Eek! Douglas is right
JTEM
Check this out:
Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You are picking and choosing what you want to
> hear about Christians based on your own level
> of comfort with what they do in God's name - but
> they are coloring the world's view of Christians
> just as your view of Muslims is colored by a
> small percentage who engage in terrorism.
It's not a small percentage.
After 9/11, they rose by the hundreds of thousands,
from Morocco through Egypt and all the way to
Indonesia, cheering the terrorists.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.asp
When this invisible "Vast Majority" shout down the
militants, when they close the doors on the extremists,
when individual Muslims decide it is THEIR religion,
and they will not see it co-opted by terrorists, you can
claim that it is ONLY the people conducting the
attacks who are to blame. But right now it's all of
Islam that must accept the responsibility.
Doc
"JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:32cf7a75-9bd6-4f4a...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Horseshit. Muslims have no all encompassing control over militant offshoots.
As Christians, Hindus don't, either. All major religions have never been
able to lastingly control the aberrant behavior of some of their members,
and so there is no 'responsibility' to share for what humanity can't simply
achieve.
We can on flagellating ourselves, or blaming each other, or wish for a
miracle, but the fact is we have a certain degree of futility in achieving
our ideals.
The perfectionistic goal of total conformity and absolute control is beyond
our ability as a species.
A faithful orthodox or mainstream christian is no more to blame for
radicalism in their flock as are any other religious order.
If one want to find 'blame', it can be more rationally found in the many
misintrepretations of the many murky, disputed portions of their magical
doctrines.
All of those doctrines were written by fallible men and women, and nothing
more.
As in Genesis, for example, christians had no clue to the physical realities
of their astrophysical, earthly realms, simply because they were ignorant
authors.
If we're to hate and kill, and segregate by an insane self-professed moral
superiority, let us at least, as a species, face the shared reality of our
DNA-caused behavior, with all its limitations and aberrations, for shit's
sake.
We can't be held responsible, as a whole, for innate misbehavior of some,
nor elminate that which is endemic, and been unable to erase, but, at the
best, limit. And even that has been a herculon effort that has not yielded
the most satisfying results thus far.
Let us progress into a nonmagical world, and leave the invisible teddy bears
and monsters behind us, and face ourselves squarely, nakedly. If there is
'responsiblility' for our wicked nature, let us search within ourselves for
the answers, if there are, indeed, any to be found, inside a physical
consciousness, and leave the ethereal cosmic fruit jello--the gods, angels,
and demons to little children, fools, and maniacs.
Doc
>
>
>
Woodswun
> Check this out:
>
> Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You are picking and choosing what you want to
> > hear about Christians based on your own level
> > of comfort with what they do in God's name - but
> > they are coloring the world's view of Christians
> > just as your view of Muslims is colored by a
> > small percentage who engage in terrorism.
>
> It's not a small percentage.
How many Muslims are there worldwide? How many of them engage in
terrorism? It is nowhere near 50%.
>
> After 9/11, they rose by the hundreds of thousands,
> from Morocco through Egypt and all the way to
> Indonesia, cheering the terrorists.
>
> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.asp
Not sure what that has to do with my statement. (?)
>
> When this invisible "Vast Majority" shout down the
> militants, when they close the doors on the extremists,
> when individual Muslims decide it is THEIR religion,
> and they will not see it co-opted by terrorists, you can
> claim that it is ONLY the people conducting the
> attacks who are to blame. But right now it's all of
> Islam that must accept the responsibility.
Shiits and Sunnis don't even acknowledge that the other is a
legitimate branch of Islam. What you're saying is akin to saying that
the Society of Friends is responsible for the edicts put forth by the
Roman Catholic pope, which is ridiculous.
Woods
Woods
Werewolfy
> Check this out:
> http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.asp
Not sure I would take much notice of a report that discused, "
Cumminications"
Werewolfy
Steven Douglas
That was in quoted material they found on the internet.
JTEM
"Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> wrote
> >http://www.snopes.com/rumors/cnn.asp
>
> > When this invisible "Vast Majority" shout down the
> > militants, when they close the doors on the extremists,
> > when individual Muslims decide it is THEIR religion,
> > and they will not see it co-opted by terrorists, you can
> > claim that it is ONLY the people conducting the
> > attacks who are to blame. But right now it's all of
> > Islam that must accept the responsibility.
