep them from starving. Hell, I'd give Beth a kidney if she needed it.
|By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 10:51 pm: Edit|
I know there are multifarious ways in which music trading can seem unfair. However, if I had as much money and recognition as Bono or Lars Ulrich, I would find it hard to complain. Can anyone point out an artist who is the toast of the nation via Napster who hasn't sold many albums and lives in a homeless shelter?
Regardless of the objections, powerful computer technology has caused a leap in cultural evolution that we can't really understand yet. I recently read quotes by a tech-head who proclaimed that every piece of music ever recorded will be available through on-demand streaming online audio within 10 to 20 years, which will make the idea of copy ownership itself irrelevant. Right now we're on the cusp of a new situation, so people are squeamish. However, just like prohibitions on genetic engineering, such concerns will eventually seem quaint and antiquated. People want what they want -- reasoned concerns about the common good will always come in a distant second.
|By Bob_chong on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 10:45 pm: Edit|
Don't worry, Justin (re: "warped sense of ethics"). As a guy who sells Deva for $120/bottle, you're not in any danger of having your ethics questioned.
|By Bob_chong on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 10:43 pm: Edit|
But you are a thief. "I won't have any problem downloading the new U2...I paid U2 nearly $50 the last time they came to town." These two things are unrelated. The $50 ticket to a U2 concert was the going rate for said event. You paid it, and it entitled you to see one concert. The contract was completed. The world does not owe you anything more, and neither does U2. If you want their new album, the going rate can be found at your favorite retailer.
And whether someone is in "financial trouble" or not is besides the point. You are not Robin Hood--just a hoodlum. The again, you have professed a love of anarchy, so maybe ignoring contracts is your m.o. Your word, therefore, is shit, because you choose to rationalize your illegal activity to fit your whims.
|By Perruche_verte on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 10:35 pm: Edit|
I am told there are traditional cultures in which the song belongs to the person who first sings it, not the person who wrote it. However, with a sound recording that is not the issue.
The best answer I can come up with is that it depends on the artist. There are many musicians who own their own masters and want (some of) their tracks to be traded online to help promote them. There are a few rich rock stars like Metallica who feel they're losing a lot of income from Napster and want it stopped.
Then there are musicians like Marc, who is probably somewhere in the middle.
The problem with Napster is that it takes the decision out of the artist's hands. It encourages people to think that we don't need to pay for music. This is not good for people who make music for a living. Anatomist, what if someone had the ability, without your knowledge or consent, to make perfect casts of your sculptures and give them away to his friends? What if they started showing up in the lobbies of office buildings?
I generally have a dim view of "property rights", but art isn't free. When artists get to live and work for free, then we can make art free.
|By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 10:30 pm: Edit|
I don't think of Napster so much as a way to download CDs instead of buying them. Rather, I think of it as an unprecedented opportunity to get recordings that were previously unavailable. If the same recording isn't actually available for sale, what's the problem?
I just gave a CD of live Beth Orton songs to a friend at work (mostly from Sessions at West 54th). He had never heard of Beth Orton before. Due to the fact that she has the most irresistibly angelic voice I've ever heard, I'd lay odds that he's about a million times more likely to buy one of her commercial recordings now. Where's the theft?
I'll buy anything Ryan Adams puts out the day it hits the selves, and I have. Plus, I drove over a total of 300 miles, much of it through heavy Chicago traffic, to watch him play live. Yet, I just downloaded two CD's worth of live and unreleased tracks from Napster. I would hardly characterize my disposition as that of a thief.
On the other hand, I won't have any problem downloading the new U2 or Bloodflowers. I paid U2 nearly $50 the last time they came to town, and I don't think Jacob Dylan is exaclty in financial trouble... Maybe if I hadn't seen him preening and lip-synching for the video director's camera the other day...
|By Chrysippvs on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 10:18 pm: Edit|
I feel that once anything becomes information in an electronic format it has one option, to be free. This applies to music, TV, books, the dead sea scrolls, everything. However I also beleive if you can charge someone for it, and they are willing to pay for it..just as well. I think they are both equally valid. I am in the middle..I use Napster but I also buy CD's that I think are worth the money, for instance I have never gotten a classical piece from Napster...
I am sure it is just some warped sense of ethics, but that is where I stand...
|By Bob_chong on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 10:09 pm: Edit|
Marc is correct. Of course, there are some interesting socialist arguments (or rationalizations) against intellectual property rights. Maybe Anatomist is one such socialist and not just a song-stealing weasel. Maybe he'll burn a few Nails' mp3s on the free CDs as well...
|By Marc on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 09:37 pm: Edit|
Napster is theft!
|By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 09:08 pm: Edit|
Atheism, in my estimation is the silliest thing since the Pet Rock. Of course, most religions have got it wrong, of course skepticism tells you to be doubtful, but skepticism doesn't tell you to believe that things don't exist... it only leads to doubt. The position that God absolutely does not exist is pure frivolity, especially when you are confronted by inexplicable wonders at every turn. When just looking at something or hearing something can transport you into some incomprehensible plane of bliss, it seems a bit jumpy to go out proclaiming various nonexistences.
There are so many experiences of music alone that make me eternally thankful for my brief existence, that I can't help but think that even my possibly untimely, abrupt death one minute from now would be nothing but a slightly abbreviated miracle.
If anyone wants some music, just email me and I'll send you a CD or two. I just got a CD recorder and Napster and I'm overrun with shareable music at a laughably low cost. I put together a little
CD with a mix of post-fem-punk, alt-country and an E. Gorey cover, available for free, immediate export. I can't promise you'll feel what I feel, but you haven't much to lose, especially if you're raging against a deaf and angry God....
|By Black_rabbit on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 05:25 pm: Edit|
LH, you might want to read DeSade. Once you get past the violent sex and the repetitous way he makes his points, you find some very interesting ideas.
