Off topic: One reason I am not a Christian
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
>On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:26:58 -0500, "Randy Cech"
><Sam_P...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
><Scary fucked up cult chant snipped>
>
>I wonder sometimes if all these christians realize how dumb the whole
>thing is and just feel so stupid for believing in it that they feel a
>need to get others to join.
>
>If you look at christens and you look at one of those dooms-day cults
>a lot of things are a like, this should concern people. The Bible is
>an interesting story but I hold it in the same regard as I do Star
>Wars or Dune.
>
>
>If GOD didn't want us to fuck, why did GOD make it a basic urge? If
>GOD didn't want us to steal then why didn't GOD give us magic powers
>to just make our own stuff? Why did GOD make it possible for millions
>to die from starvation or be forced to live in a cardboard box (down
>by the Houston dump)?
>
>To all the christians in the world, get over it, there is no god. God
>sin while you still can.
The Lord works in mysterious ways. It's a sin to question God. You
must accept the Lord, and follow His commandments. Only those with
faith, who accept Jesus Christ as their savior, will enter the Kingdom
of Heaven.
I was taught all this shit as a kid, being raised Catholic. Then one
day, I declared to my parents, "Once a Catholic, NEVER a Catholic."
If God is so goddamn GOOD, then why does everything SUCK? (And
Michael H, don't give me that "It's Satan's fault" crap, either--I've
heard this b.s. a zillion times).
p.s. I do really like the movie THE RAPTURE, though, cuz I like
looking at Mimi Rogers' tits.
--ZRTLM
http://welcome.to/zrtlm
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
MDec500157
>From: moam...@primenet.com (Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo")
>Date: Mon, Jan 11, 1999 03:56 EST
>Message-id: <3699bbcf...@news.primenet.com>
>
>On 10 Jan 1999 23:23:11 -0600, Trad...@concentric.net (Cletus) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:26:58 -0500, "Randy Cech"
>><Sam_P...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>
>><Scary fucked up cult chant snipped>
>>
>>I wonder sometimes if all these christians realize how dumb the whole
>>thing is and just feel so stupid for believing in it that they feel a
>>need to get others to join.
>>
>>If you look at christens and you look at one of those dooms-day cults
>>a lot of things are a like, this should concern people. The Bible is
>>an interesting story but I hold it in the same regard as I do Star
>>Wars or Dune.
>>
>>
>>If GOD didn't want us to fuck, why did GOD make it a basic urge? If
>>GOD didn't want us to steal then why didn't GOD give us magic powers
>>to just make our own stuff? Why did GOD make it possible for millions
>>to die from starvation or be forced to live in a cardboard box (down
>>by the Houston dump)?
>>
>>To all the christians in the world, get over it, there is no god. God
>>sin while you still can.
>
>
>The Lord works in mysterious ways. It's a sin to question God. You
>must accept the Lord, and follow His commandments. Only those with
>faith, who accept Jesus Christ as their savior, will enter the Kingdom
>of Heaven.
>
>I was taught all this shit as a kid, being raised Catholic. Then one
>day, I declared to my parents, "Once a Catholic, NEVER a Catholic."
OK, I need the Secret Of The Golden Crab here. I recently told a friend being
raised catholic is like being injected with a herpes virus: it never COMPLETELY
goes away. And god (sorry) knows I've tried to wash it out with everything from
LSD to beer, zen to existentialism, but I still don't feel clean.
HELP ME , BROTHER RIFT! Git this monkey off'n mah back!
>If God is so goddamn GOOD, then why does everything SUCK? (And
>Michael H, don't give me that "It's Satan's fault" crap, either--I've
>heard this b.s. a zillion times).
Yeah, my christian friend (I DO have one) sez this all the time: "It's Satan's
world."
>p.s. I do really like the movie THE RAPTURE, though, cuz I like
>looking at Mimi Rogers' tits.
>--ZRTLM
> http://welcome.to/zrtlm
> alt.fan.zoogz-rift
never seen it, or them. It's a sin to look at tits.
;)
Mike
Barry Duquette
I liked to put peanut butter on the communion hosts. It pissed off
Father when he was sober.
Best,
Barry
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
That's understandable--he was probably used to caviar...
--ZRTLM
http://welcome.to/zrtlm
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
(Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo") wrote:
> The Lord works in mysterious ways. It's a sin to question God. You
> must accept the Lord, and follow His commandments. Only those with
> faith, who accept Jesus Christ as their savior, will enter the Kingdom
> of Heaven.
>
> I was taught all this shit as a kid, being raised Catholic. Then one
> day, I declared to my parents, "Once a Catholic, NEVER a Catholic."
>
> If God is so goddamn GOOD, then why does everything SUCK? (And
> Michael H, don't give me that "It's Satan's fault" crap, either--I've
> heard this b.s. a zillion times).
It should be obvious by now that God is Happy Fun Ball.
> p.s. I do really like the movie THE RAPTURE, though, cuz I like
> looking at Mimi Rogers' tits.
I like The Rapture because it demonstrates several horrific logical
conclusions of fundamentalist beliefs. Mimi Rogers' tits are a bonus,
though.
-Sam
--
Sam and/or Karen Rouse ro...@teleport.com
FZ Concert Tales:
http://www.teleport.com/~rouse/fz/
Barry Duquette
Karen Rouse) wrote:
>I like The Rapture because it demonstrates several horrific logical
>conclusions of fundamentalist beliefs. Mimi Rogers' tits are a bonus,
>though.
>
>-Sam
Sam,
What we really want to know is what Karen thinks of Mimi's tits. :P
Best,
Barry
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
Duquette) wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:59:46 -0800, ro...@teleport.com (Sam and/or
> Karen Rouse) wrote:
>
> >I like The Rapture because it demonstrates several horrific logical
> >conclusions of fundamentalist beliefs. Mimi Rogers' tits are a bonus,
> >though.
> >
> >-Sam
>
> What we really want to know is what Karen thinks of Mimi's tits. :P
Karen, here:
Not bad...
Michael H.
>
> >Subject: Re: Off topic: One reason I am not a Christian
> >From: moam...@primenet.com (Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo")
> >Date: Mon, Jan 11, 1999 03:56 EST
> >Message-id: <3699bbcf...@news.primenet.com>
> >
> >
> >>On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:26:58 -0500, "Randy Cech"
> >><Sam_P...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >><Scary fucked up cult chant snipped>
> >>
> >>I wonder sometimes if all these christians realize how dumb the whole
> >>thing is and just feel so stupid for believing in it that they feel a
> >>need to get others to join.
> >>
> >>If you look at christens and you look at one of those dooms-day cults
> >>a lot of things are a like, this should concern people. The Bible is
> >>an interesting story but I hold it in the same regard as I do Star
> >>Wars or Dune.
> >>
> >>
> >>If GOD didn't want us to fuck, why did GOD make it a basic urge? If
> >>GOD didn't want us to steal then why didn't GOD give us magic powers
> >>to just make our own stuff? Why did GOD make it possible for millions
> >>to die from starvation or be forced to live in a cardboard box (down
> >>by the Houston dump)?
> >>
> >>To all the christians in the world, get over it, there is no god. God
> >>sin while you still can.
> >
> >
> >must accept the Lord, and follow His commandments. Only those with
> >faith, who accept Jesus Christ as their savior, will enter the Kingdom
> >of Heaven.
> >
> >I was taught all this shit as a kid, being raised Catholic. Then one
> >day, I declared to my parents, "Once a Catholic, NEVER a Catholic."
>
> raised catholic is like being injected with a herpes virus: it never COMPLETELY
> goes away. And god (sorry) knows I've tried to wash it out with everything from
> LSD to beer, zen to existentialism, but I still don't feel clean.
> HELP ME , BROTHER RIFT! Git this monkey off'n mah back!
>
> >Michael H, don't give me that "It's Satan's fault" crap, either--I've
> >heard this b.s. a zillion times).
>
> world."
Speaking of catholics, I saw a woman on TV tonight having her baby
baptized by the Pope, and she was wearing a fur coat!! What kind of a
religion would allow that?? I've heard of catholic priests blessing
bullfighters!! They even bless people who go out and pull nursing infant
seals from their mothers' breasts and skin them alive!! I can understand
atheists being cruel brutes, but it makes no sense for people to pose as
religious while endorsing acts of hideous cruelty.
>
> >p.s. I do really like the movie THE RAPTURE, though, cuz I like
> >looking at Mimi Rogers' tits.
>
Michael H.
> Michael H, don't give me that "It's Satan's fault" crap, either--I've
> heard this b.s. a zillion times
Auditioning to be the new poster boy for the anti-Christian lobby are
we?
I think you've got me mixed up with Adam Hornbuckle (not to be confused
with the wrestler Badman Turnbuckle). And while we are knocking people's
religions, who's next on the list? the Muslims? the Jews? the Atheists?
the Hari Krishnas? Or is this one of those reverse KKK things where only
one group gets picked on? Oh, I get it! Let's adopt a posture of taking
a bold stand against society while hiding behind mommy's apron strings.
The big, established, Hollywood big-media anti-Christian establishment
has a funny new hood ornament specially designed for its drive through
afcb, and (get this) it thinks it's rebelling against society!!!
AaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Good one!! Make me laugh some more!
>
> p.s. I do really like the movie THE RAPTURE, though, cuz I like
> looking at Mimi Rogers' tits.
Never heard of him.
Michael H.
Michael H.
> Father when he was sober.
>
5000 peanuts, although he obviously heard the one about the 70 gallons
of wine (not whiskey or rye).
Michael H.
Michael H.
> >
> >Barry
> >
> >
>
> That's understandable--he was probably used to caviar...
>
Michael H.
>
> In article <3699bbcf...@news.primenet.com>, moam...@primenet.com
> (Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo") wrote:
>
> > The Lord works in mysterious ways. It's a sin to question God. You
> > must accept the Lord, and follow His commandments. Only those with
> > faith, who accept Jesus Christ as their savior, will enter the Kingdom
> > of Heaven.
> >
> > I was taught all this shit as a kid, being raised Catholic. Then one
> > day, I declared to my parents, "Once a Catholic, NEVER a Catholic."
> >
> > Michael H, don't give me that "It's Satan's fault" crap, either--I've
>
> It should be obvious by now that God is Happy Fun Ball.
>
> > looking at Mimi Rogers' tits.
>
> conclusions of fundamentalist beliefs.
I missed that movie.Which kind of fundamentalist beliefs? Muslim?
Zionist? Christian?
>Mimi Rogers' tits are a bonus,
Sounds Pavlovian. Hear bell ->get food. Hate Christians -> see tits.
What a bunch of suckers.
> though.
>
> -Sam
Michael H.
>
> On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:59:46 -0800, ro...@teleport.com (Sam and/or
> Karen Rouse) wrote:
>
> >though.
> >
> >-Sam
>
> Sam,
>
> What we really want to know is what Karen thinks of Mimi's tits. :P
>
Michael H.
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
> Sam and/or Karen Rouse wrote:
> > I like The Rapture because it demonstrates several horrific logical
> > conclusions of fundamentalist beliefs.
>
> I missed that movie.Which kind of fundamentalist beliefs? Muslim?
> Zionist? Christian?
Christian (and maybe to a lesser extent, Zionist). Sorry, I realized that
omission shortly after posting.
> >Mimi Rogers' tits are a bonus,
>
> Sounds Pavlovian. Hear bell ->get food. Hate Christians -> see tits.
> What a bunch of suckers.
Joke. <ding> Laugh now.
If you are serious, consider that whatever hatred Christians are receiving
is largely self-inflicted (mainly by a vocal minority). If you really
believe that only consumers of the Jeezus (tm) brand of Exalted Cheezy
Poofs be gettin' True Satisfaction (tm), that be a whole 'nother can o'
Worms (tm).
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
(Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo") wrote:
> p.s. Regarting THE RAPTURE: If I had to listen to that whining
> brat's "Mommy, mommy, tell God you LOVE Him," crap up in Heaven, I'd
> rather stay right here in Los Angeles, where at least most of the
> people speak Spanish so I don't have to be offended by inane
> conversations. As it is, yo tengo dolor de cabeza.
I think that's an excellent summation of the point of the movie. (Did I
mention that I really like that flick, and that I believe in God? Sort
all that shit out, & you'll probably understand more of my mind than most
of my family, for whatever that's worth.)
-Sam
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
A most excellent post. I've snipped some but left parts that I especially
agree with, some of which might even describe me (so all out-of-context
quoting is entirely my fault):
> The histories of all
> religious institutions through the ages are a disgrace. In fact,
> religion is probably almost as bad as "freedom" as a reason for killing
> people.
> I just think that atheism is limiting, and that
> Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic (and all that that implies).
> That's my opinion but I don't urge it on anybody.
> Probably most of the bible-belt ultra-right fundies in the US are
> atheist snake-oil peddlars out to take the simple-minded for a ride. And
> they talk funny. I once read that the US was rather unique in that such
> a large percentage of self-professed "Christians" were evangelical
> holy-rollers who play with snakes, get possessed and talk gibberish, and
> similar craziness. Such behaviour is almost non-existent outside the US,
> and so Americans might tend to have a very peculiar view of
> "Christianity," and use the word "Christian" in a different way from the
> rest of the world.
> What I find funny, though, is to see a country where the public
> perception of "reality" is defined in such a "Wag the Dog" bullshit way
> by a too-powerful mass media, and then see people with ostensibly
> anti-establishment tendencies playing right into it and becoming part of
> the instrument of manipulation instead of genuine opponents of it. I
> think Zappa succumbed to that to some extent. Same with early Dylan.
> They were rocking a boat but they weren't rocking THE boat. They were
> helping to ROW the boat to the extent that they dabbled in social
> politics in a pointed and preachy way.
I hope you don't mind my removalence of some things about which I have no
opinion, but what's left is IMO some very important thoughts with which I
agree completely. Good post. (Karen liked it, too.)
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
>Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
>>
>> On 10 Jan 1999 23:23:11 -0600, Trad...@concentric.net (Cletus) wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:26:58 -0500, "Randy Cech"
>> ><Sam_P...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>> >
>> ><Scary fucked up cult chant snipped>
>> >
>> >I wonder sometimes if all these christians realize how dumb the whole
>> >thing is and just feel so stupid for believing in it that they feel a
>> >need to get others to join.
>> >
>> >If you look at christens and you look at one of those dooms-day cults
>> >a lot of things are a like, this should concern people. The Bible is
>> >an interesting story but I hold it in the same regard as I do Star
>> >Wars or Dune.
>> >
>> >
>> >If GOD didn't want us to fuck, why did GOD make it a basic urge? If
>> >GOD didn't want us to steal then why didn't GOD give us magic powers
>> >to just make our own stuff? Why did GOD make it possible for millions
>> >to die from starvation or be forced to live in a cardboard box (down
>> >by the Houston dump)?
>> >
>> >To all the christians in the world, get over it, there is no god. God
>> >sin while you still can.
>>
>> The Lord works in mysterious ways. It's a sin to question God. You
>> must accept the Lord, and follow His commandments. Only those with
>> faith, who accept Jesus Christ as their savior, will enter the Kingdom
>> of Heaven.
>>
>> I was taught all this shit as a kid, being raised Catholic. Then one
>> day, I declared to my parents, "Once a Catholic, NEVER a Catholic."
>>
>> If God is so goddamn GOOD, then why does everything SUCK? (And
>> Michael H, don't give me that "It's Satan's fault" crap, either--I've
>> heard this b.s. a zillion times
>
> Auditioning to be the new poster boy for the anti-Christian lobby are
>we?
Only if there's money in it.
>
> I think you've got me mixed up with Adam Hornbuckle
A lunatic.
>(not to be confused
>with the wrestler Badman Turnbuckle).
Another lunatic.
>nd while we are knocking people's
>religions, who's next on the list? the Muslims?
Lunatics.
>the Jews?
Lunatics.
>the Atheists?
Rationalists.
>the Hari Krishnas?
Lunatics. (but the food is good, even if it IS prasadam)
>Or is this one of those reverse KKK
Lunatics.
>things where only
>one group gets picked on? Oh, I get it! Let's adopt a posture of taking
>a bold stand against society
Lunatics.
>while hiding behind mommy's apron strings.
My daddy works for the Secret Marines.
> The big, established, Hollywood
Lunatics.
>big-media
Lunatics.
>anti-Christian establishment
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-religion, anti-superstition,
anti-faith. But I didn't start this thread--I responded to it.
>has a funny new hood ornament specially designed for its drive through
>afcb, and (get this) it thinks it's rebelling against society!!!
>AaaaaaHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Good one!! Make me laugh some more!
>
>>
Religion rebels against society.
>> p.s. I do really like the movie THE RAPTURE, though, cuz I like
>> looking at Mimi Rogers' tits.
>
> Never heard of him.
>
> Michael H.
Lunatic.
--ZRTLM
http://welcome.to/zrtlm
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
Karen Rouse) wrote:
>In article <369c7424...@snews.mnsi.net>, bduq...@in.mnsi.net (Barry
>Duquette) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 12:59:46 -0800, ro...@teleport.com (Sam and/or
>> Karen Rouse) wrote:
>>
>> >I like The Rapture because it demonstrates several horrific logical
>> >conclusions of fundamentalist beliefs. Mimi Rogers' tits are a bonus,
>> >though.
>> >
>> >-Sam
>>
>> What we really want to know is what Karen thinks of Mimi's tits. :P
>
>Karen, here:
>
>Not bad...
>
>--
>Sam and/or Karen Rouse ro...@teleport.com
>FZ Concert Tales:
> http://www.teleport.com/~rouse/fz/
I love Mimi Rogers' tits. They're big and bouncy and natural, with
nice nipples with big areolas. They're also featured in the movie
FULL BODY MASSAGE, which is even better still.
If I could lay around fondling and squeezing Mimi Rogers' tits all day
and all night, I wouldn't need the internet anymore. That would be
cool! Of course, Mimi could turn out to be a total idiot, but as long
as she shuts the hell up and can cook a half-decent meal, then what
the hell do I care.
p.s. Regarting THE RAPTURE: If I had to listen to that whining
brat's "Mommy, mommy, tell God you LOVE Him," crap up in Heaven, I'd
rather stay right here in Los Angeles, where at least most of the
people speak Spanish so I don't have to be offended by inane
conversations. As it is, yo tengo dolor de cabeza.
--ZRTLM
http://welcome.to/zrtlm
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Michael H.
> > > I like The Rapture because it demonstrates several horrific logical
> > > conclusions of fundamentalist beliefs.
> >
> > Zionist? Christian?