>
> Horseshit.
It's not horseshit. It wouldn't be horseshit if we were only
talking about "Passive Acceptance." But, we're talking
about the active approval of terrorism.
> Muslims have no all encompassing control over
> militant offshoots.
They have control of themselves, and it was the Muslim
mainstream that danced in the streets of every major
Muslim city from Africa to Asia. It is mainstream Muslims
who send their children to radical schools, and donate
their money to suicide-bomber funds.
> As Christians, Hindus don't, either.
I don't accept that. So-called "Christian" who quietly sat
back as people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bill
Donahue and even Phred Felps claimed to be laboring
in their name must certainly share in the responsibility
for the harm, the pain these people created.
It's about personal responsibility. It's about free association.
These people CHOOSE to call themselves Muslims or
Christians, they CHOOSE to associate themselves with
the nut jobs, and often times even support those nut jobs.
....but they NEVER choose to denounce those nut jobs.
They never say "Pat Robertson isn't a Christian," or "Osama
Bin Laden spits on the Koran with his every act of terrorism,"
and they certainly couldn't bring themselves to not dance in
the streets after 9/11, fulling approving in no uncertain terms
the acts of the terrorists.
Maybe it's not the "Muslims" living down the street from you,
but all that means is that, on a global scale, those Muslims
aren't mainstream Muslims.
JTEM
Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> How many Muslims are there worldwide?
Irrelevant, really.
> How many of them engage in
> terrorism?
You misspelled "Approve."
After 9/11, few didn't in the Arab world.
You can't celebrate a terrorist attack, you can't call a
terrorist a martyr, you can't look the other way as
militants co-opt your religion, you can't send your kids
to radical Islamic schools, you can't donate to "Charities"
that reward the families of suicide bombers and pretend
that you're against terrorism.
You can't even passively accept the terrorist and claim
that your hands are clean.
To pretend otherwise -- which you do -- is to pretend that
they have no right to free association, no choice in their
religion.
Not much of an argument there... "Why, there's plenty
of people FORCED to be Muslims who aren't mad-dog
killers!"
JTEM
Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Not sure I would take much notice of a report that discused, "
> Cumminications"
I never understood how anyone could fall for such
bullshit, with or without typos. And why would they be
so willing to believe a chain e-mail of unknown origins
over their own eyeballs?
Going back years, a friend's mother was forever receiving
every anti-Clinton fantasy you could imagine. Again &
again she'd say, "There has to be something to these
things," and I'd tell her that they were all lies.
Anyhow, every time she talked about her latest anti-Clinton
rant I'd ask her to show it to me, and she would have already
deleted it. Every time. And then finally the day came when
she didn't delete one. She saved it. She showed it to me. Again,
she insisted, "There has to be something to this."
It was the "Hillary Clinton snubs the Gold Star Mothers" rant.
("Gold Star Mothers" are parents who lost a child in combat)
I swung her computer around, brought up Google, punched
in "Gold Star Mothers" and in 30 seconds was on the Gold
Star Mothers website.
There, right there on the front page was a message denouncing
the anti-Hillary rant as a pack of lies.
That's it, roughly 30 seconds of work was all it took, and my
friends mom went from "There's got to be something to this"
to "I'll never believe an anti-Clinton rant again."
Werewolfy
It's typical, JTEM. So many people will simply accept something
because it has been 'written down' somewhere; or because they heard it
on the radio or television. The Internet is packed with good
information..and a lot of strange ideas and concepts too. It concerns
me that people appear to be losing that old-fashioned quality of
'common sense' and opting for the extreme, rather than enquiring.
Werewolfy
Doc
What a fringe militant group does, Johnny, is not subscribable by the much
larger body, not is it controllable. It is not, by any means, a significant
portion of Islam that actively supports such militancy. To the contrary, its
leaders have spoken against such militancy many times, denouncing the acts
as they occur. But, they are unable to control such violent radicalism, just
as christians and Hindus are unable.
When the Big Dumb Texan himself announced in Sept., 2001, that the 9-11 acts
were the work of a 'fringe' group of a whole body of believers that practice
peaceful coexistence, it was largely perverted, ignored soon thereafter, by
American political/religious radicals, who were deadly intent on avenging
the bloody outrage any way their lackey representatives and exploitative
media advocated, pushed through congress and the media channels like greased
lightning.