What you just said could have come from his pen. He does rage at God, but only insofar as it is a way to rage at religion (he doesn't believe in the existence of God, at least didn't in most of his books.)
And I quite agree with you there- raging at God is pointless. It is the nature of freedom that one is responsible for one's own actions. To rage at anybody but Man for Man's problems is like getting mad at a hammer when you hit your thumb.
As far as a world with nothing eternal being a horrid joke- I was mainly doing that to get a response (from an atheistic point of view) as to why it isn't.
But just to continue it, because in the end it all comes to naught, yet here we are, capable of perceiving the fact and dreaming of something more. Kind of like a kid given candy once, and only once in his whole life (just to show him what he was missing.) Like building sand castles with the tide coming in- but you will be washed away with your castle, never to build another.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 12:32 pm: Edit|
Why is a world with nothing eternal a horrid joke?
Why do we need a God to rage at?
If we get fullfilment from whatever we do then why do we need a God. We should do things for ourselves and our fellow man, not for any God.
Raging at a God is a waste of time, if all that is wrong, (and right) in the world is as a result of Man's actions then rage at Man. Man raging at (or worshiping) a God is Man shirking his responsibility and passing the buck. If you need a "God" to worship, choose Mankind.
(BTW I've never read De Sade)
Nice to have you on board, nice profile.
|By Black_rabbit on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 12:16 pm: Edit|
Anatomist, actually, I was talking out my ass on that one.
I don't believe in objective meaning- I think that is something you have to make for yourself if you need it. And Transcendance (methinks) is to be found anywhere at all- if you know how to.
I was trying (inarticulately) to get the atheists present to come back with a counter to the whole 'look on my works ye mighty and despair' aspect of my post. But you beat em to it.
Though on the subject of eastern religions, aside from Zen (and even then it depends on the sect) most of them *do* have great big non-material components. Like the wheel of birth and death and rebirth, nirvana, etc...
|By Canute on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 12:00 pm: Edit|
And the Lord said "GO FORTH AND SKANK", (1st Book of Rude, Verse 1)
|By Anatomist1 on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 10:33 am: Edit|
"in a world without possibilites beyond the material... well, the accomplishments of the entire race of man come from nothing, and go to nothing. A world with nothing eternal- in a big picture way, IMO at least, is a horrid joke."
I think this is a bit melodramatic. Instead of looking beyond, look IN. Transcendence is available without resort to the type external, non-material eternal you seem to be referring to. Look into eastern religions, fly down to South America and munch on an Ayahuasca vine, become a gormet cook, a rock musician, or an artist. Not everything works for everyone, but if you're open enough and look hard enough, I think you can find transcendence without resorting to the effervescent ether. Personally, I spend a large portion of my time in the immaterial world of musical reverie.
Or, if you really want to work for a meaningful, eternal future for mankind, work towards space-colonization. If it weren't for the prominence of greed, hatred, shallowness, and short-term quarterly thinking, we could be working on some of the first underwater settlements right now. These would be testing grounds for self-contained habitat technologies and strategies -- they could actually be profitable or break even, as their purpose would be harvesting undersea resources. Eventually, these technologies could be added to space technologies to build the first orbital habitats -- which would be factories to build traveling deep space habitats. Send enough of these in enough different directions, and humanity could have a good shot at an indefinitely long future.
|By Black_rabbit on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 09:58 am: Edit|
LH, actually, I don't attribute the accomplishments (or failures) of Man to any etherial being. Mind you, I think there are quite a few of them out there, but Man's actions are his own. I don't think credit or blame could be applied to those beings any more than someone could blame me for a beaver dam or an anthill.
What I mean is that, in a world without possibilites beyond the material... well, the accomplishments of the entire race of man come from nothing, and go to nothing. A world with nothing eternal- in a big picture way, IMO at least, is a horrid joke. And you wouldn't even have a God to rage at!
Ever read DeSade?
|By Midas on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 08:35 am: Edit|
"In Ancient Rome,
There was a poem,
About a dog,
Who found two bones.
He picked up one,
And licked the other,
He ran in circles,
And he dropped dead..."
-Blatant Devo Quote Of The Day.
Aparrently when they were shooting the "It's a Beautiful World" clip, Elton John was in the next studio, and at one point, he came in, laughed at them, and left. Isn't that nice.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 08:17 am: Edit|
As refreshing as a ice-cool glass of Deva on warm summer's afternoon.
Glad to be of service.
|By Bob_chong on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 08:17 am: Edit|
Your statement, "a collection of this and that, come together by chance", reminds me of the disingenuous but humorous statement that is supposed to point out the fallacy of evolution:
"if you leave a bunch of sheet metal in a field lying around long enough, it will become an airplane?"
I am also reminded of the Devo lyric: "God made man, but the monkeys applied the glue." Not sure how that fits in...just wanted to throw out some Devo lyrics, I guess.
|By Bob_chong on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 08:10 am: Edit|
Your hubris is refreshing.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 08:06 am: Edit|
I would say to you that atheism does not make mean that "...Meaning itself becomes meaningless...", nor does it take anything away from "...the writings of the wise...". Atheism in fact raises the worth of all that has been achieved by man.
It gives mankind true recognition for all that he has achieved. Mankind has achieved all this greatness through "him/herself" alone and not with the external aid or inspiration from some mysterious God. Mankind forges its own humanity, consciousness and destiny by its own actions.
We should bask in the glory of our own self-created humanity, not pass the credit on to some ethereal being.
|By Black_rabbit on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 07:38 am: Edit|
I'll give it a kick in the ass (or try.)