>
> Christian (and maybe to a lesser extent, Zionist). Sorry, I realized that
> omission shortly after posting.
>
> >
> > What a bunch of suckers.
>
> Joke. <ding> Laugh now.
Bad pun, I know.
> If you are serious, consider that whatever hatred Christians are receiving
> is largely self-inflicted (mainly by a vocal minority).
Agreed.
>If you really
> believe that only consumers of the Jeezus (tm) brand of Exalted Cheezy
> Poofs be gettin' True Satisfaction (tm), that be a whole 'nother can o'
> Worms (tm).
Nope. I'm not a member of the "bornagin brigade." I've never said I
was. I would guess that roughly 0% of people who call themselves
"Christians" actually are, because I think the standard for genuineness
there is so high. I think people like Adam Hornbuckle make it
embarrassing to be associated with Christianity. The histories of all
religious institutions through the ages are a disgrace. In fact,
religion is probably almost as bad as "freedom" as a reason for killing
people. The histories of atheist institutions (e.g. Stalinist Russia,
Red China, etc.) are also a disgrace. In practice, I am unaffiliated
with organized religion. I just think that atheism is limiting, and that
Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic (and all that that implies).
That's my opinion but I don't urge it on anybody. I do defend
Christianity against bigots partly because it is the only religion that
is not already protected by anti-hate laws. (Well, Islam isn't very well
protected either, judging by some of the Hollywood movies lately).
Probably most of the bible-belt ultra-right fundies in the US are
atheist snake-oil peddlars out to take the simple-minded for a ride. And
they talk funny. I once read that the US was rather unique in that such
a large percentage of self-professed "Christians" were evangelical
holy-rollers who play with snakes, get possessed and talk gibberish, and
similar craziness. Such behaviour is almost non-existent outside the US,
and so Americans might tend to have a very peculiar view of
"Christianity," and use the word "Christian" in a different way from the
rest of the world.
What I find funny, though, is to see a country where the public
perception of "reality" is defined in such a "Wag the Dog" bullshit way
by a too-powerful mass media, and then see people with ostensibly
anti-establishment tendencies playing right into it and becoming part of
the instrument of manipulation instead of genuine opponents of it. I
think Zappa succumbed to that to some extent. Same with early Dylan.
They were rocking a boat but they weren't rocking THE boat. They were
helping to ROW the boat to the extent that they dabbled in social
politics in a pointed and preachy way. Beefheart was too smart to make
that mistake. Certainly songs like "The Thousandth and Tenth Day of the
Human Totem Pole" make a strong statement, but it applies to all human
totem poles everywhere. It is about human nature. And his universal
anti-war message is very strong. But none of his lyrics sound like a
partisan political pamphlet set to music, unlike many of the lyrics of
his contemporaries. Don did make all those strong comments about Raygun,
and so on, on stage and in interviews, but he didn't let obvious
partisan politics contaminate his music as art.
Michael H.
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
> In fact,
>religion is probably almost as bad as "freedom" as a reason for killing
>people.
Whoa! This isn't funny anymore. If you're not willing to struggle,
fight and yes, even kill if placed in a life-threatening (life being
partially defined as maintaining your human rights, especially the
right to own property) situation, then I'd say that's a disgraceful
stand to take, and I'm honestly disappointed in you. Freedom is worth
fighting for--irrational religious beliefs are not. That was a really
foolish statement to make--I can only hope you can talk your way out
of it.
>The histories of atheist institutions (e.g. Stalinist Russia,
>Red China, etc.) are also a disgrace.
Because they're atheist? Or because they're INSTITUTIONS? Think
about it.
>n practice, I am unaffiliated
>with organized religion. I just think that atheism is limiting,
Reality itself is limited--by logic. How awful! :P
>and that
>Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic (and all that that implies).
>That's my opinion but I don't urge it on anybody. I do defend
>Christianity against bigots partly because it is the only religion that
>is not already protected by anti-hate laws. (Well, Islam isn't very well
>protected either, judging by some of the Hollywood movies lately).
How tiresome.
> Probably most of the bible-belt ultra-right fundies in the US are
>atheist snake-oil peddlars out to take the simple-minded for a ride. And
>they talk funny. I once read that the US was rather unique in that such
>a large percentage of self-professed "Christians" were evangelical
>holy-rollers who play with snakes, get possessed and talk gibberish, and
>similar craziness. Such behaviour is almost non-existent outside the US,
>and so Americans might tend to have a very peculiar view of
>"Christianity," and use the word "Christian" in a different way from the
>rest of the world.
Cop out argument. Christianity is absurd and offensive because it is
those things BY IT'S VERY NATURE, not become of Jerry Falwell and his
ilk. If you want to believe it, that's fine (I just learned that a
friend of mine, a hardcore ZR fan, is a Christian--and he still likes
my stuff!--amazing!...), but I insist that it's irrational, therefore
improper and self-defeating, and anti-productive to humanity overall.
If it was true, that'd be a different story all together. Mike, I
like you. You're smart, you speak your mind, and you've got guts. I
admire that. But I really hope you someday re-evaluate your views on
reason and self-esteem. God is not the answer--YOU are the answer, as
well as the one to blame.
> What I find funny, though, is to see a country where the public
>perception of "reality" is defined in such a "Wag the Dog" bullshit way
>by a too-powerful mass media, and then see people with ostensibly
>anti-establishment tendencies playing right into it and becoming part of
>the instrument of manipulation instead of genuine opponents of it. I
>think Zappa succumbed to that to some extent.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please make it less
cryptic and more precise for me, okay?
>Same with early Dylan.
>They were rocking a boat but they weren't rocking THE boat. They were
>helping to ROW the boat to the extent that they dabbled in social
>politics in a pointed and preachy way.
??? One of us is brain-damaged, and I think it's...
>Beefheart was too smart to make
>that mistake.
lol Here we go with the Don Van Vliet idol-worship again. Yeah--Don
was an abstract genius--Frank was just "pointed" in his social
politics. Am I reading you right? Sometimes many of you from both
"camps" make me feel like I'm entering the Twilight Zone everytime I
log in to the net...(and everybody calls ME weird...o-kaaaaay...)
>Certainly songs like "The Thousandth and Tenth Day of the
>Human Totem Pole" make a strong statement, but it applies to all human
>totem poles everywhere. It is about human nature.
I thought it was about my dick. At the time Don wrote that song, I
had gotten laid exactly 1010 times in my life, and Don told me he'd
write a song about it to celebrate. Robert will support me on this.
And if he won't, Gary Marker will. And if he won't, Papa will. Or my
ex-wives. Hell, SOMEBODY has to agree with me, SOMETIME! Goddammit!
Gillies! Andy! SOMEBODY!!! HELP!!!!
>And his universal
>anti-war message is very strong. But none of his lyrics sound like a
>partisan political pamphlet set to music, unlike many of the lyrics of
>his contemporaries.
Well, nyah nyah nyah! Don was better because he was more cryptic and
incoherent more often than his contemporaries, is that it? Well, I
say that ME, Frank and Andy Gibb could be JUST AS INCOHERENT AS THE
BEST OF THEM!!! Zappa should be applauded for having the GUTS to do
Broadway The Hard Way--NOBODY ELSE WAS DOING IT, but a lot of rock
bands should have. I love Beefheart, but, in all respect, maybe Don
couldn't TAKE THE HEAT the way Frank could. Or maybe he just didn't
feel like being overtly political. Who the fuck knows.
>Don did make all those strong comments about Raygun,
>and so on, on stage and in interviews, but he didn't let obvious
>partisan politics contaminate his music as art.
Well, we forgive him for that.
Being proficient in a foreign language is fine and dandy, but it
doesn't get problems solved at home. There are too many problems to
be addressed, for rock bands to be wasting time fucking around. Too
many things SUCK around here, and too many bands say and do NOTHING to
fix that. And on a personal level, I despise that. Abstract art is
cool, but sooner or later there better be a fucking constructive
MESSAGE, or it's worth NOTHING TO ME.
--ZRTLM
http://welcome.to/zrtlm
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
Karen Rouse) wrote:
>In article <369abbd7...@news.primenet.com>, moam...@primenet.com
>(Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo") wrote:
>
>> p.s. Regarting THE RAPTURE: If I had to listen to that whining
>> brat's "Mommy, mommy, tell God you LOVE Him," crap up in Heaven, I'd
>> rather stay right here in Los Angeles, where at least most of the
>> people speak Spanish so I don't have to be offended by inane
>> conversations. As it is, yo tengo dolor de cabeza.
>
>I think that's an excellent summation of the point of the movie. (Did I
>mention that I really like that flick, and that I believe in God? Sort
>all that shit out, & you'll probably understand more of my mind than most
>of my family, for whatever that's worth.)
I'm surprised at that, but it does make sense. The Rapture covers a
LOT of ground, from both ends. And, in the middle, are Rogers'
magnificent mimi's. Something for everybody! :P
--ZRTLM
http://welcome.to/zrtlm
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Michael Pierry
>
>
> incoherent more often than his contemporaries, is that it? Well, I
> say that ME, Frank and Andy Gibb could be JUST AS INCOHERENT AS THE
> BEST OF THEM!!! Zappa should be applauded for having the GUTS to do
> Broadway The Hard Way--NOBODY ELSE WAS DOING IT, but a lot of rock
> bands should have. I love Beefheart, but, in all respect, maybe Don
> couldn't TAKE THE HEAT the way Frank could. Or maybe he just didn't
> feel like being overtly political. Who the fuck knows.
Much as I'm enjoying this post, I had to step in here to question about this
paragraph. Assuming you really do think FZ should be applauded for doing what
the other rock bands wouldn't with Broadway the Hard Way... I recall a post
not too long ago wherein you seemed to indicate you thought that a lot of the
guys that Frank was attacking (actually, I think Jimmy Swaggart and the TV
preacher guys were specifically mentioned) were really easy targets. I
thought that was interesting, I had never thought of it that way. So on the
one hand, yeah being critical of politics and ACTUALLY TAKING A STAND and
presenting your own personal point of view is a good thing, but maybe you feel
Zappa didn't go far enough, or picked on guys like Swaggart who he knew would
be easy to make fun of, and be real crowd pleasers? This is probably true,
but I have to admit, I still find the "Swaggart version" of Lonesome Cowboy
Burt to be pretty funny.
And as for going after Pat Robertson, and Jimmy & Tammy Faye Bakker, and Ollie
North and Reagan and Bush... well, Broadway the Hard Way was a VERY
educational album for me. When I first heard it, I was about 11 or 12 years
old, and virtually ignorant of politics. I think I learned a lot from it, but
the most important thing was: PAY ATTENTION! What those old white guys do
down in Washington can affect your life!
As far as Zappa vs. Beefheart... why bother making a comparison (well, at
least in that regard)? You've got two very different minds at work there.
Zappa always spoke his mind. Beefheart... well, I've read interviews with the
Captain, and um... it's sort of hard to figure out what he means at times.
Not that he didn't say funny and interesting things, but the last thing you'd
expect him to say was something like, "Boy, I really hate that Nixon guy." Or
write a song about Republicans. It just was never Don's style. Frankly
(heh), both styles suit me fine.
I dunno, whadaya think?
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
(Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo") wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:10:46 +0500, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > In fact,
> >religion is probably almost as bad as "freedom" as a reason for killing
> >people.
>
> Whoa! This isn't funny anymore. If you're not willing to struggle,
> fight and yes, even kill if placed in a life-threatening (life being
> partially defined as maintaining your human rights, especially the
> right to own property) situation, then I'd say that's a disgraceful
> stand to take, and I'm honestly disappointed in you. Freedom is worth
> fighting for--irrational religious beliefs are not. That was a really
> foolish statement to make--I can only hope you can talk your way out
> of it.
Zoogz, "Freedom" is often made into the same sort of festooned-but-hollow
standard to be borne by fanatics as "Jeezus" or "The Comet." The word
don't
necessarily have it's usual meaning when brandished by a mob.
{Rest snipped; running outta gas for the day}
-Sam
NI...@sword.edg
andy roberts
>
> Speaking of catholics, I saw a woman on TV tonight having her baby
>baptized by the Pope, and she was wearing a fur coat!! What kind of a
>religion would allow that?? I've heard of catholic priests blessing
>bullfighters!! They even bless people who go out and pull nursing infant
>seals from their mothers' breasts and skin them alive!! I can understand
>atheists being cruel brutes, but it makes no sense for people to pose as
>religious while endorsing acts of hideous cruelty.
On the contrary , atheists are more likely to be able to rationalise and
therefore empathise with others' feelings. Religion has long been used for
encouraging mindless obedience to oppressive rulers.
Arn't all your warships and nuclear submarines launched with the words "God
bless this ship and all who sail in her"?
--
Andy R.
MDec500157
>Date: Mon, Jan 11, 1999 11:46 EST
>Message-id: <369A2A...@netcom.ca>
>
>MDec500157 wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: Off topic: One reason I am not a Christian
>> >From: moam...@primenet.com (Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo")
>> >Date: Mon, Jan 11, 1999 03:56 EST
>> >The Lord works in mysterious ways. It's a sin to question God. You
>> >must accept the Lord, and follow His commandments. Only those with
>> >faith, who accept Jesus Christ as their savior, will enter the Kingdom
>> >of Heaven.
>> >
>> >I was taught all this shit as a kid, being raised Catholic. Then one
>> >day, I declared to my parents, "Once a Catholic, NEVER a Catholic."
>>
>> OK, I need the Secret Of The Golden Crab here. I recently told a friend
>being
>> raised catholic is like being injected with a herpes virus: it never
>COMPLETELY
>> goes away. And god (sorry) knows I've tried to wash it out with everything
>from
>> LSD to beer, zen to existentialism, but I still don't feel clean.
>> HELP ME , BROTHER RIFT! Git this monkey off'n mah back!
>>
>> >If God is so goddamn GOOD, then why does everything SUCK? (And
>> >Michael H, don't give me that "It's Satan's fault" crap, either--I've
>> >heard this b.s. a zillion times).
>>
>> Yeah, my christian friend (I DO have one) sez this all the time: "It's
>Satan's
>> world."
>
> Speaking of catholics, I saw a woman on TV tonight having her baby
>baptized by the Pope, and she was wearing a fur coat!! What kind of a
>religion would allow that?? I've heard of catholic priests blessing
>bullfighters!! They even bless people who go out and pull nursing infant
>seals from their mothers' breasts and skin them alive!! I can understand
>atheists being cruel brutes, but it makes no sense for people to pose as
>religious while endorsing acts of hideous cruelty.
WEll, there you go, if that's true and you're serious. It's fucked up in so
many ways, it ain't funny, and I don't even count THAT one. They got the shit
into my skull when I was so small I still had to ask someone to get me a drink.
I was smart enough to understand but not smart enough to reject it out and out.
It's done serious damage. I'm not kidding. I wish I could SUE the Catholic
Church for a few billion dollars for robbing me of a rich and rewarding life!
Motherfuckers!
OTOH, if anyone else wants to believe that shit, it's fine with me, just don't
use it or the Bible to take away any of what's left of my liberty.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence -it is a force! Like fire it is
a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left
to irresponsible action.
The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded
upon the Christian religion." -- GEORGE WASHINGTON
Mike
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
Karen Rouse) wrote:
>In article <369ae27a...@news.primenet.com>, moam...@primenet.com
>(Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo") wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:10:46 +0500, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In fact,
>> >religion is probably almost as bad as "freedom" as a reason for killing
>> >people.
>>
>> Whoa! This isn't funny anymore. If you're not willing to struggle,
>> fight and yes, even kill if placed in a life-threatening (life being
>> partially defined as maintaining your human rights, especially the
>> right to own property) situation, then I'd say that's a disgraceful
>> stand to take, and I'm honestly disappointed in you. Freedom is worth
>> fighting for--irrational religious beliefs are not. That was a really
>> foolish statement to make--I can only hope you can talk your way out
>> of it.
>
>Zoogz, "Freedom" is often made into the same sort of festooned-but-hollow
>standard to be borne by fanatics as "Jeezus" or "The Comet." The word
>don't
>necessarily have it's usual meaning when brandished by a mob.
>
That's true. But then "freedom" isn't the culprit, is it then. It's
what fanatics do with it that can be a problem. I feel the exact same
way about capitalism. People apply it in cruel, irrational,
non-productive ways, and it unfairly gets the bum rap.
--ZRTLM
http://welcome.to/zrtlm
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
>Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, nyah nyah nyah! Don was better because he was more cryptic and
>> incoherent more often than his contemporaries, is that it? Well, I
>> say that ME, Frank and Andy Gibb could be JUST AS INCOHERENT AS THE
>> BEST OF THEM!!! Zappa should be applauded for having the GUTS to do
>> Broadway The Hard Way--NOBODY ELSE WAS DOING IT, but a lot of rock
>> bands should have. I love Beefheart, but, in all respect, maybe Don
>> couldn't TAKE THE HEAT the way Frank could. Or maybe he just didn't
>> feel like being overtly political. Who the fuck knows.
>
>Much as I'm enjoying this post, I had to step in here to question about this
>paragraph. Assuming you really do think FZ should be applauded for doing what
>the other rock bands wouldn't with Broadway the Hard Way... I recall a post
>not too long ago wherein you seemed to indicate you thought that a lot of the
>guys that Frank was attacking (actually, I think Jimmy Swaggart and the TV
>preacher guys were specifically mentioned) were really easy targets. I
>thought that was interesting, I had never thought of it that way. So on the
>one hand, yeah being critical of politics and ACTUALLY TAKING A STAND and
>presenting your own personal point of view is a good thing, but maybe you feel
>Zappa didn't go far enough
That is correct. For my tastes, I wish Frank had kept going. Still,
he covered a lot of ground, and I'm grateful for that.
>As far as Zappa vs. Beefheart... why bother making a comparison (well, at
>least in that regard)? You've got two very different minds at work there.
>Zappa always spoke his mind. Beefheart... well, I've read interviews with the
>Captain, and um... it's sort of hard to figure out what he means at times.
>Not that he didn't say funny and interesting things, but the last thing you'd
>expect him to say was something like, "Boy, I really hate that Nixon guy." Or
>write a song about Republicans. It just was never Don's style. Frankly
>(heh), both styles suit me fine.
>
>I dunno, whadaya think?
I agree. It's Michael H who insisted on making the comparisons. I
think Don and Frank were two sides of the same coin, and anybody who
had that coin in their pocket was wealthy indeed.
--ZRTLM
http://welcome.to/zrtlm
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Michael H.
>
> wrote:
>
> > In fact,
> >religion is probably almost as bad as "freedom" as a reason for killing
> >people.
>
> Whoa! This isn't funny anymore. If you're not willing to struggle,
> fight and yes, even kill if placed in a life-threatening (life being
> partially defined as maintaining your human rights, especially the
> right to own property)
Suppose you buy a forest. Think about it.
>situation, then I'd say that's a disgraceful
> stand to take, and I'm honestly disappointed in you. Freedom is worth
> fighting for--irrational religious beliefs are not. That was a really
> foolish statement to make--I can only hope you can talk your way out
> of it.
Four words: Ronald Reagan ....."freedom" fighters.
>
> >The histories of atheist institutions (e.g. Stalinist Russia,
> >Red China, etc.) are also a disgrace.
>
> Because they're atheist? Or because they're INSTITUTIONS? Think
> about it.
Well then you think about institutions before you criticize what's
behind one of them.
> >n practice, I am unaffiliated
> >with organized religion. I just think that atheism is limiting,
>
> Reality itself is limited--by logic. How awful! :P
Very funny, given that the meaning of "logic" itself is flawed and is
being upgraded on a daily basis by specialists in that field. I have
read Ayn Rand, and I can sympathize with that position as a reaction to
the move to turn a whole country into an all-powerful bureaucracy run by
committees in which no individuals receive recognition for their
achievements any more than an ant would receive recognition for hauling
in a gummy bear, but her obstreperous philosophy of "objectivism" to
which you avow to subscribe is not a necessary consequence of thinking
logically. It depends more on your basic premises than on the system of
logic, but I am disappointed that you didn't realize that these issues
are not simple. Did you ever manage the Honky Tonk Man? He was funny.
>
> >and that
> >Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic (and all that that implies).
> >That's my opinion but I don't urge it on anybody. I do defend
> >Christianity against bigots partly because it is the only religion that
> >is not already protected by anti-hate laws. (Well, Islam isn't very well
> >protected either, judging by some of the Hollywood movies lately).
>
> How tiresome.
You've heard that before? That's encouraging. What do you think of Hulk
Hogan's run for the presidency?
> > Probably most of the bible-belt ultra-right fundies in the US are
> >atheist snake-oil peddlars out to take the simple-minded for a ride. And
> >they talk funny. I once read that the US was rather unique in that such
> >a large percentage of self-professed "Christians" were evangelical
> >holy-rollers who play with snakes, get possessed and talk gibberish, and
> >similar craziness. Such behaviour is almost non-existent outside the US,
> >and so Americans might tend to have a very peculiar view of
> >"Christianity," and use the word "Christian" in a different way from the
> >rest of the world.
>
> Cop out argument. Christianity is absurd and offensive because it is
> those things BY IT'S VERY NATURE,
That's just slapstick comedy. What makes you do that? What makes any
Beefheart fan post stuff? I do like this ng a lot despite the insults.
It's like various shades of green, say, that are fairly close but also
clash drastically, and occasionally hideously.
>not become of Jerry Falwell and his
> ilk. If you want to believe it, that's fine (I just learned that a
> friend of mine, a hardcore ZR fan, is a Christian--and he still likes
> my stuff!--amazing!...), but I insist that it's irrational, therefore
> improper and self-defeating, and anti-productive to humanity overall.
> If it was true, that'd be a different story all together. Mike, I
> like you. You're smart, you speak your mind, and you've got guts. I
> admire that.
Oh man, where is JimCim to go "hahahahahahahaha......" right about now?
Is he ok or what?
>But I really hope you someday re-evaluate your views on
> reason and self-esteem.
Didn't Fried Pizza albeenipous say that to "if Al Johnson"?
>God is not the answer--YOU are the answer, as
> well as the one to blame.
What you can't accept is that I have been through all of that. I once
quasi-idolized Bertrand Russell (he is the Mr. Spock protype (for
trekkie lurkers)) and I enjoyed his book, "Why I Am Not A Christian,"
and found that the title was quite bold considering his society and
times, but Russell's work in the field of logic and set theory was
apparently flawed (because all such systems can probably never be more
than approximations, or duh), and I think that one's views on religious
questions can never be more than opinions. The idea that your particular
system is more "logical" than the next person's is just a schtik.
> > What I find funny, though, is to see a country where the public
> >perception of "reality" is defined in such a "Wag the Dog" bullshit way
> >by a too-powerful mass media, and then see people with ostensibly
> >anti-establishment tendencies playing right into it and becoming part of
> >the instrument of manipulation instead of genuine opponents of it. I
> >think Zappa succumbed to that to some extent.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please make it less
> cryptic and more precise for me, okay?
Sorry. I forgot that your mind is "different". (Where is Jane Goodall
when you really need her, right Zoogz?) I think that porno peddlars
profitted more from Zappa than the history professors did. Is that any
clearer? We all make mistakes. I admire artistic people who promote
their view of the world, and I admire you for that, and have enjoyed
many of the tracks from my ZR collection, but I disagree with your
concept of the basic blueprint. It's an academic point really, and a
rather "tiresome" topic. Your music kicks ass though. Strange, really. I
like your music but hate your philosophy.
> >Same with early Dylan.
> >They were rocking a boat but they weren't rocking THE boat. They were
> >helping to ROW the boat to the extent that they dabbled in social
> >politics in a pointed and preachy way.
>
> ??? One of us is brain-damaged, and I think it's...
Welcome to my dream, and how are you? Thank god your brain is in
working order today, and on display at the zoo. One must be grateful for
consciousness. To who/whom though? You miss out on expressing gratitude
to the higher levels. Sure, quibble about the temporal parameters but
there are always higher levels beyond us, so what do we do? Move to San
Francisco? (~)
> >Beefheart was too smart to make
> >that mistake.
>
> lol Here we go with the Don Van Vliet idol-worship again. Yeah--Don
> was an abstract genius--Frank was just "pointed" in his social
> politics. Am I reading you right? Sometimes many of you from both
> "camps" make me feel like I'm entering the Twilight Zone everytime I
> log in to the net...(and everybody calls ME weird...o-kaaaaay...)
Let me settle it. It is not a worship of Don Van Vliet as an abstract
genius.
> >Certainly songs like "The Thousandth and Tenth Day of the
> >Human Totem Pole" make a strong statement, but it applies to all human
> >totem poles everywhere. It is about human nature.
>
> I thought it was about my dick. At the time Don wrote that song, I
> had gotten laid exactly 1010 times in my life, and Don told me he'd
> write a song about it to celebrate. Robert will support me on this.
> And if he won't, Gary Marker will. And if he won't, Papa will. Or my
> ex-wives. Hell, SOMEBODY has to agree with me, SOMETIME! Goddammit!
> Gillies! Andy! SOMEBODY!!! HELP!!!!
Without Brazaville...
>
> >And his universal
> >anti-war message is very strong. But none of his lyrics sound like a
> >partisan political pamphlet set to music, unlike many of the lyrics of
> >his contemporaries.
>
> Well, nyah nyah nyah!
Valid ZR bs.
>Don was better because he was more cryptic and
> incoherent more often than his contemporaries, is that it?
I didn't ever call anybody peripheral. Technology points to a future in
which existing recordings will be available and debated about.
>Well, I
> say that ME, Frank and Andy Gibb could be JUST AS INCOHERENT AS THE
> BEST OF THEM!!! Zappa should be applauded for having the GUTS to do
> Broadway The Hard Way--NOBODY ELSE WAS DOING IT, but a lot of rock
> bands should have. I love Beefheart, but, in all respect, maybe Don
> couldn't TAKE THE HEAT the way Frank could. Or maybe he just didn't
> feel like being overtly political. Who the fuck knows.
>
> >Don did make all those strong comments about Raygun,
> >and so on, on stage and in interviews, but he didn't let obvious
> >partisan politics contaminate his music as art.
>
> Well, we forgive him for that.
Think Dragnet theme.
>
> Being proficient in a foreign language is fine and dandy, but it
> doesn't get problems solved at home. There are too many problems to
> be addressed, for rock bands to be wasting time fucking around. Too
> many things SUCK around here, and too many bands say and do NOTHING to
> fix that. And on a personal level, I despise that. Abstract art is
> cool, but sooner or later there better be a fucking constructive
> MESSAGE, or it's worth NOTHING TO ME.
>
> --ZRTLM
> http://welcome.to/zrtlm
> alt.fan.zoogz-rift
*joke
~from a video
Michael H.
>
> Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
> >
> >
> > incoherent more often than his contemporaries, is that it? Well, I
> > say that ME, Frank and Andy Gibb could be JUST AS INCOHERENT AS THE
> > BEST OF THEM!!! Zappa should be applauded for having the GUTS to do
> > Broadway The Hard Way--NOBODY ELSE WAS DOING IT, but a lot of rock
> > bands should have. I love Beefheart, but, in all respect, maybe Don
> > couldn't TAKE THE HEAT the way Frank could. Or maybe he just didn't
> > feel like being overtly political. Who the fuck knows.
>
> paragraph. Assuming you really do think FZ should be applauded for doing what
> the other rock bands wouldn't with Broadway the Hard Way... I recall a post
> not too long ago wherein you seemed to indicate you thought that a lot of the
> guys that Frank was attacking (actually, I think Jimmy Swaggart and the TV
> preacher guys were specifically mentioned) were really easy targets. I
> thought that was interesting, I had never thought of it that way. So on the
> one hand, yeah being critical of politics and ACTUALLY TAKING A STAND and
> presenting your own personal point of view is a good thing, but maybe you feel
> be easy to make fun of, and be real crowd pleasers? This is probably true,
> but I have to admit, I still find the "Swaggart version" of Lonesome Cowboy
> Burt to be pretty funny.
>
> And as for going after Pat Robertson,
Sam Kinneson had such a funny bit about Pat Roberston running for
president. He was a riot. How tragic that he died in a car crash.
> and Jimmy & Tammy Faye Bakker, and Ollie
> North and Reagan and Bush... well, Broadway the Hard Way was a VERY
> educational album for me. When I first heard it, I was about 11 or 12 years
> old, and virtually ignorant of politics. I think I learned a lot from it, but
> the most important thing was: PAY ATTENTION! What those old white guys do
> down in Washington can affect your life!
>
> As far as Zappa vs. Beefheart... why bother making a comparison (well, at
> least in that regard)? You've got two very different minds at work there.
> Zappa always spoke his mind. Beefheart... well, I've read interviews with the
> Captain, and um... it's sort of hard to figure out what he means at times.
> Not that he didn't say funny and interesting things, but the last thing you'd
> expect him to say was something like, "Boy, I really hate that Nixon guy." Or
> write a song about Republicans. It just was never Don's style. Frankly
> (heh), both styles suit me fine.
The big thing about Zappa that most people miss is that his Freak-Out
band was touring very early in the scheme of things. It was 66 or 67, I
can't remember which. Zappa was one of the great pioneers. No question
about it.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> I agree. It's Michael H who insisted on making the comparisons.
That's mindless gibberish. I did no such thing.
> I think Don and Frank were two sides of the same coin, and anybody who
> had that coin in their pocket was wealthy indeed.
>
More nonsense.
Michael H.
Michael H.
I do sympathize.It is sad the way martyrs get exploited for a buck.
> It's done serious damage. I'm not kidding. I wish I could SUE the Catholic
> Church for a few billion dollars for robbing me of a rich and rewarding life!
> Motherfuckers!
> OTOH, if anyone else wants to believe that shit, it's fine with me, just don't
> use it or the Bible to take away any of what's left of my liberty.
And vice versa. (joke)
>
> "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence -it is a force! Like fire it is
> a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left
> to irresponsible action.
> The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded
> upon the Christian religion." -- GEORGE WASHINGTON
Did George say that? Well I'll be damned.
>
> Mike
>
Michael H.
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Jan 1999 21:38:00 +0500, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10 Jan 1999 23:23:11 -0600, Trad...@concentric.net (Cletus) wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:26:58 -0500, "Randy Cech"
> >> ><Sam_P...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><Scary fucked up cult chant snipped>
> >> >
> >> >I wonder sometimes if all these christians realize how dumb the whole
> >> >thing is and just feel so stupid for believing in it that they feel a
> >> >need to get others to join.
> >> >
> >> >If you look at christens and you look at one of those dooms-day cults
> >> >a lot of things are a like, this should concern people. The Bible is
> >> >an interesting story but I hold it in the same regard as I do Star
> >> >Wars or Dune.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >If GOD didn't want us to fuck, why did GOD make it a basic urge? If
> >> >GOD didn't want us to steal then why didn't GOD give us magic powers
> >> >to just make our own stuff? Why did GOD make it possible for millions
> >> >to die from starvation or be forced to live in a cardboard box (down
> >> >by the Houston dump)?
> >> >
> >> >To all the christians in the world, get over it, there is no god. God
> >> >sin while you still can.
> >>
> >> The Lord works in mysterious ways. It's a sin to question God. You
> >> must accept the Lord, and follow His commandments. Only those with
> >> faith, who accept Jesus Christ as their savior, will enter the Kingdom
> >> of Heaven.
> >>
> >> I was taught all this shit as a kid, being raised Catholic. Then one
> >> day, I declared to my parents, "Once a Catholic, NEVER a Catholic."
> >>
> >> If God is so goddamn GOOD, then why does everything SUCK? (And
> >> Michael H, don't give me that "It's Satan's fault" crap, either--I've
Michael H.
> >baptized by the Pope, and she was wearing a fur coat!! What kind of a
> >religion would allow that?? I've heard of catholic priests blessing
> >bullfighters!! They even bless people who go out and pull nursing infant
> >seals from their mothers' breasts and skin them alive!! I can understand
> >atheists being cruel brutes, but it makes no sense for people to pose as
> >religious while endorsing acts of hideous cruelty.
>
> therefore empathise with others' feelings. Religion has long been used for
> encouraging mindless obedience to oppressive rulers.
>
> Arn't all your warships and nuclear submarines launched with the words "God
> bless this ship and all who sail in her"?
>
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
(Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo") wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:14:47 +0500, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > Suppose you buy a forest. Think about it.
>
> Okay. (Zoogz thinks about it). Then it's MY forest, my land. Next
> question.
Think about it some more. This is a subject near and dear to my heart,
having spent my formative years in western and southern Oregon (and my Dad
worked for BLM; that alone may draw hate mail).
In mostly-rural Douglas County, there are lots of folks concerned about
property rights vs. central planning - a lot of them are fighting for the
right to essentially "pee into the stream (and that's important)" -
Firesign Theater - my point being that it's a very complicated bunch of
issues. I don't think they have the right to pee in the stream, regardless
of their property holdings. (FWIW, I don't see eye-to-eye with my Dad on a
lot of this stuff, either....)
> > Very funny, given that the meaning of "logic" itself is flawed and is
> >being upgraded on a daily basis by specialists in that field.
>
>
> Sez you. I'm not talking about mathematics here, either. I'm talking
> about applied logic used to determine what is real and not real, to be
> able to form a moral value system of rational self-interest, to be
> able to use what you HAVE (the key word here) to be productive and
> self-fulfilled. If one can own clothes, or compact discs, or have
> rights to their own children, they can own a forest as well.
Rest snipped - the funny thing is, I think there's more common ground
between Zoogz and Michael H. than either would admit. Let the dialogue
continue.
MDec500157
<BIG SNIP>
>> The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense,
>founded
>> upon the Christian religion." -- GEORGE WASHINGTON
>
> Did George say that? Well I'll be damned.
So will I, if there's a god. Yes, George really said that. Our founding fathers
really had their shit together, not to start a new argument.
Mike
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
>Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:10:46 +0500, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In fact,
>> >religion is probably almost as bad as "freedom" as a reason for killing
>> >people.
>>
>> Whoa! This isn't funny anymore. If you're not willing to struggle,
>> fight and yes, even kill if placed in a life-threatening (life being
>> partially defined as maintaining your human rights, especially the
>> right to own property)
>
> Suppose you buy a forest. Think about it.
>
Okay. (Zoogz thinks about it). Then it's MY forest, my land. Next
question.
>>situation, then I'd say that's a disgraceful
>> stand to take, and I'm honestly disappointed in you. Freedom is worth
>> fighting for--irrational religious beliefs are not. That was a really
>> foolish statement to make--I can only hope you can talk your way out
>> of it.
>
> Four words: Ronald Reagan ....."freedom" fighters.
>>
Another Canadian criticizing Ronald Reagan. He has NOTHING to do with
what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about a specific person. I'm
talking about the right to own property, to own yourself, the right to
say "this is mine," and the rational willingness to fight to protect
it. Nothing more, nothing less.
>> >The histories of atheist institutions (e.g. Stalinist Russia,
>> >Red China, etc.) are also a disgrace.
>>
>> Because they're atheist? Or because they're INSTITUTIONS? Think
>> about it.
>
> Well then you think about institutions before you criticize what's
>behind one of them.
>
Cop out. Michael, you do not use logic to argue. You make vague
implications, taking the intellectual short cut, and hope that someone
falls for the bait. I don't.
>> >n practice, I am unaffiliated
>> >with organized religion. I just think that atheism is limiting,
>>
>> Reality itself is limited--by logic. How awful! :P
>
> Very funny, given that the meaning of "logic" itself is flawed and is
>being upgraded on a daily basis by specialists in that field.
Sez you. I'm not talking about mathematics here, either. I'm talking
about applied logic used to determine what is real and not real, to be
able to form a moral value system of rational self-interest, to be
able to use what you HAVE (the key word here) to be productive and
self-fulfilled. If one can own clothes, or compact discs, or have
rights to their own children, they can own a forest as well.
>I have
>read Ayn Rand,
I never mentioned Rand in this thread. I don't give a flying FUCK
about Ayn Rand, other than the specific things about her philosophy
and writings that I feel benefit me directly and positively. Beyond
that, Rand was just another idiot. I will NOT sit here and try to
have a rational argument with you if you are going to intellectually
cheat AGAIN in this conversation, this time by throwing Rand's name
into the conversation to gain knee-jerk support from other posters
here, to try to imply that you had a legit argument and that other
people agree with that argument. So far, there's nothing for them to
agree WITH, so you throw out the (implied) negative buzz-word, AYN
RAND, and hope for the best. I won't accept short-cuts and
game-playing manipulation, Michael. Not in this conversation. I
won't sit here quiet while you post messages suggesting that freedom
is something EVIL. That's a crock of holy horseshit, and it's
shameful that you don't know that. And this IS intertwined with your
religious beliefs, by the way, whether you recognize it or not.
>and I can sympathize with that position as a reaction to
>the move to turn a whole country into an all-powerful bureaucracy run by
>committees in which no individuals receive recognition for their
>achievements any more than an ant would receive recognition for hauling
>in a gummy bear, but her obstreperous philosophy of "objectivism" to
>which you avow to subscribe is not a necessary consequence of thinking
>logically. It depends more on your basic premises than on the system of
>logic, but I am disappointed that you didn't realize that these issues
>are not simple.
FUCK YOU. How dare you condescend to me? My previous remarks were
honest, yours are merely defensive and insulting. Intellectually,
Michael, you ARE a FRAUD. Stop it. It's below you. Or it should be.
>Did you ever manage the Honky Tonk Man? He was funny.
Nope. Comic relief (another gimmick) won't work here. I'm dead
serious about this issue regarding freedom. It is my opinion that
without freedom (and the inherent right to own property), human beings
have NOTHING. Any alternative to freedom is reprehensible and
disgusting, and I won't tolerate it, ever. I won't sit by and watch
an ignorant, under-educated world make preposterous anti-intellectual
statements of implied legitimacy which only lead to societies of
RAMPANT ASSHOLISM. I've dedicated my life to fighting against this,
by encouraging education of relevancy and importance (as opposed to
the mostly worthless bullshit taught in schools today), by using my
albums as a means to get young people's attention, to preach (yes,
PREACH) to them the simple but crucial message, "Think more, party
less." I believe with thought (a tricky word, Michael), that most of
the problems of this world could be solved within the next 30 years.
Unlike John Lennon, I believe that THOUGHT is all we need. But
tricks, gimmicks, short cuts, and cheating won't get the job done.
It's important to be as specific as possible, and to make realistic
points. This world SUCKS BIG TIME, infested with laziness, dishonesty
and offensive stupidity, because PEOPLE DON'T THINK.
Many like to let GOD do their thinking for them.......
>>
>> >and that
>> >Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic (and all that that implies).
If there really WAS a Jesus, then he apparently WAS both a liar and a
lunatic. Nobody walks on water. Not even me (and I've tried).
>> >That's my opinion but I don't urge it on anybody. I do defend
>> >Christianity against bigots partly because it is the only religion that
>> >is not already protected by anti-hate laws. (Well, Islam isn't very well
>> >protected either, judging by some of the Hollywood movies lately).
>>
>> How tiresome.
>
> You've heard that before? That's encouraging. What do you think of Hulk
>Hogan's run for the presidency?
>
>> > Probably most of the bible-belt ultra-right fundies in the US are
>> >atheist snake-oil peddlars out to take the simple-minded for a ride. And
>> >they talk funny. I once read that the US was rather unique in that such
>> >a large percentage of self-professed "Christians" were evangelical
>> >holy-rollers who play with snakes, get possessed and talk gibberish, and
>> >similar craziness. Such behaviour is almost non-existent outside the US,
>> >and so Americans might tend to have a very peculiar view of
>> >"Christianity," and use the word "Christian" in a different way from the
>> >rest of the world.
>>
>> Cop out argument. Christianity is absurd and offensive because it is
>> those things BY IT'S VERY NATURE,
>
> That's just slapstick comedy.
Let's see if you think so the next time you're indirectly victimized
by it, and don't even know it. It happens every day.
>hat makes you do that? What makes any
>Beefheart fan post stuff? I do like this ng a lot despite the insults.
>It's like various shades of green, say, that are fairly close but also
>clash drastically, and occasionally hideously.
>
I am not a Beefheart fan, per se. I am an artist in my own right,
Zoogz Rift, and I happen to enjoy Don's music, lyrics and legacy. But
I certainly wouldn't merely define myself as a Beefheart (or Zappa)
fan. Mere fans are SLUGS.
And I HATE these newsgroups, and if I had a life I wouldn't waste my
time here everyday, talking to a display of watermelons. There's a
whole world out there, much to do, and I regret not being able to do
much out there anymore. So I do what I can, here. But I'll
admit--the net is a tough gig.
> >not become of Jerry Falwell and his
>> ilk. If you want to believe it, that's fine (I just learned that a
>> friend of mine, a hardcore ZR fan, is a Christian--and he still likes
>> my stuff!--amazing!...), but I insist that it's irrational, therefore
>> improper and self-defeating, and anti-productive to humanity overall.
>> If it was true, that'd be a different story all together. Mike, I
>> like you. You're smart, you speak your mind, and you've got guts. I
>> admire that.
>
> Oh man, where is JimCim to go "hahahahahahahaha......" right about now?
>Is he ok or what?
>
You appear to be a very insecure person. Just curious Mike--what do
you do for a living? How do you spend your days, your life on earth
every day? (I mean specifically, not generally) Do you feel
productive? Do you take pride in your work? Are you rewarded for
your work? Is that reward YOURS--to keep, to use, TO OWN? Have you
ever bought anything? Have you ever been robbed?
And, (I'm trying not to be condescending here, but it's getting more
difficult by the minute) just out of curiosity--how old are you? How
long have you been on this planet as a functioning adult--how much
experience have you had working, being paid on Friday, being broke by
Monday, year after year and still ending up with nothing, like most
people?
And, in a semi-related context--how often did either Frank or Don have
that experience? It's easy to be cocky when you've never had to
sweat, or cry--when life was handed to you on a silver platter (spare
me the emotional defense of Frank and Don--I don't want to hear it).
>> > What I find funny, though, is to see a country where the public
>> >perception of "reality" is defined in such a "Wag the Dog" bullshit way
>> >by a too-powerful mass media, and then see people with ostensibly
>> >anti-establishment tendencies playing right into it and becoming part of
>> >the instrument of manipulation instead of genuine opponents of it. I
>> >think Zappa succumbed to that to some extent.
>>
>> I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please make it less
>> cryptic and more precise for me, okay?
>
> Sorry. I forgot that your mind is "different". (Where is Jane Goodall
>when you really need her, right Zoogz?)
Neither anthropology nor gorillas are of much interest to me. There
are more important things to think about, process, and try to do
something about. Not my bag.
>I think that porno peddlars
>profitted more from Zappa than the history professors did. Is that any
>clearer? We all make mistakes. I admire artistic people who promote
>their view of the world, and I admire you for that, and have enjoyed
>many of the tracks from my ZR collection, but I disagree with your
>concept of the basic blueprint. It's an academic point really, and a
>rather "tiresome" topic. Your music kicks ass though. Strange, really. I
>like your music but hate your philosophy.
>
Fair enough.
I gain very little from your likes or hates, but it does give me
something to do here on the net. I'd much rather be surrounded by
these kinds of conversations than most of the thorougly idiotic
subjects posted here daily.
--ZRTLM
http://welcome.to/zrtlm
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
>Zoogz has a great rating system. He only got one wrong.
I was absent that day.
--ZRTLM
http://welcome.to/zrtlm
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
>Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
>>
>
>> I agree. It's Michael H who insisted on making the comparisons.
>
> That's mindless gibberish. I did no such thing.
Yes you did! nyah nyah nyah!
>
>> I think Don and Frank were two sides of the same coin, and anybody who
>> had that coin in their pocket was wealthy indeed.
>>
> More nonsense.
>
> Michael H.
No it isn't! So there!
--ZRTLM
http://welcome.to/zrtlm
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Christopher Ekman
Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo" wrote in message
<369c0f72...@news.primenet.com>...
>Another Canadian criticizing Ronald Reagan. He has NOTHING to
>do with what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about a specific
>person. I'm talking about the right to own property, to own yourself,
>the right to say "this is mine," and the rational willingness to fight to
>protect it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Speaking of property (if I can go on a tangent for a moment)- there doesn't
seem to be much love for it in afc-b. I can't find the original messages
anymore, but a whole bunch of people there were raring to end the notion of
intellectual property. I never really gathered why- something about being
interested in the music, not the man, and property is theft anyways, and
most importantly how would it hurt ME?
This struck me as weird, especially in a group devoted to an artist who
suffered so much from not owning the rights to his own material. I don't
recall much of any explanation being offered the incredulous aff-zers who
replied. Anybody wanna re-open this can of worms?
>>> > What I find funny, though, is to see a country where the
>>> >public perception of "reality" is defined in such a "Wag the
>>> >Dog" bullshit way by a too-powerful mass media, and then see
>>> >people with ostensibly anti-establishment tendencies playing
>>> >right into it and becoming part of the instrument of manipulation
>>> >instead of genuine opponents of it. I think Zappa succumbed to
>>> >that to some extent.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please make it
>>> less cryptic and more precise for me, okay?
>>
>> Sorry. I forgot that your mind is "different". (Where is Jane Goodall
>>when you really need her, right Zoogz?)
My mind is not terribly different and I can't make sense of the above,
either. Seriously, could you elaborate for all us monkeys out here?
(Side note: I often see Beefheart fans defining CB against Zappa, but rarely
do I see the versa viced. Why?)
Chris Ekman
Working...@worldnet.att.net
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
Karen Rouse) wrote:
>In article <369c0f72...@news.primenet.com>, moam...@primenet.com
>(Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo") wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:14:47 +0500, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Suppose you buy a forest. Think about it.
>>
>> Okay. (Zoogz thinks about it). Then it's MY forest, my land. Next
>> question.
>
>Think about it some more. This is a subject near and dear to my heart,
>having spent my formative years in western and southern Oregon (and my Dad
>worked for BLM; that alone may draw hate mail).
>
>In mostly-rural Douglas County, there are lots of folks concerned about
>property rights vs. central planning - a lot of them are fighting for the
>right to essentially "pee into the stream (and that's important)" -
>Firesign Theater - my point being that it's a very complicated bunch of
>issues. I don't think they have the right to pee in the stream, regardless
>of their property holdings. (FWIW, I don't see eye-to-eye with my Dad on a
>lot of this stuff, either....)
>
I was responding to a simple question with a simple answer. You've
just presented a more complex issue which I don't know many facts
about, so it would be impractical for me to make any sort of
conclusion or decision about it until I had as much info as possible
so I'd know what I was doing. Of which. Therefore. Hereof.
Man, my grammar sucks! Oh well. Fuck it. I'll have to keep relying
on my natural charm to get me through.
>> > Very funny, given that the meaning of "logic" itself is flawed and is
>> >being upgraded on a daily basis by specialists in that field.
>>
>>
>> Sez you. I'm not talking about mathematics here, either. I'm talking
>> about applied logic used to determine what is real and not real, to be
>> able to form a moral value system of rational self-interest, to be
>> able to use what you HAVE (the key word here) to be productive and
>> self-fulfilled. If one can own clothes, or compact discs, or have
>> rights to their own children, they can own a forest as well.
>
>Rest snipped - the funny thing is, I think there's more common ground
>between Zoogz and Michael H. than either would admit. Let the dialogue
>continue.
Michael and I like each other (I think). This internet jousting is
good for everybody, ultimately. It doesn't hurt to disagree--in fact,
it's healthy.
But I do it anyway. :P
--ZRTLM
http://welcome.to/zrtlm
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
<working...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo" wrote in message
><369c0f72...@news.primenet.com>...
>
>>Another Canadian criticizing Ronald Reagan. He has NOTHING to
>>do with what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about a specific
>>person. I'm talking about the right to own property, to own yourself,
>>the right to say "this is mine," and the rational willingness to fight to
>>protect it. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
>
>Speaking of property (if I can go on a tangent for a moment)- there doesn't
>seem to be much love for it in afc-b. I can't find the original messages
>anymore, but a whole bunch of people there were raring to end the notion of
>intellectual property.
I suspect you are referring to these comments (among others):
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 23:11:35 +0000, Tony Rigby
<tony....@rigbys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In <369652f9...@news.pinc.com>, Rolf Maurer <rma...@pinc.com>
>writes
>>I agree -- probably we all do -- that it SHOULD be the artist's
>>decision whether or not her work is released.
>
>Nope, I don't agree with that. I can't see why the originator of the
>work should have rights superior to those of the audience.
<end of quote>
> I never really gathered why- something about being
>interested in the music, not the man, and property is theft anyways, and
>most importantly how would it hurt ME?
>
>This struck me as weird, especially in a group devoted to an artist who
>suffered so much from not owning the rights to his own material. I don't
>recall much of any explanation being offered the incredulous aff-zers who
>replied. Anybody wanna re-open this can of worms?
>
>>>> > What I find funny, though, is to see a country where the
>>>> >public perception of "reality" is defined in such a "Wag the
>>>> >Dog" bullshit way by a too-powerful mass media, and then see
>>>> >people with ostensibly anti-establishment tendencies playing
>>>> >right into it and becoming part of the instrument of manipulation
>>>> >instead of genuine opponents of it. I think Zappa succumbed to
>>>> >that to some extent.
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please make it
>>>> less cryptic and more precise for me, okay?
>>>
>>> Sorry. I forgot that your mind is "different". (Where is Jane Goodall
>>>when you really need her, right Zoogz?)
>
>
>My mind is not terribly different and I can't make sense of the above,
>either. Seriously, could you elaborate for all us monkeys out here?
>
>(Side note: I often see Beefheart fans defining CB against Zappa, but rarely
>do I see the versa viced. Why?)
>
>Chris Ekman
>Working...@worldnet.att.net
>
>
Because Zappa fans take more drugs than Beefheart fans, who, in turn,
are more into professional wrestling. Especially our demon.co.uk pals
from some little island off the coast of Europe.
--ZRTLM
http://welcome.to/zrtlm
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Michael H.
I do include atheism as a religion, since it is an unprovable position
on a theological question, and therefore based on faith rather than
reason.
It would be more accurate to say that I believe that religion should
could itself clean from politics. Mixing religion and state hurts
religion more than it hurts the state.
Michael H.
NI...@sword.edg
>Karen Rouse) wrote:
>
>>In article <369c0f72...@news.primenet.com>, moam...@primenet.com
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:14:47 +0500, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Suppose you buy a forest. Think about it.
>>>
>>> Okay. (Zoogz thinks about it). Then it's MY forest, my land. Next
>>> question.
>>
>>having spent my formative years in western and southern Oregon (and my Dad
>>worked for BLM; that alone may draw hate mail).
>>
>>In mostly-rural Douglas County, there are lots of folks concerned about
>>property rights vs. central planning - a lot of them are fighting for the
>>right to essentially "pee into the stream (and that's important)" -
>>Firesign Theater - my point being that it's a very complicated bunch of
>>issues. I don't think they have the right to pee in the stream, regardless
>>of their property holdings. (FWIW, I don't see eye-to-eye with my Dad on a
>>lot of this stuff, either....)
>>
>
>I was responding to a simple question with a simple answer. You've
>just presented a more complex issue which I don't know many facts
>about, so it would be impractical for me to make any sort of
>conclusion or decision about it until I had as much info as possible
>so I'd know what I was doing. Of which. Therefore. Hereof.
>
>Man, my grammar sucks! Oh well. Fuck it. I'll have to keep relying
>on my natural charm to get me through.
>
>
>>> >being upgraded on a daily basis by specialists in that field.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sez you. I'm not talking about mathematics here, either. I'm talking
>>> about applied logic used to determine what is real and not real, to be
>>> able to form a moral value system of rational self-interest, to be
>>> able to use what you HAVE (the key word here) to be productive and
>>> self-fulfilled. If one can own clothes, or compact discs, or have
>>> rights to their own children, they can own a forest as well.
>>
>>between Zoogz and Michael H. than either would admit. Let the dialogue
>>continue.
>
>
>Michael and I like each other (I think). This internet jousting is
>good for everybody, ultimately. It doesn't hurt to disagree--in fact,
>it's healthy.
>
>But I do it anyway. :P
>
>--ZRTLM
> http://welcome.to/zrtlm
> alt.fan.zoogz-rift
through the net its harmless
but in person
it will usually led to mortal combat unless
one of the participants is a wimp
or as flashy freddie blasie would say
a low down no good scum sucking pencil neck geek
Michael H.
>
> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:14:47 +0500, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
> wrote:
> >Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
> >> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 00:10:46 +0500, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
> >> wrote:
> >> > In fact,
> >> >religion is probably almost as bad as "freedom" as a reason for killing
> >> >people.
> >> Whoa! This isn't funny anymore. If you're not willing to struggle,
> >> fight and yes, even kill if placed in a life-threatening (life being
> >> partially defined as maintaining your human rights, especially the
> >> right to own property)
> >
> > Suppose you buy a forest. Think about it.
> Okay. (Zoogz thinks about it). Then it's MY forest, my land. Next
> question.
What about the animals that live there? Do you own them too? What if
there is a tribe of aboriginals living in there?
> >>situation, then I'd say that's a disgraceful
> >> stand to take, and I'm honestly disappointed in you. Freedom is worth
> >> fighting for--irrational religious beliefs are not. That was a really
> >> foolish statement to make--I can only hope you can talk your way out
> >> of it.
> >
> > Four words: Ronald Reagan ....."freedom" fighters.
> >>
>
> Another Canadian criticizing Ronald Reagan. He has NOTHING to do with
> what I'm talking about.
You were responding to my statement that religion was almost as bad as
"freedom" as an excuse to kill people. You clearly believe in freedom,
even though Reagan misused the word, so you cannot fault people for
believing in Christianity just because Jerry Falwell misused that word.
You cannot criticize a religion on the basis of the misdeeds of
religious institutions any more than you can criticize freedom on the
basis of people bombing civilians in the name of freedom.
>I'm not talking about a specific person. I'm
> talking about the right to own property, to own yourself, the right to
> say "this is mine," and the rational willingness to fight to protect
> it. Nothing more, nothing less.
You changed the topic then. Fine. I believe in the right to own
property also, and would fight to protect it.
> >> >The histories of atheist institutions (e.g. Stalinist Russia,
> >> >Red China, etc.) are also a disgrace.
> >>
> >> Because they're atheist? Or because they're INSTITUTIONS? Think
> >> about it.
> >
> > Well then you think about institutions before you criticize what's
> >behind one of them.
> >
>
> Cop out.
No it isn't. Your criticism of religions was based partly on the
behaviour of its institutions, so it was fair and logical for me to draw
attention to the behaviour of atheist institutions.
>Michael, you do not use logic to argue. You make vague
> implications, taking the intellectual short cut, and hope that someone
> falls for the bait. I don't.
I don't present strings of statements that alternate between "since"
and "therefore," but there is nothing illogical about what I am saying.
>
> >> >n practice, I am unaffiliated
> >> >with organized religion. I just think that atheism is limiting,
> >>
> >> Reality itself is limited--by logic. How awful! :P
> >
> > Very funny, given that the meaning of "logic" itself is flawed and is
> >being upgraded on a daily basis by specialists in that field.
>
> Sez you. I'm not talking about mathematics here, either. I'm talking
> about applied logic used to determine what is real and not real, to be
> able to form a moral value system of rational self-interest, to be
> able to use what you HAVE (the key word here) to be productive and
> self-fulfilled. If one can own clothes, or compact discs, or have
> rights to their own children, they can own a forest as well.
See above.
>
> >I have
> >read Ayn Rand,
>
> I never mentioned Rand in this thread. I don't give a flying FUCK
> about Ayn Rand, other than the specific things about her philosophy
> and writings that I feel benefit me directly and positively. Beyond
> that, Rand was just another idiot.
But almost everything you write on these topics is paraphrasing her.
"Rational self-interest," etc.
>I will NOT sit here and try to
> have a rational argument with you if you are going to intellectually
> cheat AGAIN in this conversation, this time by throwing Rand's name
> into the conversation to gain knee-jerk support from other posters
> here, to try to imply that you had a legit argument and that other
> people agree with that argument. So far, there's nothing for them to
> agree WITH, so you throw out the (implied) negative buzz-word, AYN
> RAND, and hope for the best.
If I am willing to endure knee-jerk abusive responses from people like
yourself for saying that I agree with the Christian message, why can't
you own up to the fact that you also subscribe to the opinions of an
author whose name invites ridicule?
>I won't accept short-cuts and
> game-playing manipulation, Michael. Not in this conversation. I
> won't sit here quiet while you post messages suggesting that freedom
> is something EVIL. That's a crock of holy horseshit, and it's
> shameful that you don't know that. And this IS intertwined with your
> religious beliefs, by the way, whether you recognize it or not.
Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. I certainly do believe in
freedom, but I was trying to point out that many horrible things have
been done in the NAME of freedom, in the same way that horrible things
have been done in the name of various religions. You were saying that
twisted people put twisted ideas about religion into your head, and that
those twisted people called themselves Christians, and that that is one
reason you hate Christianity. I am saying that you cannot judge the
religion based on the behaviour of people who misrepresented it to you
as a child, any more than a person should judge "freedom" based on the
bombs dropping on their houses.
> >and I can sympathize with that position as a reaction to
> >the move to turn a whole country into an all-powerful bureaucracy run by
> >committees in which no individuals receive recognition for their
> >achievements any more than an ant would receive recognition for hauling
> >in a gummy bear, but her obstreperous philosophy of "objectivism" to
> >which you avow to subscribe is not a necessary consequence of thinking
> >logically. It depends more on your basic premises than on the system of
> >logic, but I am disappointed that you didn't realize that these issues
> >are not simple.
>
> FUCK YOU. How dare you condescend to me?
I was quoting your earlier condescending remark to me about how you
were "disappointed" in me. You throw a fit whenever you are addressed in
the same words you use to address others.
> My previous remarks were
> honest, yours are merely defensive and insulting.
You attacked and insulted my religion, right out of the blue,
completely unprovoked. That is what started it. Look at the title of
this thread. It is your title. You started it. Why?
> Intellectually,
> Michael, you ARE a FRAUD.
You are the one who has sunk to name-calling.
>Stop it. It's below you. Or it should be.
> >Did you ever manage the Honky Tonk Man? He was funny.
>
> Nope. Comic relief (another gimmick) won't work here. I'm dead
> serious about this issue regarding freedom. It is my opinion that
> without freedom (and the inherent right to own property), human beings
> have NOTHING. Any alternative to freedom is reprehensible and
> disgusting, and I won't tolerate it, ever. I won't sit by and watch
> an ignorant, under-educated world make preposterous anti-intellectual
> statements of implied legitimacy which only lead to societies of
> RAMPANT ASSHOLISM. I've dedicated my life to fighting against this,
> by encouraging education of relevancy and importance (as opposed to
> the mostly worthless bullshit taught in schools today), by using my
> albums as a means to get young people's attention, to preach (yes,
> PREACH) to them the simple but crucial message, "Think more, party
> less."
But you don't consider their thinking valid unless they agree with your
particular set of philosophical prejudices.
>I believe with thought (a tricky word, Michael),
Half of what you say to everybody is condenscending, so it is funny
that you take such great offense at the slightest hint of condenscion
being applied to yourself.
>that most of
> the problems of this world could be solved within the next 30 years.
> Unlike John Lennon, I believe that THOUGHT is all we need.
Didn't Nietchze and Hitler also believe that?
>But
> tricks, gimmicks, short cuts, and cheating won't get the job done.
> It's important to be as specific as possible, and to make realistic
> points. This world SUCKS BIG TIME, infested with laziness, dishonesty
> and offensive stupidity, because PEOPLE DON'T THINK.
I agree with that.
>
> Many like to let GOD do their thinking for them.......
There are questions that the human brain hasn't answered.
> >> >and that
> >> >Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic (and all that that implies).
>
> If there really WAS a Jesus, then he apparently WAS both a liar and a
> lunatic. Nobody walks on water. Not even me (and I've tried).
If everybody walked on water, it wouldn't be a miracle, would it?
> >> >That's my opinion but I don't urge it on anybody. I do defend
> >> >Christianity against bigots partly because it is the only religion that
> >> >is not already protected by anti-hate laws. (Well, Islam isn't very well
> >> >protected either, judging by some of the Hollywood movies lately).
> >>
> >> How tiresome.
> >
> > You've heard that before? That's encouraging. What do you think of Hulk
> >Hogan's run for the presidency?
> >
> >> > Probably most of the bible-belt ultra-right fundies in the US are
> >> >atheist snake-oil peddlars out to take the simple-minded for a ride. And
> >> >they talk funny. I once read that the US was rather unique in that such
> >> >a large percentage of self-professed "Christians" were evangelical
> >> >holy-rollers who play with snakes, get possessed and talk gibberish, and
> >> >similar craziness. Such behaviour is almost non-existent outside the US,
> >> >and so Americans might tend to have a very peculiar view of
> >> >"Christianity," and use the word "Christian" in a different way from the
> >> >rest of the world.
> >>
> >> Cop out argument. Christianity is absurd and offensive because it is
> >> those things BY IT'S VERY NATURE,
> >
> > That's just slapstick comedy.
>
> Let's see if you think so the next time you're indirectly victimized
> by it, and don't even know it. It happens every day.
Christians are victimized by your religious intolerance.
> >hat makes you do that? What makes any
> >Beefheart fan post stuff? I do like this ng a lot despite the insults.
> >It's like various shades of green, say, that are fairly close but also
> >clash drastically, and occasionally hideously.
> >
>
> I am not a Beefheart fan, per se. I am an artist in my own right,
> Zoogz Rift, and I happen to enjoy Don's music, lyrics and legacy. But
> I certainly wouldn't merely define myself as a Beefheart (or Zappa)
> fan. Mere fans are SLUGS.
Oh yah, I forgot. You are more important than the rest of us.
Unlike you, I don't feel obliged to inundate people with the irrelevant
details of my day-to-day life, and I do not intend to start now. I have,
at earlier points in my life, unloaded box cars and driven fork lift
trucks, and went into debt. It never dawned on me to panhandle.
> And, in a semi-related context--how often did either Frank or Don have
> that experience? It's easy to be cocky when you've never had to
> sweat, or cry--when life was handed to you on a silver platter
Oh yes. Everyone except you is a disembodied spirit that has never
sweated nor cried nor dealt with a problem.
You should put your ego off to one side for a second and come to grips
with the fact that it is possible to be a "fan" without diminishing
yourself. Don Van Vliet would probably not balk at being called a fan of
Van Gogh or Roland Kirk, so why does it bother you to think of yourself
as a "fan"? I think that you do not really appreciate Beefheart at all,
and have probably not listened to him for ages. You may even be vain
enough to think of him as a rival. When I quoted, "...last peak in
clarity's chain..." after one of your posts, you probably didn't even
get it, you probably didn't know that it is from the song The Host The
Ghost The Most Holy-O, nor that in the context of your post and that
song, I was agreeing with what you said.
Why do you insist on posting in afcb if the on-topic threads here seem
"idiotic" to you, and since you are apparently a fan of nobody but your
own self?
I don't enjoy these kinds of conversations at all. I just get dragged
into them out of a sense of duty to fighting religious intolerance
whenever it rears its ugly head. I may give that up too. The
anti-Christian lobby will hang itself by its own hateful words.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo" wrote in message
> <369c0f72...@news.primenet.com>...
>
> >Another Canadian criticizing Ronald Reagan. He has NOTHING to
> >do with what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about a specific
> >person. I'm talking about the right to own property, to own yourself,
> >the right to say "this is mine," and the rational willingness to fight to
> >protect it. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> seem to be much love for it in afc-b. I can't find the original messages
> anymore, but a whole bunch of people there were raring to end the notion of
> interested in the music, not the man, and property is theft anyways, and
> most importantly how would it hurt ME?
>
> This struck me as weird, especially in a group devoted to an artist who
> suffered so much from not owning the rights to his own material. I don't
> recall much of any explanation being offered the incredulous aff-zers who
> replied. Anybody wanna re-open this can of worms?
Intellectual property rights. That is a can of worms, for sure. I
believe in intellectual property rights. I think that the fellow who
offered to burn CDs of LMDOB is probably out of line, but I think that
the Revenant set is fine. I always buy my computer programs. At the same
time, I don't believe that property rights should be used to cause
starvation. If LMDOB is on the shelf at the store, then it is clearly
wrong to pirate it, but if it is deleted, out or print, out of stock,
etc., everywhere, then maybe it is okay to bootleg it, because it is a
genuine deprivation for a Beefheart fan not to have it, especially given
that Don said on the Dutch radio interview that it was his favourite of
his own albums. Everyone ought to hear that album, and if it isn't in
the stores...
>
> >>> > What I find funny, though, is to see a country where the
> >>> >public perception of "reality" is defined in such a "Wag the
> >>> >Dog" bullshit way by a too-powerful mass media, and then see
> >>> >people with ostensibly anti-establishment tendencies playing
> >>> >right into it and becoming part of the instrument of manipulation
> >>> >instead of genuine opponents of it. I think Zappa succumbed to
> >>> >that to some extent.
> >>>
> >>> I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please make it
> >>> less cryptic and more precise for me, okay?
> >>
> >> Sorry. I forgot that your mind is "different". (Where is Jane Goodall
> >>when you really need her, right Zoogz?)
>
> My mind is not terribly different and I can't make sense of the above,
> either. Seriously, could you elaborate for all us monkeys out here?
I was jabbing at Zoogz because I thought he was deliberately playing
dumb to avoid the issue, but perhaps I really didn't express myself
clearly. My apologies to all (including Zoogz) for the Goodall
reference. Okay, take American foreign policy, for example, in terms of
the Vietnam War. Everybody hated it, called it an unjust and immoral
war, yaddayaddayadda. But in reality, the problem was that American boys
were being sent around the world to be killed. The main effect of all of
the anti-war, anti-establishment noise and "protest songs" from the
"underground" was that more money was given to the "military-industrial
complex" (D.D. Eisenhower's phrase) to develop automated warfare. Today,
American foreign policy is the same as ever, but because they send in
Cruise missiles instead of draftees, nobody cares, and all that talk of
"unjust wars" etc. evaporated the day the draft ended. So the anti-war
protest in the sixties created a climate favourable to increasing funds
to update warfare to a largely automated system that the public now
seems farely happy with, no matter who gets bombed. And those like Zappa
who attacked values and promoted the freedom to be obscene ultimately
accomplished little more than helping the porno trade and contributing
to the general decadence of society, while contributing nothing whatever
to fight for the academic freedom to discuss modern history. In other
words, people like Dylan and Zappa may have thought they were bucking
the system, but in a sense they were duped by it because their protests
actually benefitted the establishment, rather than weakening it in any
way.
> (Side note: I often see Beefheart fans defining CB against Zappa, but rarely
> do I see the versa viced. Why?)
Because Beefheart has so often been presented as one of the members of
Zappa's "gallery of freaks" along with Alice Cooper and Wild Man Fisher.
Someone on affz posted a while ago that Beefheart was just another
creature from Frank Zappa's imagination. That is the kind of thing that
prompts Beefheart fans to "define him against Zappa." Zappa is better
known than Beefheart. Despite Zappa's ostensibly "outrageous" act, he
pretty much toed the party line about political correctness, and of
course the powerful anti-Christian lobby supported Zappa, so Zappa
really became part of the establishment, rather than a true critic of
it. Because he was sanctioned by the establishment and granted an
overblown reputation as genius and originator of all unusual ideas, he
is often perceived as being a co-originator of Beefheart's music, and so
there is a reaction against that. For example, I have found that if you
mention Beefheart to the average person, they will either have not heard
of him, or will mention Frank Zappa within about three seconds.
Michael H.
NI...@sword.edg
there are those that need to follow and there are those whom need to lead
there are those that need to believe and there are those who need to see
in there lies what it is all about
for me to reach a spiritual level music is the best
not music with lyrics just music
NI...@sword.edg
um let me see now wasnt beefhearts best album produced by zappa
and dint zappa take beefheart under his wings
when no one was the least bit interested in his music
and
get this
zappa supported by the christian lobby
youre way otta line here
and just dont know what your talking about
but that seems to be the norm
in posts emminating from
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
,alt.fan.capt-beefheart
Darkhop
> Okay, take American foreign policy, for example, in terms of
> the Vietnam War. Everybody hated it, called it an unjust and immoral
> war, yaddayaddayadda. But in reality, the problem was that American boys
> were being sent around the world to be killed.
Not exactly, imo. No one had a moral problem with this in WW2 (as
opposed to the personal problem of losing loved ones). A big part of the
Vietnam war problem was the US govt's refusal to *declare war*. We call
it a war in retrospective because there was fighting and death, but at
the time, technically it wasn't. And it led to ridiculous things like
one case I know of where a soldier, being shot at by a woman from a
house window, defended himself by shooting her, but when that piece of
ground had been overtaken only the body was found, and not the gun. He
was brought up on a murder charge and would've been executed if the rest
of the guys in his unit hadn't taken it upon themselves to search the
surrounding swamp in the middle of the night until they found the gun.
This is the kind of incomprehensible crap that happens when you decide
to fight while somehow not being at war. Unfortunately, at the time the
opposition didn't bring up this point at all, as far as I can tell.
Probably the worst thing to happen to the US, psychologically, was being
the Big Victor in WW2. This is especially true, I think, for the
generation that experienced it directly, and the gov't of the Vietnam
era was made up of that generation. Basically, from 1945 on, the US has
behaved like a load of street toughs worried about their 'rep'. Nazi
Germany and Japan had been utter monsters, and having a big hand in
their defeat along with the fact that home-side damage was minimal
(leading to the 50s prosperity) generated a huge superiority complex.
Consequently, the inability to defeat what was regarded as a piddling
little jungle country must've stuck in their craw like nobody's
business. And now every time we have to go 'defend democracy' or hear
politicians talking about how we should be Taking The Lead and all that,
what we're hearing are the echoes of WW2 -- because imo there's been
precious little since then to justify this attitude, if it was ever in
the neighborhood of being justified in the first place.
> The main effect of all of
> the anti-war, anti-establishment noise and "protest songs" from the
> "underground" was that more money was given to the "military-industrial
> complex" (D.D. Eisenhower's phrase) to develop automated warfare.
I tend to believe that would've happened anyway. Ever since The Bomb the
M-I complex have been thoroughly tech-mad.
> Today,
> American foreign policy is the same as ever, but because they send in
> Cruise missiles instead of draftees, nobody cares, and all that talk of
> "unjust wars" etc. evaporated the day the draft ended. So the anti-war
> protest in the sixties created a climate favourable to increasing funds
> to update warfare to a largely automated system that the public now
> seems farely happy with, no matter who gets bombed.
I disagree -- not with the fact that the public comes across as
complaisant, but with the sixties' cultural bullshit as direct cause.
Again, I think the reliance on technology would've happened without it.
> And those like Zappa
> who attacked values and promoted the freedom to be obscene ultimately
> accomplished little more than helping the porno trade and contributing
> to the general decadence of society, while contributing nothing whatever
> to fight for the academic freedom to discuss modern history. In other
> words, people like Dylan and Zappa may have thought they were bucking
> the system, but in a sense they were duped by it because their protests
> actually benefitted the establishment, rather than weakening it in any
> way.
Excuse me? I really don't see how you get to this conclusion. Then
again, the concept of 'decadence' has a rather wide range of possible
interpretations. The porn trade was fluorishing long before -- there are
far too many factors leading to its being more *noticeable* now to list
here (at least without turning this thread into a small book), but I
might present a form of decadence as being a nation with a self-concept
of World Leadership out of all proportion to its smelly reality of being
just a noisy load of belligerent shopkeepers anxious to find customers
in any way short of inviting indictment. In this interpretation,
pornography is little more than a niche-filling counterweight to a
prevailing delusion that there's something especially moral about our
setup.
Yers,
John
http://www.darkhop.com/affz2.htm
Michael H.
>
> there are those that need to follow and there are those whom need to lead
>
> there are those that need to believe and there are those who need to see
And some people need all of the above.
>
> in there lies what it is all about
>
> for me to reach a spiritual level music is the best
I heartily agree with that.
> not music with lyrics just music
Either can do that for me, but instrumental music is indeed often
underappreciated.
A nice post.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> >> (Side note: I often see Beefheart fans defining CB against Zappa, but rarely
> >> do I see the versa viced. Why?)
I wrote:
> > Because Beefheart has so often been presented as one of the members of
> >Zappa's "gallery of freaks" along with Alice Cooper and Wild Man Fisher.
> >Someone on affz posted a while ago that Beefheart was just another
> >creature from Frank Zappa's imagination. That is the kind of thing that
> >prompts Beefheart fans to "define him against Zappa." Zappa is better
> >known than Beefheart. Despite Zappa's ostensibly "outrageous" act, he
> >pretty much toed the party line about political correctness, and of
> >course the powerful anti-Christian lobby supported Zappa, so Zappa
> >really became part of the establishment, rather than a true critic of
> >it. Because he was sanctioned by the establishment and granted an
> >overblown reputation as genius and originator of all unusual ideas, he
> >is often perceived as being a co-originator of Beefheart's music, and so
> >there is a reaction against that. For example, I have found that if you
> >mention Beefheart to the average person, they will either have not heard
> >of him, or will mention Frank Zappa within about three seconds.
> >
> > Michael H.
>
> um let me see now wasnt beefhearts best album produced by zappa.
One of his best, yes.
>
> and dint zappa take beefheart under his wings
>
> when no one was the least bit interested in his music
I am not trying to take legitimate credit away from Zappa. His name on
TMR no doubt helped to sell a lot of copies. But artistically he was
essentially the engineer for TMR.
> and
>
> get this
>
> zappa supported by the christian lobby
I said by the ANTI-Christian lobby. Please read more carefully.
>
> youre way otta line here
>
> and just dont know what your talking about
>
> but that seems to be the norm
>
> in posts emminating from
>
> alt.fan.zoogz-rift
>
> ,alt.fan.capt-beefheart
Well, I tried keeping the list to afcb only, but other people keep
adding affz and afzr and it gets tedious to constantly take them off
again.
I was commenting on a general inaccurate perception that people have of
the relationship between Beefheart and Zappa, in which Zappa is given
more than the correct amount of credit re Beefheart's music.
When The Mothers toured when Freak-Out was released, they were
absolutely mind-boggling and blew every other band away, outside of some
jazz bands, but jazz is a different story. I saw them at that time. They
did Call Any Vegetable, Duke of Prunes, etc., and generally screwed up
my mind.
Michael H.
Michael H.
You've made some valid points. I can't really comment on the details of
US politics, but it is my feeling that the "protest" movement became
another commodity and that if it did not help create a climate for
automated warfare, it was at least consistent with it.
Michael H.
> Michael H. wrote:
>
> > Okay, take American foreign policy, for example, in terms of
> > the Vietnam War. Everybody hated it, called it an unjust and immoral
> > war, yaddayaddayadda. But in reality, the problem was that American boys
> > were being sent around the world to be killed.
>
> > The main effect of all of
> > the anti-war, anti-establishment noise and "protest songs" from the
> > "underground" was that more money was given to the "military-industrial
> > complex" (D.D. Eisenhower's phrase) to develop automated warfare.
>
> I tend to believe that would've happened anyway. Ever since The Bomb the
> M-I complex have been thoroughly tech-mad.
>
> > Today,
> > American foreign policy is the same as ever, but because they send in
> > Cruise missiles instead of draftees, nobody cares, and all that talk of
> > "unjust wars" etc. evaporated the day the draft ended. So the anti-war
> > protest in the sixties created a climate favourable to increasing funds
> > to update warfare to a largely automated system that the public now
> > seems farely happy with, no matter who gets bombed.
>
> I disagree -- not with the fact that the public comes across as
> complaisant, but with the sixties' cultural bullshit as direct cause.
> Again, I think the reliance on technology would've happened without it.
>
> > And those like Zappa
> > who attacked values and promoted the freedom to be obscene ultimately
> > accomplished little more than helping the porno trade and contributing
> > to the general decadence of society, while contributing nothing whatever
> > to fight for the academic freedom to discuss modern history. In other
> > words, people like Dylan and Zappa may have thought they were bucking
> > the system, but in a sense they were duped by it because their protests
> > actually benefitted the establishment, rather than weakening it in any
> > way.
>
Michael H.
>
> Karen Rouse) wrote:
> >Rest snipped - the funny thing is, I think there's more common ground
> >between Zoogz and Michael H. than either would admit. Let the dialogue
> >continue.
I think the "common ground" is that we both have a rather intense
rejection of the norm, but disagreeabout the alternatives to it.
>
> Michael and I like each other (I think). This internet jousting is
> good for everybody, ultimately. It doesn't hurt to disagree--in fact,
> it's healthy.
Sure, it sharpens your own concepts to have someone trying to poke
holes in it. (And yes, there is no personal animosity here. Just a
friendly debate, despite the rowdiness of it).
> But I do it anyway. :P
That's funny. 8^D
Michael H.
NI...@sword.edg
>>
>
>> there are those that need to follow and there are those whom need to lead
>>
>> there are those that need to believe and there are those who need to see
>
>>
>>
>> for me to reach a spiritual level music is the best
>
>
>
>underappreciated.
>
> A nice post.
>
> Michael H.
thanks dude contrary to popular belief
i am at times capable of rational thought
scott hand
<mailto:working...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Speaking of property (if I can go on a tangent for a moment)- there
doesn't
>seem to be much love for it in afc-b. I can't find the original messages
>anymore, but a whole bunch of people there were raring to end the notion
of
>intellectual property. I never really gathered why- something about being
>interested in the music, not the man, and property is theft anyways, and
>most importantly how would it hurt ME?
>
>This struck me as weird, especially in a group devoted to an artist who
>suffered so much from not owning the rights to his own material. I don't
>recall much of any explanation being offered the incredulous aff-zers who
>replied. Anybody wanna re-open this can of worms?
>
I'm not sure I want to reopen the can but...
Regarding Beefheart's ongoing record biz troubles, intellectual property
was the root of the problem. The record companies owned the intellectual
property and could do whatever they wanted with it, not necessarily to
Don's advantage. Don had no control over the production, duplication, or
distribution of his creativity and he got screwed. This doesn't necessarily
mean that he should have been sole owner of his "intellectual property". I
think it would have been best if he had control over the physical property
(tapes) to release in the way he saw fit. If somebody wants to cover one of
his songs, fine, I think I would know the difference and go for quality.
Sampling makes things trickier, but then it ultimately comes down to
ethics. I'm on the side that chooses to give people the benefit of the
doubt rather than assuming the worst.
scott
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
>for me to reach a spiritual level music is the best
>
>not music with lyrics just music
Most music sucks.
--ZRTLM
http://welcome.to/zrtlm
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
(Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo") wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 06:32:53 +0500, "Michael H." <zol...@netcom.ca>
> wrote:
{a whole buncha stuff}
I can't wait to see the two of you square off over something about which
you _really_ disagree. Let me know when I should start the popcorn.
- the peanut gallery
Michael H.
>
> In article <369ceb6b...@news.primenet.com>, moam...@primenet.com
> (Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo") wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> {a whole buncha stuff}
>
> I can't wait to see the two of you square off over something about which
> you _really_ disagree. Let me know when I should start the popcorn.
>
> - the peanut gallery
>
I hate to disappoint, but I have a backlog of stuff to do and really
can't afford to spend a lot of time posting, at least for a while.
Michael H.
Mike Dumas
Sam and/or Karen Rouse wrote:
>
> I can't wait to see the two of you square off over something about which
> you _really_ disagree. Let me know when I should start the popcorn.
Why Sam?
We already know you cant keep your mouth shut,
SO its not like you'll just be an Observer!
mike
Christopher Ekman
poorly articulated, and largely off-topic. Why am I sending this?
Michael H. wrote in message <369C02...@netcom.ca>...
>Christopher Ekman wrote:
>>
> Intellectual property rights. That is a can of worms, for sure. I
>believe in intellectual property rights. I think that the fellow who
>offered to burn CDs of LMDOB is probably out of line, but I think that
>the Revenant set is fine. I always buy my computer programs. At the
>same time, I don't believe that property rights should be used to
>cause starvation. If LMDOB is on the shelf at the store, then it is
>clearly wrong to pirate it, but if it is deleted, out or print, out of
stock,
>etc., everywhere, then maybe it is okay to bootleg it, because it is a
>genuine deprivation for a Beefheart fan not to have it, especially
>given that Don said on the Dutch radio interview that it was his
>favourite of his own albums. Everyone ought to hear that album, and
>if it isn't in the stores...
I agree. (It may seem kind of stupid to quote all that just to say "I
agree," but considering how voluble I get below when I _don't_ agree, it
seemed like the least I could do (a quantity I specialize in).)
>> >>> > What I find funny, though, is to see a country where the
>> >>> >public perception of "reality" is defined in such a "Wag the
>> >>> >Dog" bullshit way by a too-powerful mass media, and then
>> >>> >see people with ostensibly anti-establishment tendencies
>> >>> >playing right into it and becoming part of the instrument of
>> >>> >manipulation instead of genuine opponents of it. I think
>> >>> >Zappa succumbed to that to some extent.
>> >>>
>> >>> I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please make it
>> >>> less cryptic and more precise for me, okay?
>> >>
>> >> Sorry. I forgot that your mind is "different". (Where is Jane
>> >>Goodall when you really need her, right Zoogz?)
>>
>> My mind is not terribly different and I can't make sense of the
>> above, either. Seriously, could you elaborate for all us monkeys
>> out here?
>
>The main effect of all of
>the anti-war, anti-establishment noise and "protest songs" from the
>"underground" was that more money was given to the "military
>-industrial complex" (D.D. Eisenhower's phrase) to develop
>automated warfare. Today, American foreign policy is the same as
>ever, but because they send in Cruise missiles instead of draftees,
>nobody cares, and all that talk of "unjust wars" etc. evaporated the
>day the draft ended. So the anti-war protest in the sixties created a
>climate favourable to increasing funds to update warfare to a largely
>automated system that the public now seems farely happy with, no
>matter who gets bombed.
We seem to keep getting hung up on the messengers here- the fanatical
hypocrites who claim to act in the name of "Jesus," or "freedom," or in this
case, "peace."* Yes, most of the hippies turned out to be self-serving- so
what? They're followers, not to be taken any more seriously than Ollie
North or the Moral Majority. The message remains, and I maintain that it
was a good one. What's the alternative, not saying anything?
(*And no, that wasn't aimed at Zoogz- I understand that his problems with
Christianity go far beyond its exponents.)
(I also understand that the Pat Robertson-ites I rail against below are not
considered by many serious believers to be _true_ Christians. Fair enough-
but then, why refer to their opponents as "anti-Christian"?)
>And those like Zappa
>who attacked values and promoted the freedom to be obscene
>ultimately accomplished little more than helping the porno trade
>and contributing to the general decadence of society, while
>contributing nothing whatever to fight for the academic freedom to
>discuss modern history.
Aha! Now I understand you. Of course, I'm forced to disagree with you...
not even so much on the grounds that you're slagging Mah Ideel, but because
I think the whole notion of pornography is a fiction.
Sure, there's been a lot more obscenity since the floodgates were opened in,
as any diligent William Bennett disciple will never forget to remind us, the
sixties. But that's temporary- like a toddler with his fist crayon who
coats the rec room in vermillion and burnt sienna.* Eventually we'll be
able to talk like adults about this stuff, and there'll be no need for the
term "pornography." Look at, say, France**- there's hardly any porn at all,
I'm told. Why? Because who needs it when you can see plooking in the
Sunday night movie on TV- hell, in the ADS for the Sunday night movie?
As William Blake said, "Prisons are built with stones of Law, Brothels with
bricks of Religion." (Sorry for the high-falutin' quote- it's the Miguel
influence.)
(By the way, if society is decadent then it's picked a good time for it- we
are, after all, closing a decade shortly. That's where the term came from-
the notion that the best parties were to be found at the fin de siecle.
"Woad" remains the word of the day on aff-z, but "decadence" will be the
WotD tomorrow.)
*What is sienna, anyway? Why don't you ever see a crayon marked just plain
"sienna"? And why does everyone keep burning it? WHO IS COVERING UP?
**It's over there, to the left.
>> (Side note: I often see Beefheart fans defining CB against Zappa,
>> but rarely do I see the versa viced. Why?)
>
> Because Beefheart has so often been presented as one of the
> members of Zappa's "gallery of freaks" along with Alice Cooper
>and Wild Man Fisher. Someone on affz posted a while ago that
>Beefheart was just another creature from Frank Zappa's
>imagination.
Really? What a schmuck. I doubt it's a widely held view here, though.
>Despite Zappa's ostensibly "outrageous" act, he pretty much toed
>the party line about political correctness, and of course the powerful
>anti-Christian lobby supported Zappa, so Zappa really became part
>of the establishment, rather than a true critic of it.
"Powerful anti-Christian lobby"? Where the heck do I join?
Standard disclaimer: I have nothing against Christians. Many of my dearest
friends are Christians. All I ask of any religious person is that they 1)
relate to me as a human being, not as a soul to be harvested, and b) keep
their religion the fuck out of politics- for the good of BOTH.
Unfortunately, we in the States have an e-NORMous population of so-called
Khristians who DON'T follow this advice. They infiltrate school boards and
local governments, suppress real history, censor science, boycott
entertainment that contradicts their beliefs, spread prejudice, extort
moolah from the frightened and vulnerable, pressure for legislation,
threaten abortion clinics and their clients (and sometimes carry through
with those threats), own large chunks of the media, control a major
political party, and field candidates for president.
If you can show me any "anti-Christian lobby" THAT powerful, seriously- send
me the address and SIGN ME UP. There's a "culture war" brewing in this
country- I know because THEY TOLD ME- and my side doesn't have much time to
match their organization.
[It's at this point that the original post becomes no more than a flimsy
pretext for my rant. Let's watch, shall we?]
If you don't believe these people deserve the Broadway the Hard Way
treatment- and worse- wait until Dec. 31, 1999. Over here in aff-z, we've
got a thread about the coming Y2K panic. There's a very interesting article
in the most recent Esquire (with Jerry Springer on the cover) on how Pat
Robertson is dressing up Y2K as a world-crippling catastrophe that no doubt
heralds Dick Clark's Rockin' Apocalypse. (God works off the Gregorian
calender, don't you know.***) Lots of his followers are withdrawing their
money from banks, stockpiling red beans and rice, building extra bedrooms so
they have a place to hide the Jews. (God's Chosen People- Satan will be
trying to pick them off once he arrives, you see.) Not even the guy who
originally blew the whistle on the Y2K bug can convince these people that
it's not THAT big a deal.
On the bright side, at least THOSE people will be safely huddled in their
basements- not shooting up the local Planned Parenthood or Hooters, crowding
Jerusalem so they can rub shoulders with loonies of other faiths and talk
shop, or swilling the Special Holiday Kool-Aid. Between the drunks and the
nuts, not love or money will persuade me to set foot on the street that day.
I'll be huddled in my bomb shelter (honest to goodness, I've got one),
trying to recalibrate the doohickey on some cast-off guns I got from Mike
Dumas.
***And Frank KNEW this- see "The Adventures of Greggary Peccary."
>Because he was sanctioned by the establishment and granted an
>overblown reputation as genius and originator of all unusual ideas,
>he is often perceived as being a co-originator of Beefheart's music,
>and so there is a reaction against that. For example, I have found
>that if you mention Beefheart to the average person, they will either
>have not heard of him, or will mention Frank Zappa within about
>three seconds.
True, that must be maddening. Well, here's some small comfort: the people
who think that Captain Beefheart is "a product of Frank Zappa's imagination"
not only know nothing about Beefheart, but precious little about Zappa
either.
Or you can look at it this way- Beefheart got to ride the coattails of
Zappa's notoriety without the drawbacks. I suspect any of us in aff-z would
cheerfully take a human life when next we hear: "Frank Zappa? Didn't he
write 'Valley Girl'?"
Well, you're probably sick of battling all comers by this point- especially
when people like me keep throwing out new tangents. Thanks for the
thoughtful response.
Chris Ekman
Working...@worldnet.att.net
Christopher Ekman
Ah, I see. It's sort of like Dave Sim's philosophy. (Sim is a cartoonist
who, with very little assistance, has put out his comic book Cerebus every
month for nearly 20 years now, and will continue doing so until issue 300.)
Some nitwit at a comic con threatened to do a porno version of Cerebus, to
which Dave replied- if you think you can do my characters better than I can,
I'd be the most eager to see.
Still and all, admirable as Don's refusal to play those corporate games may
be ("they're not gonna draft me into that hard fucking army they've
created"), it still feels... well, irresponsible in retrospect.
But what do I know? I'm just decadent.
Chris Ekman
Working...@worldnet.att.net
Michael Pierry
>
>
> you, I'm more creative than most of you, I've been more productive
> than any of you will ever be, I've gotten laid more than most of you
> ever will, I don't smell as bad as most of you, I am not some horrible
> FREAK stalking the planet like brainless schmoes like most of you, and
> I'm even more humble than most of you egotistical pseudo-intellectual
> retards! Therefore, I'M BETTER. Above you. Ahead of you.
> Therefore, not by my laws but by the laws of nature, I MUST CONDESCEND
> when I talk to most of you. Got it, junior?
>
Except for me, Zoogz. It gives me a headache just thinking down to your
level. But then, you simians all think the same way. :)
>
> Michael, Michael, Michael---if you're not using a human brain to make
> your decisions, what are you using?
Ah, but that would be telling!
> And (here we go again) if you
> haven't answered the GOD question, then, on what basis, do you believe
> in God? FAITH IS AN ANSWER. It's the wrong one, but you used your
> human brain to take that road.
I'd just like to know whether he arrived at that answer using rationalism, or
empiricism? Michael H: Have you had an experience of God, or did you simply
deduce him into existence via your intellect, like Descartes deluded himself
into thinking he'd done?
> If you don't trust your brain, why use
> it at all?
But you can't trust your brain! Well, some parts of it anyway. You have to
use your intellect to try and outsmart any self-destructive impulses other
parts of your brain might have.
Just think of Descartes. His brain told him he had proven that God exists,
but I'm certainly not convinced by his arguments! What I've found interesting
is that if you take away God from Descartes' belief system (I'm basing this on
the "Meditations"), you've basically got yourself a solipsist there. So ol'
Rene was just ONE supreme deity away from being a narcisstic asshole. Hmm,
pretty interesting...
>
> I'm about to pull out my last cockhair! ;)
Lucky me, I don't have any hair on my cock. Oh sure, I've got plenty of hair
in my pubic region, but none actually ON my dick. I mean, a furry penis?
Yuck! Good luck getting a girl to blow you! :P
>
> >> And, in a semi-related context--how often did either Frank or Don have
> >> that experience? It's easy to be cocky when you've never had to
> >> sweat, or cry--when life was handed to you on a silver platter
Since when did Don and Frank have life handed to them on a silver platter? To
the best of my knowledge, they both grew up lower-middle-class. Have I been misinformed?
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
>Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
>>
>>
>> All of it. I'm definitely condescending. I'm smarter than most of
>> you, I'm more creative than most of you, I've been more productive
>> than any of you will ever be, I've gotten laid more than most of you
>> ever will, I don't smell as bad as most of you, I am not some horrible
>> FREAK stalking the planet like brainless schmoes like most of you, and
>> I'm even more humble than most of you egotistical pseudo-intellectual
>> retards! Therefore, I'M BETTER. Above you. Ahead of you.
>> Therefore, not by my laws but by the laws of nature, I MUST CONDESCEND
>> when I talk to most of you. Got it, junior?
>>
>
>Except for me, Zoogz. It gives me a headache just thinking down to your
>level. But then, you simians all think the same way. :)
>
LOL!!! Right on, Mike! ;)
>Lucky me, I don't have any hair on my cock. Oh sure, I've got plenty of hair
>in my pubic region, but none actually ON my dick. I mean, a furry penis?
>Yuck! Good luck getting a girl to blow you! :P
Good luck to me REGARDLESS of any fur! Women spit at me when I walk
into the supermarket.
Oh well. That's what porno web sites are for, I guess.
--ZRTLM
http://welcome.to/zrtlm
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
>
>
> I can't wait to see the two of you square off over something about which
> you _really_ disagree. Let me know when I should start the popcorn.
That's my favorite James Brown dance! Take it away, Sam & Karen!!!
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
My Mind) wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 23:15:10 GMT, moam...@primenet.com (Zoogz Rift "The
>Liquid Moamo") wrote:
>
>>> Half of what you say to everybody is condenscending,
>
>>All of it. I'm definitely condescending. I'm smarter than most of
>>you, I'm more creative than most of you, I've been more productive
>>than any of you will ever be, I've gotten laid more than most of you
>>ever will
>
>Your definition of "productive" must be diverse from that of everyone else on
>the planet, if you don't mind me saying so.
>
>We're here, during our lifetimes, to provide services to other people, and to
>receive services performed by other people, depending on the needs and
>requirements involved. For those services, money is exchanged, depending on
>the usefulness of those services in the view of the person(s) serviced.
>
>Now, what services have you performed during your lifetime that were very
>much appreciated ? by anyone ? Wouldn't your lack of cash indicate that the
>services you performed were not sought after to a very strong degree at all?
>
>
>And, in turn, wouldn't that indicate that (not to judge you, of course) you
>perhaps should have sought to perform other services that would have been
>more highly esteemed and remunerated ?
>
>Perhaps the answer lies with God, or the unknown.
"The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad."
--Salvador Dali
--ZRTLM
http://welcome.to/zrtlm
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
scott hand
<mailto:working...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Still and all, admirable as Don's refusal to play those corporate games
may
>be ("they're not gonna draft me into that hard fucking army they've
>created"), it still feels... well, irresponsible in retrospect.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Don's problems with music were pretty
much because he did play those games and never thought to steal their
playbook.
>But what do I know? I'm just decadent.
Hard to avoid (and why would you want to?).
>Chris Ekman
>
scott
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
>Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
>>
>>
>> All of it. I'm definitely condescending. I'm smarter than most of
>> you, I'm more creative than most of you, I've been more productive
>> than any of you will ever be, I've gotten laid more than most of you
andy roberts
>Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 20:35:30 -0800, ro...@teleport.com (Sam and/or
>> Karen Rouse) wrote:
>
>> >Rest snipped - the funny thing is, I think there's more common ground
>> >between Zoogz and Michael H. than either would admit. Let the dialogue
>> >continue.
>
> I think the "common ground" is that we both have a rather intense
>rejection of the norm, but disagreeabout the alternatives to it.
>>
I disagree with both of you , that's something we all have in common.
--
Andy R.
Randy Cech
at alt.fan.captain-beefheart and alt.fan.zoogz-rift. I did not cross post to
these news groups some on else did.
I only posted it to alt.fan.frank.Zappa as a lot of Frank Zappa fans IMO are
in agreement with him in his dislike of a certain type of christian. The
fundamentalists and the tele-evangelists type. Mine was not a malevolent
attack on anyone's beliefs. Believe what you want, be irrational if you want
just stay away from me and especially my children. Zappa attacked these
people for their politics, and their spreading of Cosmic Debris. Remember
Jerry Farwell had started the Moral Majority and which has now evolved into
the christian coalition. Farwell was and probably still is, out to insert
christian values into American politics. Farwell also helped Reagan get
elected through the moral majority a violation of separation of church and
state (pulpit voter guides, voter recommendations on the tele-evangelists
programs.) Tax exempt status for churches also is a violation of the
separation of church and state. That's another topic for another time. Our
tax laws constitute involuntary servitude which is a clearer violation of
the Founding Father's intention. And again, that's another topic for another
time.
Zappa had hated Reagan since the sixties when Reagan was governor of
California and threatened to through the hippies and freaks into reeducation
camps (According to Zappa, see WOIIFTM the song Concentration Moon) This
hatred carried over into Zappa's music and is probably the cause of Gail's
contribution to that
entity that currently occupies the Oval office (of the President of the
United States)
All for now. Please continue fighting amongst yourselves.
Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo" wrote in message
<369ceb6b...@news.primenet.com>...
>Religion offends me. That's provocation enough.
>
>>That is what started it. Look at the title of
>>this thread. It is your title. You started it. Why?
>
>I didn't start it. I replied to a post credited to:
>>On Sun, 10 Jan 1999 22:26:58 -0500, "Randy Cech"
>>Sam_P...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>>> Intellectually,
>>> Michael, you ARE a FRAUD.
>>
>> You are the one who has sunk to name-calling.
>>
[More Zoogz and Micheal H. throughing small verbal bombs at each other
snipped.]
Steve Cobham
"The Liquid Moamo") wrote:
>Sam and/or Karen Rouse wrote:
>>
>>
>> I can't wait to see the two of you square off over something about which
>> you _really_ disagree. Let me know when I should start the popcorn.
>
>
>That's my favorite James Brown dance! Take it away, Sam & Karen!!!
Seeing the name of the funkiest man alive - ever - made me think of "I
Feel Better Than James Brown" by Was Not Was.
I thought they were a great band and not a little Zappaesque with
their mix of styles and their sense of humour.
They had their own little continuity thing going with different
versions of the same song - "(Woodwork Squeaks And) Out Come The
Freaks" cropping up on different albums.
"Born To Laugh At Tornados" was a gem of an album and had a great Mel
Torme vocal on "Zaz Turned Blue". As well as Mel, Ozzy Osborne was on
that album.
Bizarre.
Any other WNW fans out there?
Steve.
===================================================
Steve Cobham st...@XSPAMXguitars.powernet.co.uk
http://users.powernet.co.uk/guitars/
"When it comes to information, I believe that
more is better."-- Roger McGuinn
"Information is not knowledge."-- Frank Zappa
"Knowledge is power."-- Francis Bacon
===================================================
Jason Arvey
> Any other WNW fans out there?
>
> Steve.
Yes and no. I LOVE What Up Dog. It's a great album. I bought it in a
used store for four dollars, thinking that I'd bought a slightly
expensive "Walk the Dinosaur". As it turns out, I got a very cheap
album full of songs ten times better than Dinosaur. "Out Come the
Freaks" is an excellent song. "Spy in the House of Love" explores the
very Zapapesque topic of confusing sex with love. "11 Miles an Hour" is
the best song I've ever heard about the Kennedy assassination."Somewhere
in America There's a Street Named After My Dad" reminds me inexplicably
of "Any Kind of Pain". "Boy's Gone Crazy" is a rather catchy song with
a few quirks, that's got some rather good lyrics on lonliness. I love
Sinatra Jr.'s voice on "Wedding Vows in Vegas". I could go on, but I
won't.
The point is that I went and bought Are You OK? It isn't. Apart from
the song about Elvis and "I Blew Up the United States" and maybe the
song about whasshername Navarro, I find it unlistenable. Not early as
bad as Glass Tiger's Thin Red Line, but unlistenable, nonetheless.
--Jason Arvey
msouthg
<zol...@netcom.ca> writes
> The big thing about Zappa that most people miss is that his Freak-Out
>band was touring very early in the scheme of things. It was 66 or 67, I
>can't remember which. Zappa was one of the great pioneers. No question
>about it.
>
> Michael H.
Yup, I remember seeing them at the Albert Hall, London no later than
'68.
They managed to get onto the Hall's pipe organ for a duet with a sax(?).
Boy, did the hall shake when they hit the low notes!
--
Mick Southgate MAG: 11034
Relevant responses to mick <at>msouthg<dot>demon<dot>co<dot>uk
Michael H.
Thank goodness.
Michael H.
>
> In article <369c41fd...@news.primenet.com>, Zoogz Rift "The
> Liquid Moamo" <moam...@primenet.com> writes
> >Because Zappa fans take more drugs than Beefheart fans, who, in turn,
> >are more into professional wrestling. Especially our demon.co.uk pals
> >from some little island off the coast of Europe.
>
> The real differentiation with Demon is that they give you this little
> attachment, so you get electro-convulsive therapy every time you post.
> --
That is definitely proof of one thing or the other.
Michael H.
Michael H.
>
> Sam and/or Karen Rouse wrote:
> >
> >
> > I can't wait to see the two of you square off over something about which
> > you _really_ disagree. Let me know when I should start the popcorn.
>
> That's my favorite James Brown dance! Take it away, Sam & Karen!!!
You dribble down the side of a sludge hill. On purpose, probably.
Peter Spomer
> Seeing the name of the funkiest man alive - ever - made me think of "I
> Feel Better Than James Brown" by Was Not Was.
>
> I thought they were a great band and not a little Zappaesque with
> their mix of styles and their sense of humour.
>
> They had their own little continuity thing going with different
> versions of the same song - "(Woodwork Squeaks And) Out Come The
> Freaks" cropping up on different albums.
>
> "Born To Laugh At Tornados" was a gem of an album and had a great Mel
> Torme vocal on "Zaz Turned Blue". As well as Mel, Ozzy Osborne was on
> that album.
>
> Bizarre.
>
> Any other WNW fans out there?
Yeah, that album had a bunch of impressive guest appearances. I would
call WNW more Zoogz-esque (conceptually) with cuts like "The Party Broke
Up" and "Shake Your Head". Sort of techie/funky/strange music. Wish I
could find their other stuff in the record stores around here.
Pete
---
If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does Michael Jackson
own the rights?
msouthg
Liquid Moamo" <moam...@primenet.com> writes
>Because Zappa fans take more drugs than Beefheart fans, who, in turn,
>are more into professional wrestling. Especially our demon.co.uk pals
>from some little island off the coast of Europe.
The real differentiation with Demon is that they give you this little
attachment, so you get electro-convulsive therapy every time you post.
--
scott hand
wrote:
>Yup, I remember seeing them at the Albert Hall, London no later than
>'68.
>
>They managed to get onto the Hall's pipe organ for a duet with a sax(?).
>Boy, did the hall shake when they hit the low notes!
>Mick Southgate MAG: 11034
>Relevant responses to mick <at>msouthg<dot>demon<dot>co<dot>uk
>
Was that the show with the louie,louie that ended up on Uncle Meat?
scott
Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo
wrote:
In the 1980's, they were fans.
--ZRTLM
http://welcome.to/zrtlm
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
msouthg
<vida...@qx.doh!.net> writes
I believe so. After all, *every* song is a derivation of Louie, Louie :-)
>that ended up on Uncle Meat?
>
>
Don't know. Don't have a copy.
>
>scott
Michael H.
>
> In article <369B3F...@netcom.ca>, Michael H.
> <zol...@netcom.ca> writes
> > The big thing about Zappa that most people miss is that his Freak-Out
> >band was touring very early in the scheme of things. It was 66 or 67, I
> >can't remember which. Zappa was one of the great pioneers. No question
> >about it.
> >
> > Michael H.
>
> '68.
>
> They managed to get onto the Hall's pipe organ for a duet with a sax(?).
> Boy, did the hall shake when they hit the low notes!
Oh man. That is something to imagine!
NI...@sword.edg
that has been immortilized
it is on the album uncle meat
Michael H.
>
> In article <B2C4403...@208.200.110.62>, scott hand
> <vida...@qx.doh!.net> writes
> >On Thu, Jan 14, 1999 3:40 AM, msouthg <mailto:Mi...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
> >wrote:
> >>'68.
> >>
> >>They managed to get onto the Hall's pipe organ for a duet with a sax(?).
> >>Boy, did the hall shake when they hit the low notes!
> >>Mick Southgate MAG: 11034
> >>Relevant responses to mick <at>msouthg<dot>demon<dot>co<dot>uk
> >>
> >
>
> I believe so. After all, *every* song is a derivation of Louie, Louie :-)
And if not, it should be.
>
> >that ended up on Uncle Meat?
> >
> >
> Don't know. Don't have a copy.
> >
> >scott
> >
> >
>
Michael H.
Or friction.
NI...@sword.edg
I can reason therefore i am not christian
Michael H.
> Good luck to me REGARDLESS of any fur! Women spit at me when I walk
> into the supermarket.
That's what you get for hanging around the freezer section.
Michael H.
>
> I can reason therefore i am not christian
Define "reason" and define "Christian." (I know you can't. Nobody can.
That is why all such statements are suspicious).
Michael H.
NI...@sword.edg
i wasnt trying too be deep
just funny guess i failed awfully
Ron Spiegelhalter
> >NI...@SWORD.EDG wrote:
> >>
> >> I can reason therefore i am not christian
> >
> > Define "reason" and define "Christian." (I know you can't. Nobody can.
> >That is why all such statements are suspicious).
>
>
> just funny guess i failed awfully
HAhahahaha! I get it, that's a good one. Failed awfully, huh-huh-huh.
Oh, you weren't trying to be funny that time? Damn I gotta get the hang
of this humor stuff.
Okay, a rabbi walks into a bar; the rabbi says "ow that hurt!". Get it?
[insert multiple smileys here, then hate them]
--
ron <ron2112 at empire dot net>
msouthg
NI...@SWORD.EDG <NI...@SWORD.EDG> writes
>>msouthg wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <369B3F...@netcom.ca>, Michael H.
>>> <zol...@netcom.ca> writes
>>> > The big thing about Zappa that most people miss is that his Freak-Out
>>> >band was touring very early in the scheme of things. It was 66 or 67, I
>>> >can't remember which. Zappa was one of the great pioneers. No question
>>> >about it.
>>> >
>>> > Michael H.
>>>
>>> '68.
>>>
>>> They managed to get onto the Hall's pipe organ for a duet with a sax(?).
>>> Boy, did the hall shake when they hit the low notes!
>>
>>> Mick Southgate MAG: 11034
>>> Relevant responses to mick <at>msouthg<dot>demon<dot>co<dot>uk
>
>
>
>it is on the album uncle meat
OK, OK. I just added it to my shopping list, together with Mallard which I
couldn't find. Anyone have a catalogue number for the latter, please?
Michael H.
"Mallard/In A Different Climate," and the number on it is CDOVD 442, but
there is also a number "7243 8 39538 2 0".
Michael H.
Brikbat9
>couldn't find. Anyone have a catalogue number for the latter, please?
Mick,
I have both Mallard albums on one cd. CDOVD 442.
Happy Hunting,
Jack
NI...@sword.edg
>>
>> wrote:
>
>> >Zoogz Rift The Liquid Moamo wrote:
>
>> >> wrote:
>
>> >> > In fact,
>> >> >religion is probably almost as bad as "freedom" as a reason for killing
>> >> >people.
>
>> >> Whoa! This isn't funny anymore. If you're not willing to struggle,
>> >> fight and yes, even kill if placed in a life-threatening (life being
>> >> partially defined as maintaining your human rights, especially the
>> >> right to own property)
>> >
>> > Suppose you buy a forest. Think about it.
>
>> Okay. (Zoogz thinks about it). Then it's MY forest, my land. Next
>> question.
>
> What about the animals that live there? Do you own them too? What if
>there is a tribe of aboriginals living in there?
>
>> >>situation, then I'd say that's a disgraceful
>> >> stand to take, and I'm honestly disappointed in you. Freedom is worth
>> >> fighting for--irrational religious beliefs are not. That was a really
>> >> foolish statement to make--I can only hope you can talk your way out
>> >> of it.
>> >
>> > Four words: Ronald Reagan ....."freedom" fighters.
>> >>
>>
>> Another Canadian criticizing Ronald Reagan. He has NOTHING to do with
>> what I'm talking about.
>
> You were responding to my statement that religion was almost as bad as
>"freedom" as an excuse to kill people. You clearly believe in freedom,
>even though Reagan misused the word, so you cannot fault people for
>believing in Christianity just because Jerry Falwell misused that word.
>You cannot criticize a religion on the basis of the misdeeds of
>religious institutions any more than you can criticize freedom on the
>basis of people bombing civilians in the name of freedom.
>
>
> >I'm not talking about a specific person. I'm
>> talking about the right to own property, to own yourself, the right to
>> say "this is mine," and the rational willingness to fight to protect
>> it. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
> You changed the topic then. Fine. I believe in the right to own
>property also, and would fight to protect it.
>
>> >> >The histories of atheist institutions (e.g. Stalinist Russia,
>> >> >Red China, etc.) are also a disgrace.
>> >>
>> >> Because they're atheist? Or because they're INSTITUTIONS? Think
>> >> about it.
>> >
>> > Well then you think about institutions before you criticize what's
>> >behind one of them.
>> >
>>
>> Cop out.
>
> No it isn't. Your criticism of religions was based partly on the
>behaviour of its institutions, so it was fair and logical for me to draw
>attention to the behaviour of atheist institutions.
>
> >Michael, you do not use logic to argue. You make vague
>> implications, taking the intellectual short cut, and hope that someone
>> falls for the bait. I don't.
>
> I don't present strings of statements that alternate between "since"
>and "therefore," but there is nothing illogical about what I am saying.
>>
>> >> >n practice, I am unaffiliated
>> >> >with organized religion. I just think that atheism is limiting,
>> >>
>> >> Reality itself is limited--by logic. How awful! :P
>> >
>> > Very funny, given that the meaning of "logic" itself is flawed and is
>> >being upgraded on a daily basis by specialists in that field.
>>
>> Sez you. I'm not talking about mathematics here, either. I'm talking
>> about applied logic used to determine what is real and not real, to be
>> able to form a moral value system of rational self-interest, to be
>> able to use what you HAVE (the key word here) to be productive and
>> self-fulfilled. If one can own clothes, or compact discs, or have
>> rights to their own children, they can own a forest as well.
>
> See above.
>>
>> >I have
>> >read Ayn Rand,
>>
>> I never mentioned Rand in this thread. I don't give a flying FUCK
>> about Ayn Rand, other than the specific things about her philosophy
>> and writings that I feel benefit me directly and positively. Beyond
>> that, Rand was just another idiot.
>
> But almost everything you write on these topics is paraphrasing her.
>"Rational self-interest," etc.
>
> >I will NOT sit here and try to
>> have a rational argument with you if you are going to intellectually
>> cheat AGAIN in this conversation, this time by throwing Rand's name
>> into the conversation to gain knee-jerk support from other posters
>> here, to try to imply that you had a legit argument and that other
>> people agree with that argument. So far, there's nothing for them to
>> agree WITH, so you throw out the (implied) negative buzz-word, AYN
>> RAND, and hope for the best.
>
> If I am willing to endure knee-jerk abusive responses from people like
>yourself for saying that I agree with the Christian message, why can't
>you own up to the fact that you also subscribe to the opinions of an
>author whose name invites ridicule?
>
>
>
> >I won't accept short-cuts and
>> game-playing manipulation, Michael. Not in this conversation. I
>> won't sit here quiet while you post messages suggesting that freedom
>> is something EVIL. That's a crock of holy horseshit, and it's
>> shameful that you don't know that. And this IS intertwined with your
>> religious beliefs, by the way, whether you recognize it or not.
>
> Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. I certainly do believe in
>freedom, but I was trying to point out that many horrible things have
>been done in the NAME of freedom, in the same way that horrible things
>have been done in the name of various religions. You were saying that
>twisted people put twisted ideas about religion into your head, and that
>those twisted people called themselves Christians, and that that is one
>reason you hate Christianity. I am saying that you cannot judge the
>religion based on the behaviour of people who misrepresented it to you
>as a child, any more than a person should judge "freedom" based on the
>bombs dropping on their houses.
>
>> >and I can sympathize with that position as a reaction to
>> >the move to turn a whole country into an all-powerful bureaucracy run by
>> >committees in which no individuals receive recognition for their
>> >achievements any more than an ant would receive recognition for hauling
>> >in a gummy bear, but her obstreperous philosophy of "objectivism" to
>> >which you avow to subscribe is not a necessary consequence of thinking
>> >logically. It depends more on your basic premises than on the system of
>> >logic, but I am disappointed that you didn't realize that these issues
>> >are not simple.
>>
>> FUCK YOU. How dare you condescend to me?
>
> I was quoting your earlier condescending remark to me about how you
>were "disappointed" in me. You throw a fit whenever you are addressed in
>the same words you use to address others.
>
>> My previous remarks were
>> honest, yours are merely defensive and insulting.
>
> You attacked and insulted my religion, right out of the blue,
>completely unprovoked. That is what started it. Look at the title of
>this thread. It is your title. You started it. Why?
>
>> Michael, you ARE a FRAUD.
>
> You are the one who has sunk to name-calling.
>
>
>
>> >Did you ever manage the Honky Tonk Man? He was funny.
>>
>> Nope. Comic relief (another gimmick) won't work here. I'm dead
>> serious about this issue regarding freedom. It is my opinion that
>> without freedom (and the inherent right to own property), human beings
>> have NOTHING. Any alternative to freedom is reprehensible and
>> disgusting, and I won't tolerate it, ever. I won't sit by and watch
>> an ignorant, under-educated world make preposterous anti-intellectual
>> statements of implied legitimacy which only lead to societies of
>> RAMPANT ASSHOLISM. I've dedicated my life to fighting against this,
>> by encouraging education of relevancy and importance (as opposed to
>> the mostly worthless bullshit taught in schools today), by using my
>> albums as a means to get young people's attention, to preach (yes,
>> PREACH) to them the simple but crucial message, "Think more, party
>> less."
>
> But you don't consider their thinking valid unless they agree with your
>particular set of philosophical prejudices.
>
>
> >I believe with thought (a tricky word, Michael),
>
> Half of what you say to everybody is condenscending, so it is funny
>that you take such great offense at the slightest hint of condenscion
>being applied to yourself.
>
>
>>that most of
>> the problems of this world could be solved within the next 30 years.
>> Unlike John Lennon, I believe that THOUGHT is all we need.
>
> Didn't Nietchze and Hitler also believe that?
>
>
> >But
>> tricks, gimmicks, short cuts, and cheating won't get the job done.
>> It's important to be as specific as possible, and to make realistic
>> points. This world SUCKS BIG TIME, infested with laziness, dishonesty
>> and offensive stupidity, because PEOPLE DON'T THINK.
>
> I agree with that.
>>
>> Many like to let GOD do their thinking for them.......
>
> There are questions that the human brain hasn't answered.
>
>> >> >and that
>> >> >Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic (and all that that implies).
>>
>> If there really WAS a Jesus, then he apparently WAS both a liar and a
>> lunatic. Nobody walks on water. Not even me (and I've tried).
>
> If everybody walked on water, it wouldn't be a miracle, would it?
>
>> >> >That's my opinion but I don't urge it on anybody. I do defend
>> >> >Christianity against bigots partly because it is the only religion that
>> >> >is not already protected by anti-hate laws. (Well, Islam isn't very well
>> >> >protected either, judging by some of the Hollywood movies lately).
>> >>
>> >> How tiresome.
>> >
>> > You've heard that before? That's encouraging. What do you think of Hulk
>> >Hogan's run for the presidency?
>> >
>> >> > Probably most of the bible-belt ultra-right fundies in the US are
>> >> >atheist snake-oil peddlars out to take the simple-minded for a ride. And
>> >> >they talk funny. I once read that the US was rather unique in that such
>> >> >a large percentage of self-professed "Christians" were evangelical
>> >> >holy-rollers who play with snakes, get possessed and talk gibberish, and
>> >> >similar craziness. Such behaviour is almost non-existent outside the US,
>> >> >and so Americans might tend to have a very peculiar view of
>> >> >"Christianity," and use the word "Christian" in a different way from the
>> >> >rest of the world.
>> >>
>> >> Cop out argument. Christianity is absurd and offensive because it is
>> >> those things BY IT'S VERY NATURE,
>> >
>> > That's just slapstick comedy.
>>
>> Let's see if you think so the next time you're indirectly victimized
>> by it, and don't even know it. It happens every day.
>
> Christians are victimized by your religious intolerance.
>
>> >hat makes you do that? What makes any
>> >Beefheart fan post stuff? I do like this ng a lot despite the insults.
>> >It's like various shades of green, say, that are fairly close but also
>> >clash drastically, and occasionally hideously.
>> >
>>
>> I am not a Beefheart fan, per se. I am an artist in my own right,
>> Zoogz Rift, and I happen to enjoy Don's music, lyrics and legacy. But
>> I certainly wouldn't merely define myself as a Beefheart (or Zappa)
>> fan. Mere fans are SLUGS.
>
> Oh yah, I forgot. You are more important than the rest of us.
>>
>> And I HATE these newsgroups, and if I had a life I wouldn't waste my
>> time here everyday, talking to a display of watermelons. There's a
>> whole world out there, much to do, and I regret not being able to do
>> much out there anymore. So I do what I can, here. But I'll
>> admit--the net is a tough gig.
>>
>> > >not become of Jerry Falwell and his
>> >> ilk. If you want to believe it, that's fine (I just learned that a
>> >> friend of mine, a hardcore ZR fan, is a Christian--and he still likes
>> >> my stuff!--amazing!...), but I insist that it's irrational, therefore
>> >> improper and self-defeating, and anti-productive to humanity overall.
>> >> If it was true, that'd be a different story all together. Mike, I
>> >> like you. You're smart, you speak your mind, and you've got guts. I
>> >> admire that.
>> >
>> > Oh man, where is JimCim to go "hahahahahahahaha......" right about now?
>> >Is he ok or what?
>> >
>>
>> You appear to be a very insecure person. Just curious Mike--what do
>> you do for a living? How do you spend your days, your life on earth
>> every day? (I mean specifically, not generally) Do you feel
>> productive? Do you take pride in your work? Are you rewarded for
>> your work? Is that reward YOURS--to keep, to use, TO OWN? Have you
>> ever bought anything? Have you ever been robbed?
>>
>> And, (I'm trying not to be condescending here, but it's getting more
>> difficult by the minute) just out of curiosity--how old are you? How
>> long have you been on this planet as a functioning adult--how much
>> experience have you had working, being paid on Friday, being broke by
>> Monday, year after year and still ending up with nothing, like most
>> people?
>
> Unlike you, I don't feel obliged to inundate people with the irrelevant
>details of my day-to-day life, and I do not intend to start now. I have,
>at earlier points in my life, unloaded box cars and driven fork lift
>trucks, and went into debt. It never dawned on me to panhandle.
>
>> And, in a semi-related context--how often did either Frank or Don have
>> that experience? It's easy to be cocky when you've never had to
>> sweat, or cry--when life was handed to you on a silver platter
>
> Oh yes. Everyone except you is a disembodied spirit that has never
>sweated nor cried nor dealt with a problem.
>
>
>>(spare
>> me the emotional defense of Frank and Don--I don't want to hear it).
>>
>> >> > What I find funny, though, is to see a country where the public
>> >> >perception of "reality" is defined in such a "Wag the Dog" bullshit way
>> >> >by a too-powerful mass media, and then see people with ostensibly
>> >> >anti-establishment tendencies playing right into it and becoming part of
>> >> >the instrument of manipulation instead of genuine opponents of it. I
>> >> >think Zappa succumbed to that to some extent.
>> >>
>> >> I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please make it less
>> >> cryptic and more precise for me, okay?
>> >
>> > Sorry. I forgot that your mind is "different". (Where is Jane Goodall
>> >when you really need her, right Zoogz?)
>>
>> are more important things to think about, process, and try to do
>> something about. Not my bag.
>>
>> >I think that porno peddlars
>> >profitted more from Zappa than the history professors did. Is that any
>> >clearer? We all make mistakes. I admire artistic people who promote
>> >their view of the world, and I admire you for that, and have enjoyed
>> >many of the tracks from my ZR collection, but I disagree with your
>> >concept of the basic blueprint. It's an academic point really, and a
>> >rather "tiresome" topic. Your music kicks ass though. Strange, really. I
>> >like your music but hate your philosophy.
>> >
>>
>> Fair enough.
>>
>> I gain very little from your likes or hates, but it does give me
>> something to do here on the net. I'd much rather be surrounded by
>> these kinds of conversations than most of the thorougly idiotic
>> subjects posted here daily.
>>
> You should put your ego off to one side for a second and come to grips
>with the fact that it is possible to be a "fan" without diminishing
>yourself. Don Van Vliet would probably not balk at being called a fan of
>Van Gogh or Roland Kirk, so why does it bother you to think of yourself
>as a "fan"? I think that you do not really appreciate Beefheart at all,
>and have probably not listened to him for ages. You may even be vain
>enough to think of him as a rival. When I quoted, "...last peak in
>clarity's chain..." after one of your posts, you probably didn't even
>get it, you probably didn't know that it is from the song The Host The
>Ghost The Most Holy-O, nor that in the context of your post and that
>song, I was agreeing with what you said.
> Why do you insist on posting in afcb if the on-topic threads here seem
>"idiotic" to you, and since you are apparently a fan of nobody but your
>own self?
> I don't enjoy these kinds of conversations at all. I just get dragged
>into them out of a sense of duty to fighting religious intolerance
>whenever it rears its ugly head. I may give that up too. The
>anti-Christian lobby will hang itself by its own hateful words.
>
> Michael H.
there are those that need to follow and there are those whom need to lead
there are those that need to believe and there are those who need to see
in there lies what it is all about
for me to reach a spiritual level music is the best
not music with lyrics just music
NI...@sword.edg
>>
>> Zoogz Rift "The Liquid Moamo" wrote in message
>> <369c0f72...@news.primenet.com>...
>>
>> >Another Canadian criticizing Ronald Reagan. He has NOTHING to
>> >person. I'm talking about the right to own property, to own yourself,
>> >the right to say "this is mine," and the rational willingness to fight to
>> >protect it. Nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>> seem to be much love for it in afc-b. I can't find the original messages
>> anymore, but a whole bunch of people there were raring to end the notion of
>> intellectual property. I never really gathered why- something about being
>> interested in the music, not the man, and property is theft anyways, and
>> most importantly how would it hurt ME?
>>
>> This struck me as weird, especially in a group devoted to an artist who
>> suffered so much from not owning the rights to his own material. I don't
>> recall much of any explanation being offered the incredulous aff-zers who
>> replied. Anybody wanna re-open this can of worms?
>
> Intellectual property rights. That is a can of worms, for sure. I
>believe in intellectual property rights. I think that the fellow who
>offered to burn CDs of LMDOB is probably out of line, but I think that
>the Revenant set is fine. I always buy my computer programs. At the same
>time, I don't believe that property rights should be used to cause
>starvation. If LMDOB is on the shelf at the store, then it is clearly
>wrong to pirate it, but if it is deleted, out or print, out of stock,
>etc., everywhere, then maybe it is okay to bootleg it, because it is a
>genuine deprivation for a Beefheart fan not to have it, especially given
>that Don said on the Dutch radio interview that it was his favourite of
>his own albums. Everyone ought to hear that album, and if it isn't in
>the stores...
>
>>
>> >>> >public perception of "reality" is defined in such a "Wag the
>> >>> >Dog" bullshit way by a too-powerful mass media, and then see
>> >>> >people with ostensibly anti-establishment tendencies playing
>> >>> >right into it and becoming part of the instrument of manipulation
>> >>> >instead of genuine opponents of it. I think Zappa succumbed to
>> >>> >that to some extent.
>> >>>
>> >>> I have no idea what you're talking about here. Please make it
>> >>> less cryptic and more precise for me, okay?
>> >>
>> >> Sorry. I forgot that your mind is "different". (Where is Jane Goodall
>> >>when you really need her, right Zoogz?)
>>
>> either. Seriously, could you elaborate for all us monkeys out here?
>
>dumb to avoid the issue, but perhaps I really didn't express myself
>clearly. My apologies to all (including Zoogz) for the Goodall
>reference. Okay, take American foreign policy, for example, in terms of
>the Vietnam War. Everybody hated it, called it an unjust and immoral
>war, yaddayaddayadda. But in reality, the problem was that American boys
>were being sent around the world to be killed. The main effect of all of
>the anti-war, anti-establishment noise and "protest songs" from the
>"underground" was that more money was given to the "military-industrial
>complex" (D.D. Eisenhower's phrase) to develop automated warfare. Today,
>American foreign policy is the same as ever, but because they send in
>Cruise missiles instead of draftees, nobody cares, and all that talk of
>"unjust wars" etc. evaporated the day the draft ended. So the anti-war
>protest in the sixties created a climate favourable to increasing funds
>to update warfare to a largely automated system that the public now
>who attacked values and promoted the freedom to be obscene ultimately
>accomplished little more than helping the porno trade and contributing
>to the general decadence of society, while contributing nothing whatever
>words, people like Dylan and Zappa may have thought they were bucking
>the system, but in a sense they were duped by it because their protests
>actually benefitted the establishment, rather than weakening it in any
>way.
>
>> (Side note: I often see Beefheart fans defining CB against Zappa, but rarely
>> do I see the versa viced. Why?)
>
> Because Beefheart has so often been presented as one of the members of
>Zappa's "gallery of freaks" along with Alice Cooper and Wild Man Fisher.
>Someone on affz posted a while ago that Beefheart was just another
>prompts Beefheart fans to "define him against Zappa." Zappa is better
>known than Beefheart. Despite Zappa's ostensibly "outrageous" act, he
>pretty much toed the party line about political correctness, and of
>course the powerful anti-Christian lobby supported Zappa, so Zappa
>really became part of the establishment, rather than a true critic of
>overblown reputation as genius and originator of all unusual ideas, he
>is often perceived as being a co-originator of Beefheart's music, and so
>there is a reaction against that. For example, I have found that if you
>mention Beefheart to the average person, they will either have not heard
>of him, or will mention Frank Zappa within about three seconds.
>
um let me see now wasnt beefhearts best album produced by zappa
and dint zappa take beefheart under his wings
when no one was the least bit interested in his music
and
get this
zappa supported by the christian lobby
youre way otta line here
and just dont know what your talking about
but that seems to be the norm
in posts emminating from
alt.fan.zoogz-rift
,alt.fan.capt-beefheart
JohnKerr
ninja wrote........
>
> um let me see now wasnt beefhearts best album produced by zappa
>
> and dint zappa take beefheart under his wings
>
> when no one was the least bit interested in his music
my short reply.........
That seems to be a popular opinion. There are others just as good or
better!!
Lick My Decals Off, Baby...Clear Spot...Strictly Personal...Doc At The
Radar..etc.
As far as Zappa producing.....well yeah, he booked the time, probably
pressed a
few buttons and did a swell job editing, but he had nothing to do with the
music.
People who were there said he just fell asleep at the board!! Dick Kunc is
the man!!
Zappa taking Beefheart under his wings..no one else interested in his
music??
Are you for real ? Zappa was a FAN of Don's work!!! I have many interviews
in
which FZ very much states how great the band is.
Wasn't Frank infact jealous of the MagicBand.
Frank wasen't doing Don a favor,
he simply wanted to be a part of something he knew was in fact MAGICAL!!!!!
And alot of people were interested in his music at the time...there lied
the
problem...Don signed alot of contracts!! HC & FZ took care of that.
Largely because Frank knew DON was THE REAL DEAL!!!!!
> and
>
> get this
>
> zappa supported by the christian lobby
>
> youre way otta line here
>
> and just dont know what your talking about
>
> but that seems to be the norm
>
> in posts emminating from
>
> alt.fan.zoogz-rift
>
> ,alt.fan.capt-beefheart
>
hahahahahahaha. I love FZ music. I love CB music. I love opinions.
And I love affz because it is so full of truths and everyone know exactly
what their talking about!! Hahahahahahaha ;)
jBk
JohnKerr
JohnKerr <ko...@ethergate.com> wrote in article
<01be5131$ab2c3100$e8241ad8@john-and-grace>...
>
> ninja wrote........
> >
> > um let me see now wasnt beefhearts best album produced by zappa
> >
> > and dint zappa take beefheart under his wings
> >
> > when no one was the least bit interested in his music
>
> > and
> >
> > get this
> >
> > zappa supported by the christian lobby
> >
> > youre way otta line here
> >
> > and just dont know what your talking about
> >
> > but that seems to be the norm
> >
> > in posts emminating from
> >
> > alt.fan.zoogz-rift
> >
> > ,alt.fan.capt-beefheart
> >
>
> hahahahahahaha. I love FZ music. I love CB music. I love opinions.
> And I love affz because it is so full of truths and everyone know
exactly
> what their talking about!! Hahahahahahaha ;)
>
> jBk
>
Oh, yeah.....I also love ZR music :P
JohnKerr
> >
> > ninja wrote........
> > >
> > > um let me see now wasnt beefhearts best album produced by zappa
> > >
> > > and dint zappa take beefheart under his wings
No, but he did take note of the incredible guitar playing and picked up a
few
good licks! I'm very much a "hardcore" FZ fan, to me it is very apparent
that
FZ's g-solo's greatly improved in quality in the early 70's. I like his
eariler
solo work, but most of the pre-1971/2 solos sound very dated.
It was his exposure to Hendrix and CB&TMB that helped this progress.
We all know Frank ( like most musicians) "borrows" things from other
artists.
At the time ZootHorn and Mr. Cotton were THE SHIT. Zappa knew it.
Do you listen to CB ninja?
JbK