And lightning struck Afghanistan, and then our anger and fear turned, or was
channeled, into shock and awe mass death for Iraqis. I don't need to go over
the intense anti-Muslim, pro-christian American milieu from 9-11 to the
present. It is still intense, and christian rightwingers and their political
whores are feeding into it every day. Ft.Hood had to happen here. It was
inevitable. Just as inevitable that leaders and ideologues would use it to
re-energize their hatred and fear of Muslim radicals.
Christians are no better than the rest, Johnny. Nor is America in handling
such traumatic social/political shocks. The overreactions have been numerous
and tragic for the Muslim population, overseas and domestically. And it has
been so foolish as to be injurious to the white populace here and
international relations with allies.
I maintain that it is not shared responsibility when human misbehavior
cannot be perfectly controlled. It is DNA-caused fatalism.
We cannot as a species deny our indequacies of our innate social behavior,
and that uncivil behavior cannot be effectively suppressed to the point of a
peaceful world manifesting wholly.
There have been, and are, and will continue to be elements of radical
militancy uncontrolled by an orthodox main body that largely rejects it.
I am not going to hold any major religious group 'responsible' for the
actions of a relative few, when I know that most have publicly worked to
denounce it in the strongest terms.
And I will not be swayed by the emotionalism of revenge, moral superiority
and comparative religious arrogance. There are some things humans beings
cannot be held wholly responsible for, that governments and belief systems
cannot resolve.
I accept our failings in that regard, and refuse to get involved in
cheerleading or condemning the much larger whole that is peaceful for the
actions of the minority. But, I do underline the hysterical attempts to use
a minority as general condemnation of the whole.
When christians begin to get on their pedestal of morality using an event
like Ft. Hood as propaganda, or quoting some refutable statitistics, or
using some anecdotal situation as an avoidance of the same type of anecdotal
evidence against their own belief system, i.e., hypocrisy, I will not stand
by and let such bigoted tripe go unchecked.
I've seen much social derision since the oil embargo days, in repeated
forceful propaganda to legitimize one belief system to the detriment of a
'competing' system. Islam is the world's largest religion, and perhaps the
"No. 1" cultural obsession of Americans has spilled over into paranoia and
fierce competition with it. I have never feared terrorism from Muslims since
the embargo days.
I do fear my 'fellow countrymen' and their fears and overreactions, their
hatred going off half-cocked. I had my own German-rooted family harassed
during WWII, and I've experienced a shitload of prejudice from Americans in
my lifetime thus far, ranging from petty hair and dress codes, sexism,
racism, classism, to advocacy of the 'only true god' of the universe.
It is a species that disappoints us all, Johnny, and refuses to succumb to
encompassing controls without parts of it rebelling and recklessly shooting
off its fevered brains, hurting and killing folks.
We see it here in this forum, as we see it everywhere.
Doc
>
JTEM
"Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is not, by any means, a significant
> portion of Islam that actively supports
> such militancy.
Your every word is predicated on the above, yet
I have never seen any evidence to support this
claim, while I have seen no shortage of
evidence to dispute it.
As I have already offered a cite to support my
position I now challenge you to do the same.
--
Check out my friend's lame ass show:
Doc
documentary Obsession that "10 to 15 percent of Muslims worldwide support
militant Islam," Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland cites data
from the Program on International Public Attitudes to conclude that "about 6
percent of about 300-million people in the Arab world support al-Qaida's
message of confronting the United States." Telhami also parses my word
support, noting that "Support is often a reflection of anger rather than
ideology. It's far different from joining groups or being prepared to
conduct terrorism." (Quoted in Meg Laughlin, "McCollum, Muslims to discuss
film," St. Petersburg Times, February 12, 2008)
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/05/how-many-islamists
I suggest you visit the above URL and read more. The fact is, Johnny, many
private, government researchers and organizations cannot reach a general
concensus of the support in the greater Islamic community for its radical
militancy offshoots. As you can read, there are many varying estimates and
opinions and survey results.