I don't think atheism (or any point of view) is silly. Instead, I try to take what I can from all that I encounter and keep finding more.
I am not an atheist (though I was briefly), but there is a certain beauty in the idea of brief, snuffed existence with an idiot mechanistic universe as a backdrop. Very HP Lovecraft in it's way, to consider oneself a collection of this and that, come together by chance and doomed to oblivion by entropy. Meaning itself becomes meaningless, the writings of the wise so many random scratches made by the twitching of nerves and flesh. Everything you ever say is equivalent to a phonograph playing in a desert, with no one there to hear it.
But it seems too limited to me.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 02:18 am: Edit|
It seems as if everyone's either gone off to lick their wounds or to sit in a darkened room, to sulk and feel sorry for themselves :-(
Bunch of sad wankers.
Boo Hoo Boo Hoo
|By Bob_chong on Tuesday, October 24, 2000 - 12:40 am: Edit|
I haven't been around that long...but long enough to see the sugar cube discussion get trotted out several times over. Is the Keyword Search link on the nav bar so hard to find?
|By Marc on Monday, October 23, 2000 - 10:19 pm: Edit|
There's more action in the sugar cube and segarra forum than there is here. Have we all run out of things to say? Is this the moment of embarrassing silence before we shake hands and say goodbye?
Comeon you fuckers, let's kick out the jams! Rock and roll! Shake yer bootie! Push push in the bush!
Gabba gabba hey!
|By Don_walsh on Saturday, October 21, 2000 - 11:46 am: Edit|
Rather the point of both 6x7 and 6x4.5 is that they conform to standard paper sizes when enlarged while 6x6 musy be cropped. While my inclination is to 6x7, 6x4.5 does give quite a few more exposures per roll. Hence some popularity with wedding photographers, although I am certainly not one of those. Also they seem to appeal to a lot of wildlife photographers, as they are smaller/handier than 6x6/6x7.
This dilemna and the price of lenses kept me in 35mm
I have done considerable business with Stephen Gandy of Cameraquest.com -- beware of him and his endless supply of rare US Navy Nikons. Also, much more succesfully, with Mike & Dale at PacRim, who are nice guys.
I sort of specialized in collecting rare Nikon flashes and strobes and the even more rare batteries for them, and for the motor drives.
|By Anatomist1 on Saturday, October 21, 2000 - 10:37 am: Edit|
I learned most of what I know about cameras on the web. The amount of information put out in the last couple of years is extensive. http://cameraquest.com alone is an education. There are profiles of hundreds of Nikons, Bronicas, Leicas, etc.. in the classic camera profiles section. Another site with loads of historical info is http://www.pacificrimcamera.com
. From my research, the Bronica EC/S2A (http://cameraquest.com/bron3c.htm) is the cheapest, most elaborate 6x6 system with the sharpest lenses (mostly Nikkors) at this time. You can get an EC body with WL finder, 2 camera backs, a wide lens, a normal lens, and a telephoto lens, all for about $1500-2000. (This assumes you're comfortable with a seperate meter). Why wait? Manuals are available online, and I found a place in NYC that does repairs with an extensive stock of obscure replacement parts.
I don't really see the point of 6x4.5, unless you're buying a rangefinder... too small a negative. I haven't looked into 6x7's and larger, though.
|By Don_walsh on Saturday, October 21, 2000 - 06:25 am: Edit|
Anatomist, part of the reason I didn't indulge myself in medium format after the TLR c.1973-4 was that my eyes got messed up, and then I got some surgery in '96 that straightened that out enough -- and I had more than 2 decades of catchup to do about camera technology. Nikon SLRs were easy to learn about, whereas I was befuddled by all the models and variants and accessories for Pentax 67, Mamiya RB/RZ, Bronica, etc., plus the 6x4.5 stuff which format was totally new to me. I couldn't find much in the way of resources to unbefuddle me, here in Bangkok, so I opted for the 35mm, and taught myself the Nikon System. I ended up with half a dozen F's, same number of F2s, a couple F3s, a pair of FA's (nice camera!), a FM2, a FM, a N90 autofocus, and lenses and accessories from photomicrography to 500mm, motor drives and bulk backs up the kazoo. It was a real money pit. Maybe $30,000.
Anyway I have liquidated all but maybe 25% to partially finance the absinthe distillery and the last stuff will go as well.
Maybe later I will get back in, this time in 120/220 where I like it. Did I mention I ran a little custom B&W lab about 3 decades ago? But I haven't smelled any developer in all the time since.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, October 21, 2000 - 03:53 am: Edit|
Is it true that Trainspotting had to be sub-titled in the USA because of the strong Scottish accents? Somebody told me this once, I thought he was talking bullshit.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, October 21, 2000 - 03:50 am: Edit|
I must get hold of it, is it new or is it possible to get it on video? Trainspotting in my mind was a classic, up there with Pulp Fiction.
|By Marc on Saturday, October 21, 2000 - 03:43 am: Edit|
Trainspotting spotted my brain. I dug it. Ewan McGregor has gone downhill ever since. You'll dig Requiem.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, October 21, 2000 - 03:33 am: Edit|
Not being a film buff I know sod all about movies but Requiem For A Dream sounds like a good movie. I'd be interested to know how you rated Train Spotting? I really enjoyed it in a disturbing sort of way.
As to cameras I use a modern Nikon F801, it's flexible, adaptable and easy to use. Bronicas, Hasselblads and stuff like that scare me.
|By Marc on Saturday, October 21, 2000 - 01:05 am: Edit|
I admit to knowing almost nothing about what most of you cats are talking about. At least when you're talking that science shit.