I prefer to believe that, like all religious radicalism, that Muslim
radicalism is not supported by nearly all their orthodox community. And that
radicalism cannot be controlled effectively, even signficantly reduced, as
long as a dominant world power, or any dominant entity, exhibits vast
insensitivity to other cultures, and in fact, puts itself as 'instructor'
over them, expecting that they need to take courses on morality. Hypocrisy
abounds in cultural domination attempts, and it breeds fanaticism, some of
it violent.
I maintain that Muslim radicalism is no more a threat to the world than
radicalism from the other major religions. And that attempts to make it
appear so, are being promulgated by ignorance, bigotry, hysteria, arrogance,
and even, in some instances, a desire for economic and political domination
for profit and power.
The peoples of the world struggle against their fears of each others'
differences, but they also struggle against, more often, misunderstanding, a
lack of education, a shortage of direct experiences of that culture they
fear. Instead, much of the 'picture' we get here is filtered through
corporate, political, and religous 'polluters' of the truth of a species
that much prefers to live in cooperation and peace, than be inspired to
fear, hate, and destroy.
Islamic people, I am certain, by and large, want to live and let others live
without coercion, threat, or violent acts. And yet there is the widespread
frustration to contol it. They, and we, are reduced to denouncements for the
most part, and are left with after-the-fact disclaimers. Disclaimers don't
satify all, obviously, no matter how factual or heartfelt, but, as I said
previously, the species is mired in fear and prejudice, and struggles to
keep it from overruning into violence.
It struggles mightily, while some portion advocates the sensation of brutal
acts to make themselves feel empowered.
I know we cannot hold the greater peaceful whole responsible for the actions
of the few, unless there is no denouncement. We cannot expect that
denouncing such acts will make their perpetrators cease, or discourage
others from expanding such activity. All we can do is to morally stand
against it publicly, and try to educate, inform, encourage efforts to
understand and cooperate.
We fail commonly, as anyone can ascertain from the news reports every day.
The DNA of this biped is a tyrant, Johnny.
Doc
JTEM
"Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/05/how-many-islamists
You're pulling a fast one. While we are arguing over,
say, the percentage of Muslims who applaud terrorist
acts, your so-called "Cite" is referring to the
percentage of Muslims who wish to live under a specific
Muslim religious law code
To quote:
: The Capacent Institute found that 18 percent of
: Muslims in Denmark either "agree" or "completely
: agree" that "Sharia law should be integrated into
: Danish law."
You're making two entirely baseless assumptions here.
The first is that all Muslims who desire this "Sharia
Law" support terrorism, and the second is that all
Muslims who don't desire to live under it don't support
terrorism in any way.
Here on usenet this is called a "Strawman" argument.
Which is to say, you are addressing an argument that I
never made.
I never even mentioned "Sharia law" prior to just now,
never mind made any claims concerning it.
Doc
The source I gave doesn't concentrate on the specifics you mention, but
covers a wider range of evaluations or opinions drawn from a wide variety
of statistical survey data.
I didn't offer a 'straw man' anything here.
You pointed out that you think radical militancy is not being suitably
condemned and that Islam has 'active approval' of it and should be held
responsible for it. Let me quote you:
It's not horseshit. It wouldn't be horseshit if we were only
talking about "Passive Acceptance." But, we're talking
about the active approval of terrorism.
I maintain, with a cite you asked for, that Islamic radicalism doesn't
constitute a significant portion of the greater whole, and that, in the
specific excerpt I included, that some analysts believe it is ANGER that
primarily drives Muslims to appear to (Western people) that Islam supports
such militancy ideologically.
You or I cannot prove, nor can these analysts obviously, what is going on in
the heads of the *supporters* of radicalism, whether it is ideological
comradery, or simply anger against a dominant superpower and their allies,
and the arrogance they often display (as Wolfy's post today on US command
arrogance in Iraq pointed out) .
Certainly, that arrogant superpower, America, needs much control over its
vital oil source, and history proves any civilization will go to great
lengths to usurp the cultural, polictical, and economic power of sovereign
peoples to gain or maintain its sources.
It is you who wishes to avoid your own argument now, and prefer to turn it
into another issue, narrowing it down.
I stuck to the issue, gave you a cite, and the page had plenty of a variety
of data and evaluations to blanket cover the general issue of -- how many
supporters of radicalism, evaluations of data, and the demographics therein.
I've already adequately stated my opinions based on others' research and
evaluations, and that is all you, I, or anyone can offer. If you wish to
cherry pick through the orchard, then proceed and entertain your notions of
a wicked Islam that has too much ideological support for radical militants,
and that it is a larger percentage than the 'liberal' media suggests.
It's all a 'straw man' issue when such data are mixed, as I've referenced.
One can draw his own prejudiced conclusions from such varied data, and we
can fucking go on for months and neither of us will have convinced the
other.
Essentially, most of these fucking arguments have to do not with compromise
or understanding, but reinforcing ones' prejudicial, narrowed worldview,
Johnny. And, as such, it's about as silly and 'straw man' activity as one
can engage in.
LOL!
I've had my say on this, and I leave you to go back to your self-pleasing
conclusions, and maybe engage Steve-O here for some lively useless
bantering, which, at the end of the day, neither he or you will have budged
one millimeter in your bedrock positions.
However, your fingers will get much exercise, as blisters build on your
sitting asses.
Doc ;))~
JTEM
"Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The source I gave doesn't concentrate on
> the specifics you mention, but covers a
> wider range of evaluations or opinions
> drawn from a wide variety of statistical
> survey data.
In short: It's irrelevant.
> I maintain, with a cite you asked for, that
> Islamic radicalism doesn't constitute a
> significant portion of the greater whole,
Your cite didn't address the point at all.
> and that, in the specific excerpt I included,
> that some analysts believe it is ANGER that
> primarily drives Muslims to appear to (Western
> people) that Islam supports such militancy
> ideologically.
Nice try. But even if it's because of some ANGER
that they support terrorism, the fact remains that
they support terrorism.
Doc
"Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The source I gave doesn't concentrate on
> the specifics you mention, but covers a
> wider range of evaluations or opinions
> drawn from a wide variety of statistical
> survey data.
In short: It's irrelevant.
No, in long, it's relevant, as it includes some data and evaluations to
cover your (changed) issue. I chose one portion to answer your assertion. I
answered it. Now you wish to digress into a labyrinth of specifics and argue
those each step of the way. The question you originally posed was of a
general nature -- does Muslim radicalism get soft-pedaled by orthodox Islam,
because it may have more ideological support than they're willing to admit,
and that they should be held responsible for the actions of the radicalized
minority.
There is nowhere for this issue to go but to play around with cherry picked
analyses and data, and offer more opinions on the TRUE motivations of a
small group of greater Islam that claims some kind of support for
radicalized fringes.
We can go there, Johnny, but neither of us will like the bumpy ride leading
to an eventual dead-end, and no effective detours seen, but to charge 'straw
man' tactics, biasedness, and...if this persists long enough, with an easily
predictable non-resolution, the manifestation of name-calling and fuming
anger.
Do you wish to go there? I don't. Been there. Done that.
Doc
> I maintain, with a cite you asked for, that
> Islamic radicalism doesn't constitute a
> significant portion of the greater whole,
Your cite didn't address the point at all.
> and that, in the specific excerpt I included,
> that some analysts believe it is ANGER that
> primarily drives Muslims to appear to (Western
> people) that Islam supports such militancy
> ideologically.
Nice try. But even if it's because of some ANGER
that they support terrorism, the fact remains that
they support terrorism.
No, anger is not necessarily ideological sympathy, but simple comradery
among those who share frustration, fear, and anger.
You can see this psychological phenomenon with the far rightwingers
supporting rightwing moderates in their (shared) rabid support of Israel,
yet the moderates leave other exclusively far-right issues alone, and vice
versa.
JTEM
"Doc" <cmdrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, in long, it's relevant, as it includes some
> data and evaluations to cover your (changed)
> issue.
The issue hasn't changed. Mainstream Islam must take
much of the responsibility for terrorism, as it has
AT THE VERY LEAST passively accepted it... when it
wasn't too busy actively supporting it.
I don't care if they only do it because they're angry.
By that logic, the fact that their acceptance & support
of terrorism makes me angry would justify my endorsing
(and supporting) terrorists attacks on Muslims.
They're unhappy with Israel? Fine with me. I'll back
any reasonable plan they come up with, just as soon
as they fall under some kind of authority that not only
thinks there's something wrong with private citizens
running around with everything from C4 explosives to
surface-to-surface missiles, but can & will actually
stop it.