I got a nice old 8mm Bolex movie camera.
I went to see a dark and deeply disturbing movie about junkies tonight. REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, directed by Darren Aronofsky, is a grueling and lurid look at the hellish world of drug addiction. The message is nothing new, but, the visual skill with which Aronofsky tells his story
is stunning. Using slo-mo, jump cuts, over-cranking, split-screen, timelapse, over exposure and just about every other cinematic trick in the book, Aronofsky has made a movie that is unrelentingly intense and at times visionary. REQUIEM FOR A DREAM is a minor masterpiece of cinematic mindfucking. Put it on the same shelf as ERASERHEAD, EVIL DEAD TRAP, THE BAD LIEUTENANT,
EL TOPO, BLUE VELVET, TETSUO, TALES OF THE GIMLI HOSPITAL and Stan Brakhage's SEEING ONESELF WITH ONE'S OWN EYES. Go see it. It's a genuine brain
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, October 21, 2000 - 12:31 am: Edit|
Naturally the fact that you consider yourself an artist means that what you do is more worthy and meaningful than what is done by the rest of humanity, (who by and large are a bunch of ignorant, uninspired philistines).
But wait - "..Sure, there are plenty of things about analyzing statistical curves in double-blind behavioral studies I don't know,.."
Wow, can this be true, the great Anatomist admiting that there is something he doesn't know.
|By Anatomist1 on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 10:50 pm: Edit|
I didn't know you were a fellow photo geek. I just got this near-mint Bronica EC, blackened chrome, with an 80mm/f2.4 Zenzanon lens. As soon as I can get my hands on them, I'll have a Nikkor 40/4 and a Nikkor 150/3.5. Coming from Nikon 35mm slr's and screw-mount rangefinders, I find this thing to be quite a beast. When it comes to medium format, I feel an SLR is necessary. If I'm going to all that trouble to screw around with tripods, spot meters and cable releases, I damn well want to know exactly what's in the frame. I'm looking forward to having nearly four times the info on my negative, and I'm heading down through Texas and New Mexico next month, so this is just the gizmo I need. I agree that Hasselblads aren't worth the money. I'm getting 90% of the camera at around 20% of the price.
|By Don_walsh on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 09:05 pm: Edit|
Hey, Anatomist take 6xsomething pics, that's a plus for him in my book. I used to use a YashicaMat 124G umpty-umpt years ago, and always had medium format SLR envy. Much more recently I collected Nikon 35mm, but still really like 6x7 better. So which Bronica is it? And screw the 'Blads. (Though Luger will doubtless take offense...)
|By Anatomist1 on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 06:50 pm: Edit|
You wouldn't know a savoy truffle if it bit you in the ass. Marc has finally gotten through to me. I can no longer justify wasting my time talking to drab, defensive little men who love nothing more than putting things in little boxes. I think I'll have another glass of Deva and go out into the night with my Bronica.
|By Marc on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 05:59 pm: Edit|
Ram Dass is certainly not tortured. According to his new book, he seems happier than ever. He's a good man. Bob, you should be so happy.
|By Anatomist1 on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 05:38 pm: Edit|
Who said I was talking about drugs?
|By Bob_chong on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 05:19 pm: Edit|
Thanks for the Timothy Leary pitch, Gnat.
I have tasted the savoy truffle. I was the savoy truffle. But unlike you, I decided it wasn't a place to arrest my development. I have moved on. You are basically a Deadhead who showers, sans the Jerry. Take your tortured artist Ram Dass shit and make it into a blotter sheet.
|By Anatomist1 on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 04:51 pm: Edit|
Man. If questionnaire-pushing social scientists are the grand culmination of thousands of years of civilized human achievement, I'm packing up firearms, tools, dog, and heading for the Yukon. I have no problem acknowledging the worth of specialists, so long as their doing something besides taking up office space and lining up at the universities' funding troughs. I have a lot of respect for auto mechanics, for instance.
Of course, you don't believe in people coming together for the common good, but I say get all those eggheads off their asses to do something useful, like work towards space-colonization. We're gonna need a shitload of overeducated researchers to accomplish that, and when we're done, we'll have a proliferation of countless possible futures, instead of a pile of papers full of irrelevant statistics that almost nobody reads.
You and Lord H. are trying so hard to make me into a good boy, but it will never work. My drive to remain a curmudgeonly lunatic is stronger than you can possibly imagine. Sure, there are plenty of things about analyzing statistical curves in double-blind behavioral studies I don't know, but there are a few things about inspired madness that you don't know... namely that beauty is terror. Once you've been annointed, once you've felt your individuality sink down into a vast psychedelic canvas of spiraling multi-dimensional passion and disappear, only to snap back and find yourself peering out of fragile bag of flesh in a small wooden structure, inexplicably plastered to the planet by a mysterious and insurmountable force, only then will you realize that... wait, I forgot what the point was. Oh yeah, once you've tasted the savoy truffle, the fluorescent world of desks and pencil-pushing seem like nothing but a graveyard without the atmosphere.
Unlike Marc, I find life often boring. Hence, I drink, I kick and pull and prod at people to try to find something interesting. Hence, I sweat and toil in dank, toxic places to create artifacts about plunging into an understanding essence of biological structures. I like to work until my brain adapts to a new rythym, until the squeals of power tools and Tony Iommi's overamped guitar notes feel like shards of steel piercing my skull. I like to work until my sense receptors and cerebellum are engorged and pulsating, rubbed raw and exquisitely sensitive, and the speech center shuts down, and I stagger out onto the street abjectly filthy and unable to engage in the simplest verbal exchange... transformed, exhausted, and utterly alive.