Until then, there's nothing to discuss.
Werewolfy
just as soon
> as they fall under some kind of authority that not only
> thinks there's something wrong with private citizens
> running around with everything from C4 explosives to
> surface-to-surface missiles
Sounds like 21st Century America.
Werewolfy
JTEM
Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > as they fall under some kind of authority that not
> > only thinks there's something wrong with private
> > citizens running around with everything from C4
> > explosives to surface-to-surface missiles
>
> Sounds like 21st Century America.
Then you need a hearing aid.
In America, explosives fall under "Strict Liability."
The concept is simple enough: "If something goes
wrong it's your fault."
And that means, yeah, even if a kid breaks your window
and steals your C4, if that C4 then gets used to blow
up a school you're in deep, Deep, *Deep* trouble.
The same is NOT true for guns though.
The most obvious example was when a couple of troubled
kids in Arkansas shot up a school yard. They got the
guns from one of the kid's grandparents, because his dad
had his own guns securely locked up... as any responsible
gun owner would. The grandparent, on the other hand, had
an entire pane of glass between his guns and a school
yard.
He apparently labored under the belief that murder was one
thing, but breaking a piece of glass would be going too
far for any would-be criminal.
Do you know what happened to the grandparent whose
irresponsibility brought unimaginable pain & suffering to
an entire community?
Nothing.
Werewolfy
"In America, explosives fall under "Strict Liability."
Tell John Lemke or Randy Foreman that. They have stockpiled an arsenal
of weapons etc in their underground bunkers.
Ho Ho Ho
Werewolfy
JTEM
Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Tell John Lemke or Randy Foreman that. They have
> stockpiled an arsenal of weapons etc in their
> underground bunkers.
Perfectly legal...
There are two huge "Grey" areas in American law,
sort of a "Legal Limbo." They are cigarettes and
guns.
On the one hand cigarettes are legal, on the other
hand every lawyer or state attorney general with the
spare time sues the cigarette companies for lawfully
selling their products, and wins.
Guns aren't just "Legal" here, they are a
"constitutional right," yet there is no shortage
of municipalities or even whole states which
unambiguously deny the existence of any such "Right."
Woodswun
OMG - we can get C4 and surface to surface missiles now?!? COOL!!!
Woods
Woodswun
I checked out your friend's show last night - not bad at all!! Much
better quality video than I'm accustomed to seeing on public access
channels, too! :-)
Woods
Werewolfy
> OMG - we can get C4 and surface to surface missiles now?!? �COOL!!!
Don't underestimate what Randy and John have in their bunkers.
Werewolfy
JTEM
Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >http://www.wcatv.org/vod?task=viewvideo&video_id=102
>
> I checked out your friend's show last night - not bad
> at all!! Much better quality video than I'm
> accustomed to seeing on public access channels,
> too! :-)
Thanks! I'm thinking of volunteering for an episode...
I dunno, maybe the classic "King Kong" or something
really campy... if the world is ready for JTEM the TV
star.
Don't tell Doc, but Cal is in it. I'll leave everyone
to guess which one he is as he is credited under his
middle name, which he usually goes by anyhow.
Woodswun
> Woodswun <woods...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.wcatv.org/vod?task=viewvideo&video_id=102
>
> > I checked out your friend's show last night - not bad
> > at all!! Much better quality video than I'm
> > accustomed to seeing on public access channels,
> > too! :-)
>
> Thanks! I'm thinking of volunteering for an episode...
> I dunno, maybe the classic "King Kong" or something
> really campy... if the world is ready for JTEM the TV
> star.
Sure - go for it!! If you don't want to blab it here, you can email
me to let me know when it's on - I'll keep my mouth shut if you don't
want anyone here to know about it. ('Course, I can always say that, I
suppose - up to you!)
>
> Don't tell Doc, but Cal is in it. I'll leave everyone
> to guess which one he is as he is credited under his
> middle name, which he usually goes by anyhow.
Sorry, I don't remember who Cal is. I'll have to watch it again. I
forgot the name of the hand of mandos-ish movie (it was something like
that). I'd be going for the ms3tk version, tho. Sounds like a
classic! ;-)
Woods