In fact, the only reason I spend so much time arguing with you weenies is that I currently have no studio space.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 02:33 pm: Edit|
Believe me, my post was not directed at you, I have cocked things up in a haze of confusion. I've no problem at all with you Bob, never have had a problem with you.
I don't find you at all arrogant. You have no need to justify your work to anyone.
Take pride in what you do and fuck the rest of them, what do they know? You've never insulted me or my opinions or beliefs so I wouldn't want to insult you.
Manners is a virtue ignored by many on this forum but not yourself. Despite you being a "libertarian" I agree with a great deal of what you say.
The post wasn't intended for you Bob, I cannot stress this enough.
|By Bob_chong on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 01:14 pm: Edit|
You wrote, "Why are you so upset about people shitting on your work/discipline when you don't seem to mind people shitting on your opinions?
Some people regard their opinions and beliefs as more personal and sacred than their work disciplines yet you seem to think shitting on these is fair game." This was directed at me.
Everyone has ownership in their opinions and beliefs. My opinions are my own (and they may even change over time), but I accept that others have theirs, too. Fine. That can make for good conversation. But when someone calls my field of work quackery, like the (a)Gnat(omist), I am surprised. He has insulted thousands of years of human effort (e.g., the Ancient Greeks invented lecturing, among other instructional methods), and he isn't just insulting me anymore. As an educator, I am fighting ignornace, like that found in the Gnat. I don't have to justify my work to him, but I do need to point out that he is ignorant.
|By Bob_chong on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 12:55 pm: Edit|
Seriously, why is it so hard for you to accept that others have areas of expertise that exceed your own limited knowledge in these areas? Typical liberal--has already decided which professions are worthy in his new world order. All you know how to do is deflect or attack while avoiding the questions.
|By Anatomist1 on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 12:35 pm: Edit|
I'll see DANCER if you buy FAITHLESS STREET, by Whiskeytown.
|By Anatomist1 on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 12:33 pm: Edit|
Aha! So Chong the populist emerges. I assure you we always drank the proper wine with our caviar. Fortunately for me, I quit philosophy at the BA level and avoided becoming a permanent bore. As for now, I'm an artist, which means I've got an unlimited pass to do whatever the fuck I want... except conjure money out of thin air, unfortunately. Someday, you will proudly tell your children that Wilbanks, the Great Anatomist took time out of his busy schedule of revolutionizing world consciousness to tutor you in the fine art of cantankerous philosophy. Until then, yip away.
|By Bob_chong on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 11:45 am: Edit|
Before you criticize education, how about a little disclosure? It's one thing to throw around some pithy Zen quotes, but it's quite another to explain how you dropped out of h.s. to go to some artsy-fartsy college for kids who have been told they are too smart for the rest of the world.
|By Marc on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 11:35 am: Edit|
Yes, ALMOST FAMOUS was terrific. Kate Hudson is the flower child of my dreams.
There's a fine new biography of Lester Bangs
called LET IT BLURT.
Have you seen DANCER IN THE DARK?
|By Bob_chong on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 11:29 am: Edit|
I guess the thing that amazes me most is that you dismiss people and things out of hand (people and things that you know little or nothing about). Why is it so hard for you to accept that someone might actually be an expert at something that you're not? Why do you have to claim to be an expert about everything under the sun?
You're not that clever.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 10:53 am: Edit|
Come back and join us on the thread.
I'll supply the "Bad vibes",
Bob can supply the "Low Humour"
and who else to supply the "High Testosterone" other than Marc (La Baguette) Campbell.
Teamwork Marc, how about it?
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 10:47 am: Edit|
If I've mixed up Bob and your posts then you have my apologies.
Don't wait to long to give the atheists on the thread a run for our money.
You're wrong in the main about education today though. A lot has changed since I, (and probably yourself) was forced to learn in an instrumental fashion several decades ago. Educational constructivist ideas have helped change the approach, and more teaching is now based on relational understanding and involves open-ended investigations in all subjects.
Personally I'm involved in teaching at a primary school level, (ages 4 to 11) at a UK state, (i.e. not private) school so I can't comment on teaching methods in the USA. All I know is that the emphasis from the majority of teachers today is to encourage children to learn to think for themselves. Things do need improvement but they are getting better.
There are however pressures for children to achieve high examination results and this in my opinion actually stifles learning, and can harm self-development. But this is an unfortunate pressure of the society we live in with it's increasing competitiveness and is not the fault of those involved in education. Another item I personally have issue with is the inclusion of a religious/spritual aspect, (although it is a cross-denominational approach and not a Christian based approach), again our esteemed politicians have decided to include this in our curriculum. However for me to impose my value system on pupils of such an age would be arrogant, irresponsible and probably harmful. Let them work out their own values and view-points, (children are more sophisticated at this than most people give them credit for).
This is just a long way of saying that not all teachers are involved in indoctrination or brain-washing. I wouldn't being doing the job if I was expected to do this.
|By Anatomist1 on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 09:52 am: Edit|
If I'm so ordinary, how come I'm not enjoying any of the benefits of ordinariness? I want my money back. And why are you so ordinariphobic?
I finally saw Almost Famous last night. It was excellent. I couldn't help thinking of you when the guitarist was standing on the roof, shouting "I am a Golden God!"
|By Anatomist1 on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 09:48 am: Edit|
"In the mind of the beginner the possibilities are many.
In the mind of the expert the possibilities are few."
Education is another word for indoctrination. I've studied about the Hawthorne Effect, statistical analysis and all that crap... you can have it. I come from philosophically minded generalist's position -- call it a layman's if you will. The bias I had in mind is of a more basic nature than all that specialized technical junk you're tangled up in. All the disciplines you mentioned would be much improved if they stopped trying so hard to be objective by mimicing hard science. Y'all should do similar research and write novels and travelogues in the first person. The fact that you're such a hothead about this belies you harbor the same uncertainties... albiet deeply buried under layers of training. Free your mind.
As far as cutting up art as a profession, I'll help -- merrily.
I think you need to go back and reread, you're getting Bob's and my posts mixed up. Atheism will have to wait yet again.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 05:40 am: Edit|
"..bad vibes, low humor and high testosterone.."
Nice name for the thread, it's catchier than The Asbestos Underwear Consortium.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 05:36 am: Edit|
My Urban Guerillas will be ready and waiting.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 05:33 am: Edit|
My Urban Guerillas will be ready and waiting.
|By Don_walsh on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 04:16 am: Edit|
I'd send SEAL Team 6, or the 22nd SAS, whichever was available.
|By Marc on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 01:53 am: Edit|
Well, so much for "loving spirit of cooperation,
mutual respect and agreement". This is just another thread devoted to "bad vibes, low humor and high testosterone". Lord, this forum needs the presence of some women. I'm getting jock itch just hanging out here. You guys can continue your little rondelay of irrelevent political and sociological diatribes, but, despite all your pretense and melodrama, you're boring, ordinary and pathetic.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 01:22 am: Edit|
Why are you so upset about people shitting on your work/discipline when you don't seem to mind people shitting on your opinions?
Some people regard their opinions and beliefs as more personal and sacred than their work disciplines yet you seem to think shitting on these is fair game.
(PS perhaps we should re-name this thread as "The asbestos underwear consortium, except when it comes to Anatomist's work discipline" ?)
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 01:11 am: Edit|
Cut the crap and give us your "..sermon on the silliness of atheism.."
Perhaps you'll delight us with a follow up sermon on the metaphysical importance of the Old Hag, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. You'll perhaps even post some photos of your pet Unicorns.
|By Bob_chong on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 01:02 am: Edit|
I just thought your reaction to your second quiz results was humorous. You were proud of being an authoritarian (surely a loaded connotation if there ever was one).
Off to the salt mines and the Anatomist-run, Pol-Pot style re-education camps...
Anatomist, here's a message for you: black.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 01:02 am: Edit|
Greetings, good to see another Comrade on the forum, that's at least 3 of us now.
As for liberals "..scratch a liberal and you'll find a reactionary underneath..".
|By Lordhobgoblin on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 12:57 am: Edit|
"So, basically, you believe that individuals are completely incapable of doing anything for
themselves, economically or personally (well, you do allow personal sel-gov't 40% of the time)? "
Too damned right Bob, you'll do as I say or it's down the fu..ing salt mines for you!
(PS Just in case Don sends a unit of the Green Berets after me, this is a joke, sort of)
|By Bob_chong on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 12:40 am: Edit|
BTW--by calling all of social science quackery, you have disdained dozens of disciplines, from Anthropology to Geography.
Where were you when you first found out your shit doesn't stink?
|By Bob_chong on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 12:33 am: Edit|
Say what you want about the quiz and my opinions, but don't shit on my work/discipline. I have refrained from shitting on yours (and could do so easily).
Anyway, your narrow-mindedness never ceases to amaze me. You are a pathological idiot. I guess it isn't science unless one is wearing a labcoat and safety goggles? Look up the root, you fuck.
Your knowledge of inquiry methodology is nil. Prove otherwise, and your opinions on such concepts as "bias" and so forth will transcend your layman's use and be worth discussing. Until then, you have only illustrated, once again, that you are a poser. Better yet, you are an artist.
|By Anatomist1 on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 12:18 am: Edit|
I wouldn't consider myself a liberal at all. When I think of liberals, I think of Tom Harkin. I wouldn't bother walking across the street to piss on Tom Harkin. If I thought it was worth the trouble I would be a radical. As it is I'm merely disillusioned and apathetic, with occasional fits of anger.
|By Anatomist1 on Friday, October 20, 2000 - 12:09 am: Edit|
Thank you, PV. Your critique of the reductionism in the quiz is spot on. The idea that the quiz is unbiased is absolutely absurd. Any such quiz is rife with assumptions, most importantly the kind of which you speak: the assumption that the quizee is thinking along the same lines and has a non-complex answer that fits into a yes, no, or maybe category. Since the quiz is conjoined with a link to libertarian propaganda, of course it has a libertarian bias. Their whole redux of political ideologies and graphic representation layout is cast in libertarian terms. But, Bob probably has a much more lenient definition of bias than I do, as I think "Social Science Research" is a three-way oxymoron. Is there no subject that enterprising academians won't scientificalize in an attempt to gain legitimacy and more funding?
Sometimes that which walks like a duck and quacks like a duck is not a duck, but merely a bunch of quacks.
|By Perruche_verte on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 10:35 pm: Edit|
That quiz was fun. I tried it and came out about where I'd expect: borderline libertarian/left-liberal. My score was 100% personal, 50% economic.
The problem is, like any such inventory, it's pretty damned reductionist. In my case, my ultimate goal would be self-government on a local level. In the U.S., that means dismantling the empire known as the federal government and replacing it with local autonomy.
A quiz like this one doesn't take that into account; there is no "anarchist" category. This means that some of the questions seem rather absurd to me, and my answers are rather forced. For example, I had to answer the question "Minimum wage laws cause unemployment -- repeal them" with a No. This is because I disagree with half the premise. Laws don't "cause unemployment"; wage labor does. It reduces business costs by making some people redundant.
Ultimately, I would be in favor of abolishing such laws, along with all other laws, because I think "the Law" is a bad way to protect people. Laws are not justice. They work for people who can afford good lawyers, or have powerful friends. Other people tend to get the shaft, unless they organize to defend themselves, in which case the law offers them little more protection than they can provide themselves collectively.
There are plenty of businesses in the U.S. right now that pay less than the Federal minimum wage, some because they're breaking the law and some because their workers aren't covered by it. Migrant agricultural workers, for example, aren't covered by the minimum wage. These people have the choice of organizing (e.g. with the UFW), or just taking what the boss offers them. Organizing has its risks, but it pays off if it's done right.
I had problems with the tariffs question too. This is because there are countries in the world where people who organize are imprisoned or killed. Often the U.S. provides direct military assistance to such countries, e.g. Colombia. "Free trade" is a way of rewarding this behavior. It does provide cheap goods for people in the U.S. (e.g. the Chinese imports that are virtually impossible to escape here), but these mainly obscure the fact that real wages here are frozen or shrinking. Tariffs themselves aren't the answer, but getting rid of them right now would help the wrong people.
The problem is, I've already taken much more than 5 minutes writing this, which doesn't make for an easy Web quiz. Oh well.
|By Eleusis on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 08:00 pm: Edit|
It seems that my political philosophy is centrist.
Personal Self-Government Score is 40%.
Economic Self-Government Score is 50%.
Whatever that means.
I don't agree much with polls but being a anthropologist, what the heck. Whatever happened to moral correctedness after the Clintons took over? This political correctedness stuff reeks to the high heavens.
See Ya in da' funny papers.
|By Melinelly on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 05:40 pm: Edit|
note: my cliff notes "liberal" rant was in reaction to popular usage of the term, not in reaction to the quiz.
kudos to the folks who made that quiz. their chart is fairly spot on, and i must thank them for including David McReynolds, a colleague and comrade of mine in the Socialist Party... who IS on the ballot officially in several states and is registered as a write in candidate in many more. few other sites have cared to mention David, and there have been several polls who have either not included David/the SPUSA, or have taken him/us off after initially featuring that choice.
i found no bias in the quiz. it's just a great way to get people to take the quiz and see where they stand. there are many people out there who would identify with the Libertarians who have no idea they share ideals and beliefs. the same goes for all political alternatives to the republicratic machine. this quiz is a good tool to find out where you truly stand and who truly stands for you =)
|By Melinelly on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 05:30 pm: Edit|
bah! political labels... bah!
in this country, there are very few true liberals or true conservatives in the political philosophical sense.
i'm not a liberal though those of the popular "american" political mind would call me such as anything slightly left of center is. i'm a leftist tried and true. liberals are wishy washy and never act accordingly with what "liberal" ideology comes out of their mouths. i believe that certain aspects of the government need some serious downsizing and realocation of funds (pop that military budget into education and social services) but at the same time government needs to be bigger... not by expanding its current state, but by democratizing it. if you think we live in a democracy, think again. if we did, every party listed by that quiz linked to below would have a working say in government.
anyhoo, just wanted to toss my two bits in the ring.
fyi, i took the quiz and scored 100% personal and 0% economic *grin* labelled me a left-liberal heh.
|By Bob_chong on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 04:46 pm: Edit|
So you're a liberal. We already knew that.
The poll itself was given to Americans by a research firm, and they found: 32% of American voters are centrists; 16% are libertarians; 14% are authoritarians; 13% liberal; 7% are conservative; and, 17% border one or more categories. If you want to learn more about the quiz, there is a faq file on the site. You probably don't know much about the poll or about research methodology, so your charge that the poll is biased is pretty funny. I don't feel like explaining it (I know that sounds like a cop-out, but I've spent too much time and money learning how to conduct research than to try to come up with a "research lite" redux for an absinthe board), but if it is so biased, why did you come out a liberal? I'm not defending the poll as a scientific instrument, but from glancing at the faq it seems that they took some time ensuring its validity and reliability (and they explain their methodology, which is always a good sign). I'd need to see a write-up that is more in social science geek speak to truly vouch for it.
You wrote: "I didn't know immigration issues were a big libertarian concern." It is an American political issue, not a libertarian issue. One's beliefs about the freedom to move across borders would reveal certain things.
Enough about the poll. You didn't like it. SFW.
|By Anatomist1 on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 12:34 pm: Edit|
I took Bob's quiz and I got a 90% Personal and 40% Economic. I was hoping it would tell me what I ate for breakfast, or the contents of my pants pockets... something fun. I hate questionnaires like that. You can tell by the wording of the questions and the natre of the score that it has a libertarian bias. I didn't quite understand the nature of the question about borders... I didn't know immigration issues were a big libertarian concern.
My sermon on the silliness of atheism will have to wait 'till later.
|By Bob_chong on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 12:28 pm: Edit|
So, basically, you believe that individuals are completely incapable of doing anything for themselves, economically or personally (well, you do allow personal sel-gov't 40% of the time)?
Joshua--welcome to the thread, my libertarian friend.
|By Joshua on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 11:59 am: Edit|
not that i was involved in the thread.,just wanted to share my test results,self gov= 90%,economic=80%.sorry if this shows up twice
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 11:35 am: Edit|
I've just tried the survey again and I've got a different score. It seems I'm an Authoritarian, what a relief, I couldn't bear the thought of being a wishy-washy wa.k.r.
Personal Self-Government Score is 40%.
Economic Self-Government Score is 10%.
|By Bob_chong on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 11:12 am: Edit|
I moved over here to answer your q's from the SIH forum. SIH is an online zine. See that thread for a link to it.
As to the results on the political quiz, I scored as a libertarian (Personal Self-Government Score is 70%, Economic Self-Government Score is 100%...see the diamond chart if you want to look it up).
For those interested lurkers: http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 10:37 am: Edit|
So you think atheism is just 1 notch above the Flat Earth Society, please enlighten us.
|By Anatomist1 on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 10:04 am: Edit|
I was over on the Segarra thread engaging in some egghead action.
Being as I generally agree with Marc about the stultifying qualities of over-ironied society, it pains me to admit that I am not, in fact, Barney the Dinosaur. Any statements purported to be made by said Dinosaur in the thread charter should be taken accordingly.
Now, what are we talking about here? OK, Marc's drunk and PV's a semi-remorseful smartass. Wait... what's this? PV, you have friends that are atheists? I'll come out and say that atheism is just one notch above the flat earth society in terms of ridiculous things to believe. Can you guess why?
|By Marc on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 03:17 am: Edit|
I've done my part in getting your thread going. Now it's your turn, ya lazy punk.
|By Marc on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 03:15 am: Edit|
I'm drunk. Blame it on La Bleue. And a Sebor's chaser.
|By Marc on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 03:09 am: Edit|
If you thought my post was beautiful, why poke fun at it? Is it because, as you suggest, people get bored by your poetic musings, your spirituality? If that's the case, fuck em. Don't let the those cynical bastards bring you down.
Walk it like you talk it. Fear no one. You are the future. They are the past. When the shit comes down, we will pervail.
|By Perruche_verte on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 02:53 am: Edit|
Marc, I am afraid we are all postmodern now. But don't change. You're fine just the way you are.
The post I was attempting to poke fun at was your previous one, ending "how could life ever be boring?" I said it was breathtakingly beautiful because, honestly, it was.
Then I took a jab at you. You appear not to have had your guard up. I'm sorry, that was not very sporting of me.
How dare you sidestep the heaps of offal, the pools of gore and bile, only to declaim from the very center of the arena that we need to give peace a chance? Here I was getting my beer and popcorn, and checking out today's schedule. The bull looked good in the first match, but the bear has been exercising, and the Christian just might give the lion a run for his money. People have money riding on this. The show must go on.
I am being serious, because what little I know about you inspires quite a bit of respect. I do believe in a few things, Marc, like mutual aid, solidarity, cooperation, production for need (and for pleasure!) rather than profit, economic democracy, sexual freedom, gender and racial equality, living simply and sustainably -- I have lived for seven years without a car, in a city with fairly lousy public transportation -- and getting rid of the damned government so we can learn to take care of each other and solve our own problems.
I suppose I believe in a few gods too, but I tend to leave that private, partly because I have atheist comrades who get spooked easily, and partly because it's just private business.
Unfortunately, what I have learned, Marc, is that people tend to get bored to tears when I go on and on about what I believe. So I have gradually begun trying not to be so serious all the time, or to go around with my heart on my sleeve, because it picks up all kinds of lint there.
Sorry again. Your turn. Just keep it in this thread.
|By Marc on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 12:14 am: Edit|
I guess everything around here is a joke. What a shame.
It seems I'm always out of the loop, not postmodern enough.
do you believe in anything? Or is cynicism your god?
|By Perruche_verte on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 12:06 am: Edit|
JOKE! It was a JOKE!
|By Perruche_verte on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 12:02 am: Edit|
Marc, that was so breathtakingly beautiful.
What the hell are you trying to do, ruin this for everybody?
|By Marc on Thursday, October 19, 2000 - 12:00 am: Edit|
It depends on what your definition of fun is?
If it's insulting people, competing with them or denigrating their lifestyle or ideas, then this forum may not get you off. But, there are plenty of places on the internet for that kind of fun.
Some of the best conversations I've had in the absinthe forum is when I have been in agreement with other members, when we are riffing off of each others ideas, expanding upon them and taking them in new and unexpected directions. Personally, I've enjoyed the times when Don and I
agree with each other over the times when we've gotten nasty and in each others face. Being of like mind can be exciting. Seeing eye to eye doesn't have to be boring. In fact, I find that alot of the acrimony in the forum has kept it from evolving to more refined and fascinating levels. But, I'm a hippie and I still believe in the redemptive power of love and communication.
Of course, irony still reigns supreme. So, it's possible that anatomist is having a go at us.
|By Chrysippvs on Wednesday, October 18, 2000 - 11:41 pm: Edit|
"Unlike THE ARENA, which it is intended to replace, it is expected that all posters will come together in the loving spirit of cooperation, mutual respect, and agreement.."
Would that honestly be any fun?
|By Marc on Wednesday, October 18, 2000 - 11:03 pm: Edit|
Man, it's quiet in here. I think I'll take off my clothes, light a candle and some incense and put on some Dead Can Dance. Mmmm, that's nice. It's lovely in here. Now for a glass of absinthe. A large glass. Yeah, cool. Tonight, I'll make it
La Bleue. Opalescent, clean and vibrant tasting.
Time for a second glass. Delicious.
A delicate wind
Shudders the velvet curtain
A song with no name
Jennifer is in the bathtub reading a Harry Crews novel. The dogs are playing with a stuffed toy.
And I've found the spot around which life circles quietly and gracefully. Bliss is in the simple things: the sound of bathwater, the hum of electricity, the click of the dogs' claws on woodplank floors, the pecking of the keyboard...and...my breath...in...out...in...out..
...the link between me and all that, within without...it's all the same...and then it's something else...never the same twice. How could life ever be boring?
|By Anatomist1 on Wednesday, October 18, 2000 - 01:34 pm: Edit|
Despite its inflammatory name (ahem). I hereby declare that THE ASBESTOS UNDERWEAR CONSORTIUM is open for business. Unlike THE ARENA, which it is intended to replace, it is expected that all posters will come together in the loving spirit of cooperation, mutual respect, and agreement...
Barney the Dinosaur
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation