UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
SteveG
music and dance. Pubs which could previously offer work to solo singers or
duos now have to pay for a special licence and can only have 12 of these per
year. Even school Xmas concerts need to be licensed.
If you don't know there is a UK government web site where anyone can now
start a petition and that's what is being done. we've just received the
following email which explains things more clearly and gives the site
address . If you care about keeping music live please take the time to sign
the petition.
Subject: Music/Licensing Laws - Official Downing Street petition
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:36:37
Please circulate
The live music/licensing e-petition now has nearly 4550 signatures.
It currently stands at no.17 in the list of 1,702 petitions on the
Number 10 website: http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/licensing/
This is good, especially in just under a month - and there are five
more months in which people can sign. (CLOSING DATE: 11 June 2007).
But the petition needs to do much better to make an impression on ministers,
and to encourage DCMS to implement music-friendly amendments.
The petition is for everyone, not just musicians. Please consider
signing if you haven't already done so. If you have signed, encourage
friends to sign.
Points to remember about the new legislation:
a.. The unlicensed provision of even one musician is a potential
criminal offence (although some places are exempt, including places of
public religious worship, royal palaces and moving vehicles). Max penalty:
£20,000 fine and six months in prison.
b.. The rationale is to prevent noise, crime and disorder, to ensure public
safety, and the protection of children from harm.
c.. But broadcast entertainment, including sport and music, is exempt - no
matter where, and no matter how powerfully amplified.
d.. In the transition to the new regime, bars with jukeboxes, CD
players etc were automatically granted a license to play recorded
music; but their automatic entitlement to one or two musicians was
abolished.
e.. For the first time, private performances raising money for charity are
licensable.
f.. School performances open to friends and family are licensable -
they count as public performances.
g.. Under the old regime all premises licensed to sell alcohol for
consumption on the premises were automatically allowed up to two live
musicians (the 'two in a bar rule').
h.. In December, DCMS published research confirming that about 40% of these
have lost any automatic entitlement to live music as a result of the new
Act:
'Very few establishments that wanted a new license were denied it, and many
who were previously limited to 2-in-a-bar now have the ability to stage
music with 2 or more musicians... This contrasts, of course, with the fact
that 40% of establishments now have no automatic means of putting on live
music (i.e. they would have to give a TEN).'
['Licensing Act 2003: The experience of smaller establishments in
applying for live music authorization'; December 2006', paragraphs
6.1.1 and 6.1.2 'Conclusions', p54; Caroline Callahan, Andy Martin,
Anna Pierce, Ipsos-MORI]
'TEN' stands for Temporary Event Notice - in effect a temporary
entertainment licence. Only 12 are allowed per premises per year.
They cost £21 each. See the full MORI reports on this site:
http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_...ec_summary.htm
link to sign petition is here.. http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/licensing/
Hud
free. They fucked up "Happy Birthday." Might as well fuck everything else
up.
realize our
"SteveG" <steve...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:zfednUf-0-SmQGfY...@bt.com...
Lumpy
> ...They fucked up "Happy Birthday." Might as well
> fuck everything else up.
Who "fucked up" Happy Birthday?
Lumpy
--
Can you play country music?
Sure. Which country would you like?
www.lumpymusic.org
Hud
Irving Berlin and a musical he was producing. The Clayton F. Summy Company
became the songs publisher in 1935. After a long and boring series of
purchases, Time Warner became the owner. The song now belongs to them. The
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) licenses the
song and collects royalties for public performances for Time Warner. I've
read on the net that the song brings in about 2 million dollars a year for
the large media conglomorate! Because of the licensing fees, restaurants
may no longer sing "Happy Birthday To You" to customers and their children -
unless they want to shell out money to the corporate media hounds. If this
kind of bullshit continues, our children and grandchildren may not be able
to sing songs like "Jingle Bells" or "Silver Bells" in school plays...just
because some insanely wealthy corporation purchased the rights and wants a
fucking dime every time it is performed. Rich kids will be allowed to sing
such songs to their beaming parents. However poor children in financially
burdened school districts will not be allowed to sing such beloved songs for
their parents if their school does not pay licensing fees. It's fucking
ridiculous!
"Lumpy" <lu...@digitalcartography.com> wrote in message
news:560nt2F...@mid.individual.net...
Lumpy
> "Happy Birthday To You" was copyrighted in 1934 in a court case
> involving Irving Berlin and a musical he was producing. The Clayton
> F. Summy Company became the songs publisher in 1935. After a long
> and boring series of purchases, Time Warner became the owner. The
> song now belongs to them. The American Society of Composers, Authors
> and Publishers (ASCAP) licenses the song and collects royalties for
> public performances for Time Warner. I've read on the net that the
> song brings in about 2 million dollars a year for the large media
> conglomorate! Because of the licensing fees, restaurants may no
> longer sing "Happy Birthday To You" to customers and their children -
> unless they want to shell out money to the corporate media hounds. If this
> kind of bullshit continues, our children and grandchildren
> may not be able to sing songs like "Jingle Bells" or "Silver Bells"
> in school plays...just because some insanely wealthy corporation
> purchased the rights and wants a fucking dime every time it is
> performed. Rich kids will be allowed to sing such songs to their
> beaming parents. However poor children in financially burdened
> school districts will not be allowed to sing such beloved songs for
> their parents if their school does not pay licensing fees. It's
> fucking ridiculous!
Poor people don't have the right to take the
material just because they're poor. The song
belongs to someone, it's not free for the taking.
You ready for this fight or you want
to shut up now?
Roger E. Blumberg
> Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:21:57 -0400
> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
> "Lumpy" <lu...@digitalcartography.com> wrote in message
> news:560nt2F...@mid.individual.net...
>> Hud wrote:
>>> ...They fucked up "Happy Birthday." Might as well
>>> fuck everything else up.
>>
>> Who "fucked up" Happy Birthday?
>>
>>
>> Lumpy
> "Happy Birthday To You" was copyrighted in 1934 in a court case involving
> Irving Berlin and a musical he was producing. The Clayton F. Summy Company
> became the songs publisher in 1935. After a long and boring series of
> purchases, Time Warner became the owner. The song now belongs to them. The
> American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) licenses the
> song and collects royalties for public performances for Time Warner. I've
> read on the net that the song brings in about 2 million dollars a year for
> the large media conglomerate! Because of the licensing fees, restaurants
> may no longer sing "Happy Birthday To You" to customers and their children -
> unless they want to shell out money to the corporate media hounds. If this
> kind of bullshit continues, our children and grandchildren may not be able
> to sing songs like "Jingle Bells" or "Silver Bells" in school plays...just
> because some insanely wealthy corporation purchased the rights and wants a
> fucking dime every time it is performed. Rich kids will be allowed to sing
> such songs to their beaming parents. However poor children in financially
> burdened school districts will not be allowed to sing such beloved songs for
> their parents if their school does not pay licensing fees. It's fucking
> ridiculous!
oh no Hud, you misunderstand '-)
Roger
Hud
"Lumpy" <lu...@digitalcartography.com> wrote in message
news:560rr4F...@mid.individual.net...
Hud
belong to any of those sites where they illegally download everything from
music to movies to all kinds of softward. We go to the store and buy what
we want. My daughter wants the new Avril Lavigne cd that's coming out in a
few weeks. I will go to the music store and buy it for her. Avril is an
artist who deserves to get paid for her song. I'm not talking about
depriving her. I'm talking about me, HUD CORPORATION, purchasing the rights
to the alphabet song and charging children all over the world a dime every
time they publicly perform the song in school.
"Roger E. Blumberg" <rblu...@jps.net> wrote in message
news:C2208A4F.5285A%rblu...@jps.net...
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: "Hud" <iro...@roadrunner.com>
> Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:08:49 -0400
> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>
> I purchase all my music in the form of cd's and iTunes for my ipod. I don't
> belong to any of those sites where they illegally download everything from
> music to movies to all kinds of softward. We go to the store and buy what
> we want. My daughter wants the new Avril Lavigne cd that's coming out in a
> few weeks. I will go to the music store and buy it for her. Avril is an
> artist who deserves to get paid for her song. I'm not talking about
> depriving her. I'm talking about me, HUD CORPORATION, purchasing the rights
> to the alphabet song and charging children all over the world a dime every
> time they publicly perform the song in school.
I do understand. I winked.
Roger
P.S. top-posting probably won't to go ever well if it's done too often
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: "Roger E. Blumberg" <rblu...@jps.net>
> Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 01:18:20 GMT
> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>> From: "Hud" <iro...@roadrunner.com>
>> Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
>> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
>> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:08:49 -0400
>> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> I purchase all my music in the form of cd's and iTunes for my ipod. I don't
>> belong to any of those sites where they illegally download everything from
>> music to movies to all kinds of softward. We go to the store and buy what
>> we want. My daughter wants the new Avril Lavigne cd that's coming out in a
>> few weeks. I will go to the music store and buy it for her. Avril is an
>> artist who deserves to get paid for her song. I'm not talking about
>> depriving her. I'm talking about me, HUD CORPORATION, purchasing the rights
>> to the alphabet song and charging children all over the world a dime every
>> time they publicly perform the song in school.
>
>
> I do understand. I winked.
>
> Roger
>
> P.S. top-posting probably won't to go ever well if it's done too often
You and I and most people would understand.
But "Mountie-Do-Right and the Happy Birthday Police" won't be able to make
any distinction, guaranteed.
Roger
Hud
you were giving me a wink. ;o)
"Roger E. Blumberg" <rblu...@jps.net> wrote in message
news:C2209029.5285D%rblu...@jps.net...
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: "Hud" <iro...@roadrunner.com>
> Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:35:14 -0400
> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>
> Roger, I wasn't top-posting Lumpy. I was responding to you. I now realize
> you were giving me a wink. ;o)
>
Ok, glad to got it. But, but, I'm not real fond of the top-posting either.
Roger
Hud
this thing to it's logical, ridiculous conclusion. Pretty soon people will
tire of being nickeled and dimed to death by greedy corporate giants who
weld their financial power to seize nursery rhymes and aggressively demand
payment because little Johnny stood up in class and publicly recited "Jack
And Jill."
"Roger E. Blumberg" <rblu...@jps.net> wrote in message
news:C2209316.52860%rblu...@jps.net...
Hud
doing it now by responding to you.
"Roger E. Blumberg" <rblu...@jps.net> wrote in message
news:C2209557.52863%rblu...@jps.net...
Roger E. Blumberg
like. Top-posting is when one's reply goes at the very top, above all other
text, rather than on the very bottom (were it should be). If anyone is
trying to follow a thread the context gets lost because you can't see the
sequence of previous posts nor easily re-read some of the previous post
without having to scroll all the way down again. Top-posting can also appear
rude and "dismissive" of the person you're speaking to, which I know you
weren't at all trying to do here, so I understand, no prob. If you are
wanting and _trying_ to be dismissive of someone you could top-post for
effect, but it's still frowned upon as a general rule of thumb. If everyone
were top-posting it'd be ok, i.e. the expected order and sequence would be
maintained.
Roger
Hud
where the cursor is. Now I got it. Hopefully this is the correct way to
post. If I screwed this one up, I'll try to get it right next time. Thanks
Greg Cisko
news:45fb4fea$0$4898$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Roger E. Blumberg" <rblu...@jps.net> wrote in message
> news:C2209CC2.5286B%rblu...@jps.net...
>> Ya, you are, doing it now. I'm doing it now too so you can see what it
>> looks
>> like. Top-posting is when one's reply goes at the very top, above all
>> other
>> text, rather than on the very bottom (were it should be). If anyone is
>> trying to follow a thread the context gets lost because you can't see the
>> sequence of previous posts nor easily re-read some of the previous post
>> without having to scroll all the way down again. Top-posting can also
>> appear
>> rude and "dismissive" of the person you're speaking to, which I know you
>> weren't at all trying to do here, so I understand, no prob. If you are
>> wanting and _trying_ to be dismissive of someone you could top-post for
>> effect, but it's still frowned upon as a general rule of thumb. If
>> everyone
>> were top-posting it'd be ok, i.e. the expected order and sequence would
>> be
>> maintained.
>>
>> Roger
>>
> Oh, I didn't know that. When the reply window opens I just start typing
> where the cursor is. Now I got it. Hopefully this is the correct way to
> post. If I screwed this one up, I'll try to get it right next time.
> Thanks
You need to work on it. Your reply should have gone just below his, not
at the bottom.
--
The Pentatonic Scale Explained
http://bluechainlightning.net
Hud
"Greg Cisko" <gci...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2bGdnfk6PfR0zWbY...@comcast.com...
Hopefully this is right. If not, then it must by Outlook Express....
Les Cargill
> Pretty soon we won't even be allowed to sing "Jingle Bells" at Christmas for
> free. They fucked up "Happy Birthday." Might as well fuck everything else
> up.
>
>
>
>
>
>
GUNFIGHT! EVERYBODY DIVE UNDER A TABLE!
<snip>
(I keed...)
--
Les Cargill
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: "Hud" <iro...@roadrunner.com>
> Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:17:43 -0400
Yes sir. Now it's correct. And no problem making an innocent mistake. Now if
you look back at what's on this entire page you'll see why top-posting
confuses things. Everything is out of order, half top-posted and half
bottom-posted, and God knows what all mixed-up in the middle.
One thing to watch for in these message conversations is the number-count of
quote-marks present in the left margin, which for our purposes are done
using forward-pointing arrows like this symbol ">". The oldest bit of
quoted text will have the greatest number or arrows, the newest will have
one arrow.
>>>>> oldest
>>>>
>>>
>>
> newest
Arrow-depth or quote-depth can help you keep track of who's voice is saying
what, which poster and from how long ago, how many messages back. If you
correctly identify that poster X's text is currently three levels deep >>>
you can scan up and down the page reading only poster X's material.
Roger
Hud
p.m. here in Ohio. Got to get up at 4:30 a.m. and go to work so I can
afford to pay the lawyers who try to sue me for singing "Happy Birthday To
You" to my daughter next week.
"Roger E. Blumberg" <rblu...@jps.net> wrote in message
news:C220A279.52871%rblu...@jps.net...
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: "Hud" <iro...@roadrunner.com>
> Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:44:54 -0400
ok, good-night. But do you realize you did it again!!? ;-)
Roger
Lumpy
> Roger, I wasn't top-posting Lumpy. I was responding to you. I now
> realize you were giving me a wink. ;o)
Wink or not, you're continuing to top post.
Regardless of who owns the song, and whether
or not you think they're rich enough, it's
someone's property. You aren't supposed to
steal groceries and they belong to a mega
rich corporation. You're not supposed to
steal gasoline or bread or chewing gum and
they all belong to mega rich corporations.
So rekindle the argue if you like. I'd be
happy to give you my opinion of your
ethical stance on property rights.
Lumpy
--
You were on CHiPs? Did you wear those sexy
tight pants and high boots like Erik Estrada?
No. Swimtrunks.
www.lumpymusic.net
Nomad
Remind us what this post was about ;)
Anyway, I've signed and will forward it to as many as possible in an
attempt to stop that clown Blair regulating yet another normal part of life.
David
johnty
Question: does top posting make any sense?
Hud
Oh, I respect Time Warner's ownership of "Happy Birthday To You." It's
their property now. They own the copyright and they damn sure do collect
license fees for use of the song. We all know that. I just don't like that
a money mad corporation has seized something so innocent, something so
ingrained in our culture as the "Happy Birthday To You" ditty that we have
sung to our children for years upon years, and now have made it illegal -
unless we cough up our kid's milk money. Is it a requirement that I must
like it? Do you think Time Warner really gives a shit that you like it and
I don't? All they care about is that change jingling in our pockets. As I
said in another post in this thread, I pay for my music and for the music my
daughter likes to listen to. My wife loves Nickelback and has purchased all
of their cds. We do abide by the law and do not engage in illegal
downloading. I have an 80 gig ipod; my daughter has a 30 gig ipod. Every
song and video on them are %100 legal. We either downloaded them from
iTunes or uploaded cds we have bought. We pay for the music we love. As a
matter of fact, today I bought Lynyrd Skynyrd's All Time Greatest Hits cd.
(It did piss me off that the cheap plastic case broke as soon as I opened
it. It's happened to us so many times I think they are designed to fall
apart upon opening.) I merely highly resent that a gigantic media
conglomorate is forcing me to pay for something that has been so common and
so cherished. What's next? Prayers?
Stephen Calder
The copyright to that song needs to be extinguished forthwith. Some
lawyer needs to get up and argue that it was always public property and
can't be appropriated.
--
Stephen
Ballina, Australia
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: Stephen Calder <cal...@in.com.au>
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 10:07:33 +1100
> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>
Agreed. Or some billionaire philanthropist needs to buy it back and then
gift-it to the public-domain (officially and permanently).
Roger
no66y©
"Roger E. Blumberg" wrote in message
> Agreed. Or some billionaire philanthropist needs to buy it back and then
> gift-it to the public-domain (officially and permanently).
Unlikely
http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
--
No66y©
Those who find they're touched by madness
Sit down next to me.
Virtual Preserve are here!
www.soundclick.com/bands/virtualpreserve
Reply to address is a spam trap.
Use no66y [at] breathe [dot] com
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: "no66y©" <bou...@bounce.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:23:44 -0000
> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> "Roger E. Blumberg" wrote in message
>> Agreed. Or some billionaire philanthropist needs to buy it back and then
>> gift-it to the public-domain (officially and permanently).
>
> Unlikely
>
> http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp
>
that's why I said "billionaire"
Roger
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: "Roger E. Blumberg" <rblu...@jps.net>
> Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 23:18:25 GMT
Hell, maybe we could get The Texan to take it out of the Iraq war
"petty-cash" drawer. Then there'd at least be "some" good gotten out of all
of it in the end, and it couldn't hurt the Republicans come election time.
"Peace on Earth and Good Will Towards Man (and children)" is all they ever
really wanted, isn't it?
The "No Child Left Without a Birthday-Song" Act, of 2007. There too, we'd at
least have "something" of good consequence to have ever come of it's
name-sake and inspiration "Act".
Roger
Lumpy
> Oh, I respect Time Warner's ownership of "Happy Birthday To You." It's
> their property now. They own the copyright and they damn sure
> do collect license fees for use of the song. We all know that. I
> just don't like that a money mad corporation has seized something so
> innocent, something so ingrained in our culture as the "Happy
> Birthday To You" ditty that we have sung to our children for years
It's always been illegal to perform the song in public
without paying the proper royalties. Just like any
other song. Just because it's happy B-Day, doesn't
make it any less someone's property or any more
your property.
You can sing it to your kids all you want.
The staff at the restaurant can't, without
paying for it.
Potatoes and chicken have been "ingrained in our
culture" even longer than the song "HBTY". But
the restaurant has to pay for those potatoes
and chickens, just like they have to pay for
the song.
> ...What's next? Prayers?
Prayers aren't copyrighted. It's just extremely
rude of people to say them in public, but not
illegal. At least not in some places in the world.
Lumpy
--
You Played on Lawrence Welk?
Yes but no blue notes. Just blue hairs.
www.lumpyguitar.net
Hud
Add some chords to those prayers and HUD CORPORATION will make every attempt
to purchase copyrights and collect fees for those prayers. Has anyone
copyrighted the Gregorian Chant yet?
I'm angry about this issue in the same way one is angry because s/he just
paid nearly $4 per gallon for gas when last week it was less than $2. The
powers that be promise it is not price gouging and the fact that gas prices
consistently rise in conjunction with high travel holidays is...merely
coincidence. Yeah. Ok. Do I pay the higher price? Yes. Is it legal?
Yes. Do I like it. No! As a matter of fact, it really pisses me off.
Remember the Boston Tea Party? Bostonians believed tea taxation was unfair.
Was it legal? Yes. Completely. Did it piss the colonists off? Yes. John
Hancock, the first signer of the Declaration of Independence, was sick and
tired of it. He did the equivalent of illegal downloading when he purchased
his own tea...completely bypassing taxes imposed by the British. He was
actually arrested after they seized one of his ships and found tea aboard.
(Do you consider John Hancock an unethical thief?) He was successfully
defended by John Adams, America's first Vice President. Was Hancock
finished? No. He went on to organize boycotts of tea sold by the wealthy
British East India Co. The British then cracked down hard on the colonists
in the form of punitive actions. Were they legal actions? Yes.
Completely. Did they piss the colonists off. Yes. Completely. These
events culminated in the Boston Tea Party where many tons of tea was taken
from BEIC ships and heaved into the waters of Boston Harbor. This event was
one of the causes of the American Revolution which led to our independence
and freedom from what was perceived to be unfair fees attached to tea. Once
again. Were the fees legal? Yes. Did they piss people off? Yes!
Back to "Happy Birthday To You." Are people required to like having to pay
legal licensing fees for something so trivial? No. Does that make them
criminals? No. But, is it legal for Time Warner to purchase "Happy
Birthday To You," impose licensing fees and aggressively enforce punitive
actions against those who refuse to cough up their kids milk money? Yes.
Completely legal. Does it piss people off? YES!!!!! If you don't like
that it pisses me off, that's your problem. I'm doing nothing illegal and
I'm as entitled to my opinion as you are. Care for a spot of tea? Wanna
watch "National Treasure" with me. That Nicholas Cage is a great actor.
Lumpy
> Has anyone copyrighted the Gregorian Chant yet?
The recordings of thos GC's were automatically
copyrighted the moment they were placed in
recorded media.
> Back to "Happy Birthday To You." Are people required to like having
> to pay legal licensing fees for something so trivial?...
No, they're not required to LIKE paying royalties.
But they ARE required to pay royalties, where appropriate.
> ...is it legal for Time Warner to
> purchase "Happy Birthday To You," impose licensing fees and
> aggressively enforce punitive actions against those who refuse to
> cough up their kids milk money?...
I'm not sure where your tear jerking crap about "kid's milk money"
is coming from. The venue is required to pay for the right to use
the property (the song). Kid's aren't going hungry at night because
they are singing HBD.
BTW, the mega-conglom corporations that own the dairy farms
are filthy rich. Those poor little kids having to pay for
those executives to have their private jets and summer homes
and all. Must really make you sick.
Hud
I also want to add that I'm aware fees only apply to public performances.
So I'm going to sing "Happy Birthday To You" to my daughter in public.
We've been cooped up in the house too much this winter. The weather is
getting really nice. Perhaps we'll go downtown, have a picnic on the green
where the public likes to congregate, and I'll sing "Happy Birthday To You."
Perhaps we'll all sing it. Wouldn't it be something if some of the good
people of our small town joined in? My daughter would really like that.
And that's just the way I remember "Happy Birthday To You" being sung to me
when I was little. The whole town joined in. Hey...you going to come over
and take my kid's milk money?
(All of the above is hypothetical and meant to be facetious. Our town
doesn't even have a green.)
Hud
every effort to purchase rights to everything we can afford that is
considered public domain, sacred and even trivial. We are certain there are
other such pleasures John Q. Public takes for granted. He certainly is no
match for the likes of us! If he ever renigs, we'll own his ass and license
it out for a fee too!
"Lumpy" <lu...@digitalcartography.com> wrote in message
news:563qatF...@mid.individual.net...
Hud
Since you agree that people are not required to like having to pay royalties
on items such as "Happy Birthday To You" and milk. Then why are you on my
case, mister? I pay such taxes and more. And, yes, it does make me sick.
I don't like it, but I pay up like you do. You like it, hunh? Lol
Hud
Oops. Sorry I accidently top posted again. Purely unintentional. Got to
break this bad habit.
Lumpy
> ...And,
> yes, it does make me sick...
That's because you drink milk.
It's made from cow mammary gland secretions, you know.
Lumpy
--
You were the Tidy Bowl Guy?
Yes. I'm cleaning your bathroom bowl.
www.lumpyvoice.org
PanHead
>
>> ...What's next? Prayers?
>
> Prayers aren't copyrighted. It's just extremely
> rude of people to say them in public, but not
> illegal. At least not in some places in the world.
>
>
> Lumpy
If someone's going to bash your head in with a baseball bat I don't think
saying your prayers in public is rude.
Lumpy
> If someone's going to bash your head
> in with a baseball bat I don't
> think saying your prayers in public is rude.
Saying your prayers in public is simply
inviting someone to bash your head in
with a baseball bat.
If you've paid the guy with the big hair
enough, you'll go to heaven and get a harp
and all that. Doesn't matter how much you
offend others with your talking in tongues.
Lumpy
--
How do you do an AM radio voice?
Doesn't really matter. Nobody listens to AM.
www.lumpyvoice.net
Stephen Calder
> PanHead wrote:
>
>> If someone's going to bash your head
>> in with a baseball bat I don't
>> think saying your prayers in public is rude.
>
> Saying your prayers in public is simply
> inviting someone to bash your head in
> with a baseball bat.
You think so? You mean that's what you'd like to do to someone who does
that?
>
> If you've paid the guy with the big hair
> enough, you'll go to heaven and get a harp
> and all that. Doesn't matter how much you
> offend others with your talking in tongues.
>
Your money won't get you into heaven, old son. Far from it.
--
Stephen
Ballina, Australia
Dave Van
> PanHead wrote:
>
>> If someone's going to bash your head
>> in with a baseball bat I don't
>> think saying your prayers in public is rude.
>
> Saying your prayers in public is simply
> inviting someone to bash your head in
> with a baseball bat.
>
> If you've paid the guy with the big hair
> enough, you'll go to heaven and get a harp
> and all that. Doesn't matter how much you
> offend others with your talking in tongues.
>
>
> Lumpy
Why would you be offended by someone praying in public? Is it that they
are trying to get you to do it? I don't pray but I'm not 'offended' by
someone that does it any more than I'm 'offended' by a crazy person
walking along talking to his imaginary friend.
You are one uptight dude.
Lumpy
> Why would you be offended by someone praying in public?...
Why is there a need for the mindless sheep to
do it in public in the first place? Surely
the boogie man doesn't care if you show off
your squinting in front of others.
Dave Van
> Dave Van wrote:
>> Why would you be offended by someone praying in public?...
>
> Why is there a need for the mindless sheep to
> do it in public in the first place?
Because it's part of their belief system to do so?
> Surely
> the boogie man doesn't care if you show off
> your squinting in front of others.
You don't believe in god but you believe in the boogie man...
Lumpy
> > Why is there a need for the mindless sheep to
> > do it in public in the first place?
Dave Van:
> Because it's part of their belief system to do so?
Their problem, not mine. Keep your most personal,
spiritual beliefs to yourself, where they belong.
Some things are simply guaranteed to incite.
Politics and religion being the two that are
highest on the list. If you're in church or
in some other place where it is expected that
you would discuss religion, have at it.
Trouble is, those that insist on being public
with their religion, are the ones that just
aren't really there. They're just along for
the ride. They don't have enough confidence
in their beliefs to keep it to themselves so
they insist on sticking it on their cars and
business cards and guitar straps.
Ward room etiquette.
Stephen Calder
> Dave Van wrote:
>> Why would you be offended by someone praying in public?...
>
> Why is there a need for the mindless sheep to
> do it in public in the first place?
Anyone who prays is a mindless sheep?
Surely
> the boogie man doesn't care if you show off
> your squinting in front of others.
>
Huh?
--
Stephen
Ballina, Australia
Dave Van
> Lump:
>>> Why is there a need for the mindless sheep to
>>> do it in public in the first place?
>
> Dave Van:
>> Because it's part of their belief system to do so?
We have freedom of religion here in the USA. Evangelism is at the core
of many of the religions that those freedoms protect. You want to strip
that away.
>
> Their problem, not mine. Keep your most personal,
> spiritual beliefs to yourself, where they belong.
You're reaching out and making it your problem.
Do you have issues with all forms of free speech or is it just this one
area that scares you so much?
The law protects their right to do so just as the law protects a
musicians copyright. It seems as though you're all legal minded when it
comes to laws that protect your interests but don't have any regard for
them when it's something you don't like so much.
>
> Some things are simply guaranteed to incite.
Happens around here all the time and no one seems to think it's cause
for ill intent.
Lumpy
> ... Evangelism is at the
> core of many of the religions
Evangelism is at the core of a lot of
hate and crime and other things.
They can evangelize all they want.
I'll insult and make fun and point out
their insecurities all I want.
Mindless sheep. Pay the preacher for
a guaranteed seat in heaven. Christian businessmen's
association. Makin' money for jee-ay-zusss. While we're
at it, maybe we could fuck a few alter boys. We won't
get ex-communicated like we would if we were to divulge
the proceedings of the pope election. We won't even lose
our pension or health care. In fact we won't even lose
our job unless someone causes a big enough stink.
Yeah! Fuckin kids for jee-ay-zusss.
Those xtians keep good company.
Lumpy
--
Were you the voice of Casper?
No. Popeye, Snagglepuss and Wells Fargo Bank.
www.lumpyvoice.net
Dave Van
> Dave Van wrote:
>> ... Evangelism is at the
>> core of many of the religions
>> that those freedoms protect...
>
> Evangelism is at the core of a lot of
> hate and crime and other things.
>
> They can evangelize all they want.
A direct contradiction to what you said earlier which was that they
should keep it to themselves. I can't remember if that was before or
after you inadvertently revealed that you have the urge to bash peoples
heads in. Such a peaceful atheist you are.
> I'll insult and make fun and point out
> their insecurities all I want.
Until you get so filled with pent up rage that you actually do bash
someones head in with a baseball bat.
Lumpy
> ... I can't remember if that was before or
> after you inadvertently revealed
> that you have the urge to bash
You can twist my post any way you like, Dave.
Fuck xtians.
Dave Van
> Dave Van wrote:
>> ... I can't remember if that was before or
>> after you inadvertently revealed
>> that you have the urge to bash
>> peoples heads in...
>
> You can twist my post any way you like, Dave.
>
> Fuck xtians.
>
>
> Lumpy
I'll never understand how a person who has lead such a charmed life
could be so hostile.
You may have the last word on this.
I'm going to spend the sabbath with my kids.
DV
Hud
"Stephen Calder" <cal...@in.com.au> wrote in message
news:45fd...@news.eftel.com.au...
Isn't it amazing how much this thread has digressed?! Maybe we should all
get back to guitar talk. Let's all be good little sheep and pay our taxes
and licensing fees and respect others decisions in regard to personal belief
systems.
Nomad
we will be a decent guitar player.
Is that a good enough turnaround?
Hud
"Nomad" <da...@waldie.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:45fd99d3$0$22113$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Sounds excellent to me.
Lumpy
> I'm going to spend the sabbath with my kids.
Good. That's much safer than letting them
hang around those men of the cloth.
Stephen Calder
> Dave Van wrote:
>> ... Evangelism is at the
>> core of many of the religions
>> that those freedoms protect...
>
> Evangelism is at the core of a lot of
> hate and crime and other things.
>
> They can evangelize all they want.
> I'll insult and make fun and point out
> their insecurities all I want.
>
> Mindless sheep. Pay the preacher for
> a guaranteed seat in heaven. Christian businessmen's
> association. Makin' money for jee-ay-zusss. While we're
> at it, maybe we could fuck a few alter boys. We won't
> get ex-communicated like we would if we were to divulge
> the proceedings of the pope election. We won't even lose
> our pension or health care. In fact we won't even lose
> our job unless someone causes a big enough stink.
> Yeah! Fuckin kids for jee-ay-zusss.
>
> Those xtians keep good company.
>
>
> Lumpy
You reveal a complete misunderstanding of the tenets of the faith on
which your nation stands and which it declares on every note of its
currency. And you reveal a phobic attitude based on the actions of a
tiny minority, generalising without reason.
Guess who looks insecure?
I have my own reasons for not embracing traditional christianity, but
they have to do with doctrine -- their adoption of ideas not consistent
with the original teaching.
I see this as another bee in your bonnet. Something else (apart from
your money being threatened by kids learning songs from the internet)
that gets your knickers knotted.
--
Stephen
Ballina, Australia
Stephen Calder
> Dave Van wrote:
>> ... I can't remember if that was before or
>> after you inadvertently revealed
>> that you have the urge to bash
>> peoples heads in...
>
> You can twist my post any way you like, Dave.
>
> Fuck xtians.
>
He did point out a glaring inconsistency.
--
Stephen
Ballina, Australia
PanHead
"Dave Van" <daveY...@brickgarage.com> wrote in message
news:jkdLh.11075$PL....@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> The law protects their right to do so just as the law protects a musicians
> copyright. It seems as though you're all legal minded when it comes to
> laws that protect your interests but don't have any regard for them when
> it's something you don't like so much.
>
Touche'
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: Stephen Calder <cal...@in.com.au>
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:44:37 +1100
> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
Stephen, it was _The Church_ who forgot the tenants, and who in fact knew
what was going on, and looked the other way for decades if not centuries. It
was rampant by all accounts, measures and standards. It's way way beyond
disgraceful, and way beyond criminal.
Do you remember, what was it now 15 years ago?, Sinead O'Connor's Saturday
Night Live bit, tearing up a picture of the Pope? It was priests sexually
abusing and raping children, THAT was her primary point and motivation -- to
say THIS --> PREISTS RAPING CHILDREN <-- MUST STOP!
She was _way_ ahead of the pack. Artists often are -- the first to get
there, scouts, look-outs, town-criers, sounding to bell, the wake-up call,
and having the guts and passion caring and concern enough, the heart, to say
what must be said.
Whether or not people listen is up to them.
Roger
Stephen Calder
Of course it's not okay, but when it comes to tenets it's completely
irrelevant. The rogue priests are not the church and the church (seen as
an organisation) is not the arbiter of truth it tries to be.
Judging a religion (or any organisation) by the actions of a tiny
percentage of its followers will mislead you every time.
>
> Do you remember, what was it now 15 years ago?, Sinead O'Connor's Saturday
> Night Live bit, tearing up a picture of the Pope? It was priests sexually
> abusing and raping children, THAT was her primary point and motivation -- to
> say THIS --> PREISTS RAPING CHILDREN <-- MUST STOP!
>
> She was _way_ ahead of the pack. Artists often are -- the first to get
> there, scouts, look-outs, town-criers, sounding to bell, the wake-up call,
> and having the guts and passion caring and concern enough, the heart, to say
> what must be said.
>
I am not interested in any crusade and I don't espouse causes. For one,
thing, there are too many of them. I have one cause and that's enough
for me.
--
Stephen
Ballina, Australia
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: Stephen Calder <cal...@in.com.au>
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 11:30:02 +1100
Tiny percentage? Tell that to the thousands of victims and their families.
And what about all other actions beliefs decrees policies politics crimes of
The Church?
The Texan believes in the Rapture for x's sake! Do you think he gets that
belief system from somewhere _other_ than The Church? Do you think that the
guy running the this big bad country believing that if we all die in some
Armageddon that's ok because _he's_ going to heaven anyway, not only ok but
they all welcome and want it to happen and _can't wait_ for it to happen. Do
you think that's a "safe and sane" person/belief-system to have at the helm?
But again this is not The Church who's to blame? It's just some "rouge" who
didn't understand The Churches teachings?
>> Do you remember, what was it now 15 years ago?, Sinead O'Connor's Saturday
>> Night Live bit, tearing up a picture of the Pope? It was priests sexually
>> abusing and raping children, THAT was her primary point and motivation -- to
>> say THIS --> PREISTS RAPING CHILDREN <-- MUST STOP!
>> She was _way_ ahead of the pack. Artists often are -- the first to get
>> there, scouts, look-outs, town-criers, sounding to bell, the wake-up call,
>> and having the guts and passion caring and concern enough, the heart, to say
>> what must be said.
>>
>
> I am not interested in any crusade and I don't espouse causes. For one,
> thing, there are too many of them. I have one cause and that's enough
> for me.
And that cause being you, yourself, and you?
Or to be ever-in-a-state-of-bliss?
But you think we're all You anyway. And that there is no time. And that
we've already "joined" you. In heaven. In your Eternal Reality. So
everything's ok with you. It's already happened. We are "one" in heaven
already. What Church did you get your crazy shit from? Almost all religion
and so-called "spirituality" is crazy shit of one kind or another. Most of
it is still sheep mentality _plus_ fairy-tale delusions. Most of it is still
premised on God or space-men to come riding in to the rescue.
The universe does _not_ care, So we had better.
That's the only sane belief-system.
"God's will", as the all-purpose excuse and sedative, isn't good enough.
Stephen, I like you and you know that, and we share any number of
perspective, but not all. I hope none of that was personally insulting to
you. On one hand you're unshakable in your beliefs, you say, and so it
should roll off your back, but just in case.
Roger
Stephen Calder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Stephen, it was _The Church_ who forgot the tenants, and who in fact knew
>>> what was going on, and looked the other way for decades if not centuries. It
>>> was rampant by all accounts, measures and standards. It's way way beyond
>>> disgraceful, and way beyond criminal.
>> Of course it's not okay, but when it comes to tenets it's completely
>> irrelevant. The rogue priests are not the church and the church (seen as
>> an organisation) is not the arbiter of truth it tries to be.
>>
>> Judging a religion (or any organisation) by the actions of a tiny
>> percentage of its followers will mislead you every time.
>
>
> Tiny percentage? Tell that to the thousands of victims and their families.
Irrelvant. Doesn't change the need to eschew judgement of a group based
on the behaviour of some it members. I'm sure YOU don't want to be
judged by how other people on this newsgroup behave.
> And what about all other actions beliefs decrees policies politics crimes of
> The Church?
What about them? If they upset you, you're just upset. Now what? Doesn't
upset me.
>
> The Texan believes in the Rapture for x's sake! Do you think he gets that
> belief system from somewhere _other_ than The Church?
I have no idea.
Do you think that the
> guy running the this big bad country believing that if we all die in some
> Armageddon that's ok because _he's_ going to heaven anyway, not only ok but
> they all welcome and want it to happen and _can't wait_ for it to happen.
I don't subscribe to traditional Christian beliefs. Let him believe what
he wants.
Do
> you think that's a "safe and sane" person/belief-system to have at the helm?
I have no idea. I'm not interested in trying to work it out.
> But again this is not The Church who's to blame? It's just some "rouge" who
> didn't understand The Churches teachings?
I'm not defending the church and I'm not condemning it.
>
>
>>> Do you remember, what was it now 15 years ago?, Sinead O'Connor's Saturday
>>> Night Live bit, tearing up a picture of the Pope? It was priests sexually
>>> abusing and raping children, THAT was her primary point and motivation -- to
>>> say THIS --> PREISTS RAPING CHILDREN <-- MUST STOP!
>
>>> She was _way_ ahead of the pack. Artists often are -- the first to get
>>> there, scouts, look-outs, town-criers, sounding to bell, the wake-up call,
>>> and having the guts and passion caring and concern enough, the heart, to say
>>> what must be said.
>>>
>> I am not interested in any crusade and I don't espouse causes. For one,
>> thing, there are too many of them. I have one cause and that's enough
>> for me.
>
>
> And that cause being you, yourself, and you?
> Or to be ever-in-a-state-of-bliss?
The cause is the end of suffering for everyone.
>
> But you think we're all You anyway.
Yes, in a sense.
And that there is no time.
Right. Thanks for showing that you have a glimpse of my viewpoint.
And that
> we've already "joined" you.
No, we were all joined from the start.
In heaven. In your Eternal Reality.
In an out-of-time sense, yes. Not in time. of course. But time is illusory.
So
> everything's ok with you.
Absolutely.
It's already happened. We are "one" in heaven
> already.
Again, in an out-of-time sense. The awareness of it is what's lacking
for most people.
What Church did you get your crazy shit from?
It's nothing new. It's essentially the same as the eastern philosophy of
maya (illusion). There's a restatement of it available in a modern
English form which is what I learned from, but my conviction comes from
my experience, not from any outside authority. Idolisation of scripture
is a recipe for schism, as the fragmentation of the church into sects shows.
Almost all religion
> and so-called "spirituality" is crazy shit of one kind or another.
I can go along with that. What I'm talking about is not religion in that
sense.
Most of
> it is still sheep mentality _plus_ fairy-tale delusions. Most of it is still
> premised on God or space-men to come riding in to the rescue.
"God" (whatever that is) is not going to come riding to the rescue in
any sense that can be understood by that mentality. And ETs are not
going to save us either. You're right about those being childish dreams.
The only thing to be saved from is fear, the source of suffering. That
is done by removing the blocks to the awareness of love's presence. If
you do that you will save the world.
>
> The universe does _not_ care, So we had better.
Question is, what do you care about? I don't care about anything.
Everything is already taken care of. Of myself, I would only fuck it up.
>
> That's the only sane belief-system.
From my point of view that is only an opinion.
>
> "God's will", as the all-purpose excuse and sedative, isn't good enough.
Definitely. There is a lot of mistaken belief about what God's will is,
and even the word God is so tainted with false conceptions that I never
use it unless the person I'm talking to already has.
God's will for me is perfect happiness. The divine does not make rules
about behaviour. Everything is permitted. My purpose is to discover what
I want, and then find out how to have it. Right and wrong then become
what works and what doesn't. What doesn't work is just a mistake. No one
deserves punishment for mere mistakes.
This journey of discovery has led to me wanting only one thing, and it's
nothing this world can offer.
>
> Stephen, I like you and you know that, and we share any number of
> perspective, but not all. I hope none of that was personally insulting to
> you. On one hand you're unshakable in your beliefs, you say, and so it
> should roll off your back, but just in case.
Thank you so much for your concern about my feelings. I appreciate that;
it says volumes about your goodwill towards me.
You can't offend me.
--
Stephen
Ballina, Australia
Lumpy
> > The law protects their right to do so just as the law protects a
> > musicians copyright. It seems as though you're all legal minded
> > when it comes to laws that protect your interests but don't have
> > any regard for them when it's something you don't like so much.
PanHead:
> Touche'
I never said it's illegal for someone to pray.
I just think it's rude to do it in public where
you're guaranteed to offend someone who doesn't
share your same beliefs.
I don't expect xtians to get the concept.
Lumpy
--
You Played on Lawrence Welk?
Yes but no blue notes. Just blue hairs.
www.lumpyguitar.net
johnty
> Lumpy wrote:
> > Dave Van wrote:
> >> I'm going to spend the sabbath with my kids.
>
> > Good. That's much safer than letting them
> > hang around those men of the cloth.
>
>
> Unfortunately we wound up spending the afternoon cleaning the house
> together
...So you became another kind of 'man of the cloth'?
Charmed Snark
alt.guitar.beginner:
> Absolutely not.
>
...
>
>
> Question: does top posting make any sense?
Not for the topless.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Charmed Snark
alt.guitar.beginner:
...
>>> The copyright to that song needs to be extinguished forthwith.
>>> Some lawyer needs to get up and argue that it was always public
>>> property and can't be appropriated.
...
> The "No Child Left Without a Birthday-Song" Act, of 2007. There
> too, we'd at least have "something" of good consequence to have
> ever come of it's name-sake and inspiration "Act".
>
> Roger
Just get it declared as a Weapon of Mass Destruction, and then you'll
get the necessary budget for it. ;-)
Snark.
Charmed Snark
alt.guitar.beginner:
> I'm getting so tired I'm hitting wrong keys. It's getting close
> to 11:00 p.m. here in Ohio. Got to get up at 4:30 a.m. and go to
> work so I can afford to pay the lawyers who try to sue me for
> singing "Happy Birthday To You" to my daughter next week.
Check your Outlook options. I do know Vista's "Mail" (at least) has an
option that lets you choose between top posting and bottom posting. You
may have to hunt for it, as I don't have it here with me, so I can't
direct you straight to it.
Charmed Snark
alt.guitar.beginner:
> I'm glad someone else understands. It's getting ridiculous. I'm
> taking this thing to it's logical, ridiculous conclusion. Pretty
> soon people will tire of being nickeled and dimed to death by
> greedy corporate giants who weld their financial power to seize
> nursery rhymes and aggressively demand payment because little
> Johnny stood up in class and publicly recited "Jack And Jill."
Like so many things in life, it is being worked out. When cassette
tapes became available to consumers, the record companies cried doom
and gloom... but eventually the courts eventually ruled in favour of
"fair use". Consumers want access and artists want to get paid. A
happier compromise needs to be struck so that both sides win.
Unions are another example. They were necessary at one time, but
perhaps they have become an "abuse" of the original intent of
unions. Over time, the pendulum just keeps swinging from one abusive
extreme to another. Seldom does a happy compromise last forever.
Software is getting amazingly crazy, in the US because they've
allowed software processes to be patented. Now litigation is a major
software related activity, with some companies only working to cash
in on "owned patents", without actually doing anything with them. I
understand from a lawyer, that in Canada, software is treated as a
mathematical algorithm and as such, cannot be patented. I think the
US patent system made a real big mistake allowing software processes
to be patented. Soon that whole patent system is going to implode on
itself.
Charmed Snark
alt.guitar.beginner:
> Hud wrote:
>> Has anyone copyrighted the Gregorian Chant yet?
>
> The recordings of thos GC's were automatically
> copyrighted the moment they were placed in
> recorded media.
Actually, in "musical history" everything was copied and recopied and
performed as musicians saw fit. Copyright is a more recent innovation.
I must also say, standard notation so easy to read, compared to some of
the earlier forms that were used!
Charmed Snark
alt.guitar.beginner:
> PanHead wrote:
>
>> If someone's going to bash your head
>> in with a baseball bat I don't
>> think saying your prayers in public is rude.
>
> Saying your prayers in public is simply
> inviting someone to bash your head in
> with a baseball bat.
>
...
> Lumpy
Now we know who the bat holder is ;-)
Charmed Snark
alt.guitar.beginner:
> Dave Van wrote:
>> ... Evangelism is at the
>> core of many of the religions
>> that those freedoms protect...
>
> Evangelism is at the core of a lot of
> hate and crime and other things.
Some musicans are elitist snobs. This doesn't mean that all
musicians fall into that mold. Otherwise, we'd have to all dismiss
ourselves and play secretly in the closet.
...
> Mindless sheep. Pay the preacher for
> a guaranteed seat in heaven. Christian businessmen's
> association. Makin' money for jee-ay-zusss.
Everyone hates any example of hipocrisy, deceit, and wickedness
(public or private). The problem with your approach, is that you
lump (pardon the pun) them all together in one ball of dung.
> Those xtians keep good company.
>
> Lumpy
Some do, and some obviously don't. You gotta know the difference,
which can only be done by doing your homework.
Also keep in mind, that there will _always_ be failures in any kind
of [human] group. IOW, there can be Dylans anywhere. ;-)
Charmed Snark
alt.guitar.beginner:
> "Happy Birthday To You" was copyrighted in 1934 in a court case
> involving Irving Berlin and a musical he was producing. The
> Clayton F. Summy Company became the songs publisher in 1935.
> After a long and boring series of purchases, Time Warner became
> the owner. The song now belongs to them. The American Society of
> Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) licenses the song and
> collects royalties for public performances for Time Warner. I've
> read on the net that the song brings in about 2 million dollars a
> year for the large media conglomorate! Because of the licensing
> fees, restaurants may no longer sing "Happy Birthday To You" to
> customers and their children - unless they want to shell out money
> to the corporate media hounds. ...
I know this has been spelled out somewhere, perhaps even here last
year, but many people are probably interested in why, oh why, they are
still able to collect royalties on a song dating back to 1934.
I don't have the specifics on that, but perhaps someone could
elabourate.
Charmed Snark
alt.guitar.beginner:
>> From: "Hud" <iro...@roadrunner.com>
>> Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
>> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
>> Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 22:17:43 -0400
>> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> "Roger E. Blumberg" <rblu...@jps.net> wrote in message
>> news:C2209CC2.5286B%rblu...@jps.net...
>>> Ya, you are, doing it now. I'm doing it now too so you can see
...
>> Oh, I didn't know that. When the reply window opens I just start
>> typing where the cursor is. Now I got it. Hopefully this is the
>> correct way to post. If I screwed this one up, I'll try to get
>> it right next time. Thanks
>
>
> Yes sir. Now it's correct. And no problem making an innocent
> mistake. Now if you look back at what's on this entire page you'll
> see why top-posting confuses things. Everything is out of order,
> half top-posted and half bottom-posted, and God knows what all
> mixed-up in the middle.
...
> Roger
Even when you post at the bottom (recommended), you should remove
all but the most relavant sections of a post to keep it shorter. A
post that gets many replies, can get extremely long.
If I have to scroll to the very bottom of every single followup
reply, I'll start just ignoring them completely (too much effort to
keep scrolling down).
Some people use <snip>, I use "...", but whatever you use, trim out
all but the most important stuff. If people want the other context,
they can go back to the original post(s). It can also help keep the
followup replies more focused. ;-)
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: Stephen Calder <cal...@in.com.au>
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:01:59 +1100
> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>>> I am not interested in any crusade and I don't espouse causes. For one,
>>> thing, there are too many of them. I have one cause and that's enough
>>> for me.
>> Roger E. Blumberg wrote:
>>
>> And that cause being you, yourself, and you?
>> Or to be ever-in-a-state-of-bliss?
> Stephen wrote:
> The cause is the end of suffering for everyone.
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>> This journey of discovery has led to me wanting only one thing, and it's
>>> nothing this world can offer.
Equals Treat Equals Equally
0+0=0
The End of Suffering
if there's still enough time -- and time, Stephan, is the thing in the
equation that still bothers me. If Maya doe's know the answer, please bring
her, now. It's time.
P.S. Mike Mandaville supplied line-one.
Roger
Stephen Calder
>
>> From: Stephen Calder <cal...@in.com.au>
>> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
>> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:01:59 +1100
>> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>
>>>> I am not interested in any crusade and I don't espouse causes. For one,
>>>> thing, there are too many of them. I have one cause and that's enough
>>>> for me.
>
>>> Roger E. Blumberg wrote:
>>>
>>> And that cause being you, yourself, and you?
>>> Or to be ever-in-a-state-of-bliss?
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>> The cause is the end of suffering for everyone.
>
>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> This journey of discovery has led to me wanting only one thing, and it's
>>>> nothing this world can offer.
>
>
>
> Equals Treat Equals Equally
>
> 0+0=0
>
> The End of Suffering
>
This is fine if you understand it. We are equals, by the way, you and I.
>
> if there's still enough time -- and time, Stephan, is the thing in the
> equation that still bothers me. If Maya doe's know the answer, please bring
> her, now. It's time.
She's going to say what she always does: I am an illusion. There is no
time, only an appearance of time. "Ask and you shall receive" is a
universal truth.
>
>
> P.S. Mike Mandaville supplied line-one.
Astounding.
--
Stephen
Ballina, Australia
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: Stephen Calder <cal...@in.com.au>
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:58:41 +1100
> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>
> Roger E. Blumberg wrote:
>>
>>> From: Stephen Calder <cal...@in.com.au>
>>> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
>>> Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 14:01:59 +1100
>>> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>>>> I am not interested in any crusade and I don't espouse causes. For one,
>>>>> thing, there are too many of them. I have one cause and that's enough
>>>>> for me.
>>
>>>> Roger E. Blumberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And that cause being you, yourself, and you?
>>>> Or to be ever-in-a-state-of-bliss?
>>
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>> The cause is the end of suffering for everyone.
>>
>>>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>>> This journey of discovery has led to me wanting only one thing, and it's
>>>>> nothing this world can offer.
>> Equals Treat Equals Equally
>>
>> 0+0=0
>>
>> The End of Suffering
> This is fine if you understand it.
I believe I do understand it, and that it is the first thing about me,
really, who I really am. Do you understand it?
> We are equals, by the way, you and I.
Yes I know. And we all are, equals, is the larger point of course. We do all
have to play by the same rules though. It is in fact The Golden Rule, or a
refinement of it, the "do unto others" rule. It is shared by virtually all
religions. It is "the" formula. There is really no reason we couldn't have
been playing by that same rule all along, I mean we _do_ all have the same
rule already, but we . . . . forgot?
>> if there's still enough time -- and time, Stephen, is the thing in the
>> equation that still bothers me. If Maya does know the answer, please bring
>> her, now. It's time.
> She's going to say what she always does: I am an illusion. There is no
> time, only an appearance of time. "Ask and you shall receive" is a
> universal truth.
But I have asked, and asked, for many things, and not unreasonable things.
Am I simply impatient? I don't think so. Am I asking for the wrong things? I
don't think they're wrong. Am I asking the right things but just not _all_
the right things? Am I putting myself and my needs before others too much? I
don't think I am, and in fact the opposite may be true. It's hard at some
point to separate the two though, I will admit. Which of my needs are not
their needs, and visa versa. That one can make a person crazy I think. Have
you solved that part of the puzzle Stephen?
>> P.S. Mike Mandaville supplied line-one.
> Astounding.
Why does that astound you? I don't recall how it happened exactly, but last
night I read every single one and word of Mike's posts for the last four
months, as many as there were in my news-reader cache, and I found him
fascinating, enough to spend those four hours doing it if that tells you
anything. I think I like him, quite a bit actually, what I've been able to
ascertain so far just by doing that alone I mean. I'm still puzzled by a few
things, but that doesn't really bother me right now. I could be blind,
suckered, and duped, hood-winked, proven wrong in the end, but on the face
of it at least I don't think I or anyone has anything to worry about.
Someone accused me recently of perhaps _being_ Mike Mandaville in disguise,
who until just last night had somehow escaped my radar completely. I didn't
even know who Mike was. But I think I may have to count it as a compliment
now, that mistake in identity -- but then, we are one anyway ;-)
By the way, it occurred to me after my last post that our equation works
now. I mean the "all same and no opposites" part, where we left off last
time:
Equals Treat Equals Equally
All same and no opposites.
0+0=0
It _is_ possible Stephen.
and to everyone's satisfaction.
Astounding
Roger
Stephen Calder
Of course. Nothing can be added to creation, and nothing taken away from
the eternal, so I am that that is, co-creator with the divine, which is
nondual, nonpersonal, the full nothingness of ever-expanding infinity.
It can also be seen as the Christian trinity: I and the father are one
in the spirit.
It can't be expressed in words, of course, hence the symbols. I would
like to hear your expression of it.
>
>
>> We are equals, by the way, you and I.
>
>
> Yes I know. And we all are, equals, is the larger point of course.
Yes.
We do all
> have to play by the same rules though. It is in fact The Golden Rule, or a
> refinement of it, the "do unto others" rule. It is shared by virtually all
> religions. It is "the" formula. There is really no reason we couldn't have
> been playing by that same rule all along, I mean we _do_ all have the same
> rule already, but we . . . . forgot?
It's a good rule but limited by its nature (being a rule). It's as good
a guide as you will get for the thinking mind, but the problem is this:
you may not wish to be treated as I would treat myself.
Access is then needed to the source of love (within) for illumination as
the to the best (optimum) course of action for all concerned.
>
>>> if there's still enough time -- and time, Stephen, is the thing in the
>>> equation that still bothers me. If Maya does know the answer, please bring
>>> her, now. It's time.
>
>
>> She's going to say what she always does: I am an illusion. There is no
>> time, only an appearance of time. "Ask and you shall receive" is a
>> universal truth.
>
>
> But I have asked, and asked, for many things, and not unreasonable things.
> Am I simply impatient? I don't think so.
The block to getting what you want is fear. If some part of you is
afraid to have it, or doesn't believe you deserve it, it doesn't come
because the universe answers the prayer of the heart, not what you ask
for in words. When the heart (true desire) and will (true will, which is
always loving) are truly aligned, all power in heaven and earth is given
to you as it is to me.
Am I asking for the wrong things? I
> don't think they're wrong. Am I asking the right things but just not _all_
> the right things? Am I putting myself and my needs before others too much?
Ask what it is the things you are asking for will really give you and
see if that is what you really want. What most people are really asking
for when they ask for stuff is the experience they believe it will give
them. A positive experience (usually, if the mind is reasonably sane). A
first step is to ask for what you think you want and then let it go,
because if you are willing to have the underlying experience rather than
insisting on the thing in a particular form, the universe then has an
opportunity to fulfil your request in another form that may actually be
better for you.
Ultimately, there is no asking because the experience of love is
constant and all that is needed and all earthly needs are met in a flow
of abundance that furthers the ultimate goal. Then there is just
gratitude and no need for asking.
I
> don't think I am, and in fact the opposite may be true. It's hard at some
> point to separate the two though, I will admit. Which of my needs are not
> their needs, and visa versa. That one can make a person crazy I think. Have
> you solved that part of the puzzle Stephen?
Only to my satisfaction, not necessarily to yours.
I never ask for anything material on behalf of others because I don't
know whether they really want it, need it, or are willing to accept it
(whatever they may say about that). If they ask for something material
that I have and can give them immediately, I will usually do so happily.
To everyone I offer the love, peace and joy that I am so grateful for.
But in offering it I have no expectation about when they will receive
it. They must, inevitably, sooner or later, but the when is not up to
me. It happens when they're ready. I offer that to everyone and then
relax in the knowledge that everything is taken care of. I don't have to
care about anything.
>
>
>>> P.S. Mike Mandaville supplied line-one.
>
>> Astounding.
>
>
> Why does that astound you?
Mike doesn't strike me as a mystic. I have only read a few of his posts,
though.
>
>
> By the way, it occurred to me after my last post that our equation works
> now. I mean the "all same and no opposites" part, where we left off last
> time:
>
>
> Equals Treat Equals Equally
>
> All same and no opposites.
>
> 0+0=0
>
> It _is_ possible Stephen.
>
> and to everyone's satisfaction.
>
That's what I've been saying.
--
Stephen
Ballina, Australia
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: Stephen Calder <cal...@in.com.au>
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:03:38 +1100
> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>
> Roger E. Blumberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Equals Treat Equals Equally
>>>>
>>>> 0+0=0
>>>>
>>>> The End of Suffering
>>
>>
>>> This is fine if you understand it.
>>
>>
>> I believe I do understand it, and that it is the first thing about me,
>> really, who I really am. Do you understand it?
> Of course. Nothing can be added to creation, and nothing taken away from
> the eternal, so I am that that is, co-creator with the divine, which is
> nondual, nonpersonal, the full nothingness of ever-expanding infinity.
> It can also be seen as the Christian trinity: I and the father are one
> in the spirit.
> It can't be expressed in words, of course, hence the symbols. I would
> like to hear your expression of it.
"I and the father are one in the spirit". Hummmm. How coincidental. Gander
at what I just wrote (first in the sequence), just a little bit below.
>> We do all
>> have to play by the same rules though. It is in fact The Golden Rule, or a
>> refinement of it, the "do unto others" rule. It is shared by virtually all
>> religions. It is "the" formula. There is really no reason we couldn't have
>> been playing by that same rule all along, I mean we _do_ all have the same
>> rule already, but we . . . . forgot?
> It's a good rule but limited by its nature (being a rule). It's as good
> a guide as you will get for the thinking mind, but the problem is this:
> you may not wish to be treated as I would treat myself.
I believe The Golden Rule is a guideline first, as in "a working-rule", and
a sound one, a sound model. The new wording, Equals Treat Equals Equally
[and interpreted as being a near substitute for the older "do unto others"
Golden Rule, meaning this particular interpretation of the phrase E+E=E
regardless of it's other interpretations, like those of like-strata in a
hierarchy treating each other equally, but treating no-one else as your
equal, or not habitually so anyway) is I think? more flexible and more
precise and directed and focussed at something else altogether, maybe (I'm
winging-it Stephen, I'm improvising, I always do).
It's about recognizing the undeniably common-needs and common-potentials,
common-benefits of cooperation, and common societal long-term benefits of
how we treat and nurture educate facilitate the unique talents of our
children. The interpretations the might come more easily due to the new
wording might lead us to seeing that: _children_ are _equal_ to _us_.
If we really treated children as sensitives, they might grow up to be. We
beat it out of them, their good sense, their feeling and feelings. We lie to
them all the time. We do punish them unreasonably. We do not make sure they
spend a good deal of time in nature to experience it's beauty, hence theirs,
or for them to know what feeling "balanced" is, and to feel that their own
real ideal "levels" are. We stress them out. The modern world stresses
everyone out. We agree to live in cages like animals (apartment houses and
cramped cities) -- who we also treat as being less that Equal to ourselves.
We expect to be able to communicate with spacemen someday, yet we can't even
communicate with the other animals we share this planet with, let alone
treat them decently or care what we do to them in general. _They_ are "the
aliens among us". We kill them for the fun of it. We send people to jail for
smoking or selling pot. This is such a crime, pot, really? We do create
monsters. We are monsters, and brutes, all too often.
We don't cater to our children's real needs, for love and nurturing, and to
be seen and heard and appreciated and helped and respected. We are now
breaking our backs to make them all the same. That's what the "No Child Left
Behind Act" IS. Uniform testing. All (of them) unfulfilled. Children are not
the same in everything and in all ways, but one thing they do definitely do
is _mimic_ us, any and all elder than themselves, our values, what we do
compared to what we say. What we value and should value.
People of successive generations don't really value and dream of "different"
things, not really. It's those common values dreams and needs that we are
Equal in. If those more precise and universal common values dreams and needs
were met, and formed the basis of our common shared belief-system and our
very values _themselves_, then we would be "one" enough to survive, and
thrive, and suffer less and less as time when by. We might be able to break
a cycle. The best teachers paid best. Artists, _real_ artists, funded and
facilitated. Who would benefit most by that? The best medicine and research
facilities populated by the best minds, And the "best minds" being dictated
and tracked/guided/facilitated because we made a point of encouraging and
identifying natural talents and gifts, and not determine or fill slots by
reason of income-level and privilege, or because they want a high-status
high-paying "job". And the products of same, the truly best "creative" minds
making the suffering caused by illnesses and traumas and aging less and less
as time goes by. We waste ALL of our "natural" resources.
_Children_ are _equal_ to _us_. We make then in our own image. They reflect
us, in the important things at least. They are us. We _all_ are and remain
children, little boys and little girls, in so many ways, until the day we
die, in our hearts, and heart of hearts. We do have compassion, but do have
enough, and do we do enough, or the right kinds of things that might make
the difference, difference enough to break a cycle, difference enough to
make Equals Treat Equals Equally an Earthly Reality instead of just so many
pretty words. Flat our lips, we do, a lot.
> Access is then needed to the source of love (within) for illumination as
> the to the best (optimum) course of action for all concerned.
>
>
>>
>>>> if there's still enough time -- and time, Stephen, is the thing in the
>>>> equation that still bothers me. If Maya does know the answer, please bring
>>>> her, now. It's time.
>>
>>
>>> She's going to say what she always does: I am an illusion. There is no
>>> time, only an appearance of time. "Ask and you shall receive" is a
>>> universal truth.
>>
>>
>> But I have asked, and asked, for many things, and not unreasonable things.
>> Am I simply impatient? I don't think so.
> The block to getting what you want is fear. If some part of you is
> afraid to have it, or doesn't believe you deserve it, it doesn't come
> because the universe answers the prayer of the heart, not what you ask
> for in words. When the heart (true desire) and will (true will, which is
> always loving) are truly aligned, all power in heaven and earth is given
> to you as it is to me.
Fear, you say fear is problem number one. If that is true, and I play this
game of yours a minute and applied only our topic at hand, then I would have
to say it would be my fear that I will not be able to communicate myself
fully and clearly, clearly enough to be understood. Or/and my fear that I
would not be able to put into practice myself the things I knew had to be
done, as my part of the deal. For if I did succeed, my fears might finally
begin to gradually receed, because the threat would in fact be vanishing.
>> Am I asking for the wrong things? I
>> don't think they're wrong. Am I asking the right things but just not _all_
>> the right things? Am I putting myself and my needs before others too much?
> Ask what it is the things you are asking for will really give you and
> see if that is what you really want. What most people are really asking
> for when they ask for stuff is the experience they believe it will give
> them. A positive experience (usually, if the mind is reasonably sane). A
> first step is to ask for what you think you want and then let it go,
> because if you are willing to have the underlying experience rather than
> insisting on the thing in a particular form, the universe then has an
> opportunity to fulfil your request in another form that may actually be
> better for you.
You can't let this one go Stephen. This is redress and change time, all
around, and now, in "now-time". There may well be very little time left
Stephen. The ice-caps are melting, the Jehadists are waco, nuclear weapons
are still spreading, our military is spread thin, we may be the waco party
ourselves, Warming/Weather/Food/Ecomomic-Political-Collapse/War. This has to
be Job-One, and ASAP.
> Ultimately, there is no asking because the experience of love is
> constant and all that is needed and all earthly needs are met in a flow
> of abundance that furthers the ultimate goal. Then there is just
> gratitude and no need for asking.
Horse poop. Prayers and feel-gooding and are not enough -- although we had
better start saying our prayers if we don't wake up, yesterday. We need a
thing in a particular form, a very particular form, and we need in now, in
Earthly Reality and real _time_. The "underlying experience", and "give the
Universe the opportunity to fill my request", you say? This is God or
Spacemen to the rescue again Stephen. It is _US_ we humans, who have to
ride-out, TONIGHT. We have to change quick.
>> I don't think I am, and in fact the opposite may be true. It's hard at some
>> point to separate the two though, I will admit. Which of my needs are not
>> their needs, and visa versa. That one can make a person crazy I think. Have
>> you solved that part of the puzzle Stephen?
> Only to my satisfaction, not necessarily to yours.
That's a little wanting.
> I never ask for anything material on behalf of others because I don't
> know whether they really want it, need it, or are willing to accept it
> (whatever they may say about that). If they ask for something material
> that I have and can give them immediately, I will usually do so happily.
They want it and need it, desperately, trust me, material-aid and the
products of mind-set and value-system change, both, and Globally.
> To everyone I offer the love, peace and joy that I am so grateful for.
I want and we need actions, not words.
> But in offering it I have no expectation about when they will receive
> it. They must, inevitably, sooner or later, but the when is not up to
> me. It happens when they're ready. I offer that to everyone and then
> relax in the knowledge that everything is taken care of. I don't have to
> care about anything.
don't relax, it's not taken care of, wake up.
>>>> P.S. Mike Mandaville supplied line-one.
>>
>>> Astounding.
>>
>>
>> Why does that astound you?
>
> Mike doesn't strike me as a mystic. I have only read a few of his posts,
> though.
I never claimed he was, a mystic.
Besides, we don't need mystics no mo.
We_ know_ what needs to be done.
They have done all they can do.
They have all said it and demonstrated it.
Equals Treat Equals Equally
Now we have to _do_ it.
The son will be like the father, is (the same as) the father, in spirit --
is the Universal you wanted to tell me about. You may think "the father" has
no warts, and that all is absolutely well and good and all taken care of n
stuff, but do you really?
>> By the way, it occurred to me after my last post that our equation works
>> now. I mean the "all same and no opposites" part, where we left off last
>> time:
>>
>>
>> Equals Treat Equals Equally
>>
>> All same and no opposites.
>>
>> 0+0=0
>>
>> It _is_ possible Stephen.
>>
>> and to everyone's satisfaction.
>>
> That's what I've been saying.
You said "no opposites" was impossible. And what I've said is not what
you've been communicating.
Roger
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: "Roger E. Blumberg" <rblu...@jps.net>
> Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 08:18:21 GMT
> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>
>>>>> Equals Treat Equals Equally
>>>>>
>>>>> 0+0=0
>>>>>
>>>>> The End of Suffering
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is fine if you understand it.
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe I do understand it, and that it is the first thing about me,
>>> really, who I really am. Do you understand it?
Isn't it amazing that perhaps the single most beloved and well known image
in perhaps the whole world is the Madonna and child. This "special" child
and the unambiguous love and nurturence we assume is being and will be
bestowed upon it, for eternity, by it's "parent", in this case it's mother,
Mary. It's not Jesus who's the subject, it's "the child" and "all children".
It is in fact the wisest thing any group of well-meaning elder guides could
have left for us. It is _very_ specific, focused, and precise. To miss it,
is to see things that are not there, and not see what is there, right in
front of our eyes. The message is clear. And we ARE blind. We don't need
psychics or to search for "hidden" mysteries. All we need is the meaning of
plain language, and plain "symbols" of truth, beauty, justice, love,
brotherhood, intent, community, and spirit. Let us check our math.
== Faith Revival ==
"Halo"
Believe
in the Golden Rule
of halo surrounds
in trinity trust
0+0=0
Equals Treat Equals Equally
Our Children Equal Us
Roger
MikeMan...@aol.com
>>
> > Astounding.
>
> Why does that astound you? I don't recall how it happened exactly, but last
> night I read every single one and word of Mike's posts for the last four
> months, as many as there were in my news-reader cache, and I found him
> fascinating, enough to spend those four hours doing it if that tells you
> anything. I think I like him, quite a bit actually, what I've been able to
> ascertain so far just by doing that alone I mean. I'm still puzzled by a few
> things, but that doesn't really bother me right now. I could be blind,
> suckered, and duped, hood-winked, proven wrong in the end, but on the face
> of it at least I don't think I or anyone has anything to worry about.
> Someone accused me recently of perhaps _being_ Mike Mandaville in disguise,
> who until just last night had somehow escaped my radar completely. I didn't
> even know who Mike was. But I think I may have to count it as a compliment
> now, that mistake in identity -- but then, we are one anyway ;-)
> Roger
Roger, I answered this post seven hours ago, but my answer hasn't
shown up yet, so I will answer again, and then delete any duplicate
post of mine which might show up thereafter.
I consider it to be a very significant complement that you have gone
back and read my posts. I have had you on my radar screen since you
first arrived here after my own arrival, which was less than six
months ago.
You made the claim back then that we deserve better than we get on
this newsgroup, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. Since your
arrival, furthermore, we have been getting better, and I want you to
know that I appreciate that.
I am going to keep this post short, since I have already had to retype
it once. In the future, though, I assure you that you will be hearing
more from me.
And, by the way, I am an aspiring mystic. Perhaps we could compare
notes.
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: MikeMan...@aol.com
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: 21 Mar 2007 15:17:46 -0700
> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>
Hi Mike, nice to meet you.
Thank you for the kind words _and_ for the key phrase, "the hook" '-)
My notes tell me that good things need reviving and re-saying in new ways
continually. My notes also tell me that artists are often attuned to "good
things" by nature, They are also attuned to themselves, their own nature.
more than many. It is of their nature, the best of them, to meet the call to
duty and rise to service. It is simply who they are and what they do best,
because that is where their _hearts_ are. It is important to me that "the
real ones" know what "real ones" look like, to recognize their own selves
perhaps, and if only that.
I have more notes, but those came first, and so be it.
again, nice to touch bases.
So what cards are you holding as we speak?
Roger
Cliff
> The Government have recently passed laws in the UK to try and suppress live
> music and dance. Pubs which could previously offer work to solo singers or
> duos now have to pay for a special licence and can only have 12 of these per
> year. Even school Xmas concerts need to be licensed.
>
> If you don't know there is a UK government web site where anyone can now
> start a petition and that's what is being done. we've just received the
> following email which explains things more clearly and gives the site
> address . If you care about keeping music live please take the time to sign
> the petition.
>
> Subject: Music/Licensing Laws - Official Downing Street petition
>
> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 12:36:37
>
> Please circulate
>
> The live music/licensing e-petition now has nearly 4550 signatures.
> It currently stands at no.17 in the list of 1,702 petitions on the
> Number 10 website:http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/licensing/
> This is good, especially in just under a month - and there are five
> more months in which people can sign. (CLOSING DATE: 11 June 2007).
> But the petition needs to do much better to make an impression on ministers,
> and to encourage DCMS to implement music-friendly amendments.
>
> The petition is for everyone, not just musicians. Please consider
> signing if you haven't already done so. If you have signed, encourage
> friends to sign.
>
> Points to remember about the new legislation:
>
> a.. The unlicensed provision of even one musician is a potential
> criminal offence (although some places are exempt, including places of
> public religious worship, royal palaces and moving vehicles). Max penalty:
> £20,000 fine and six months in prison.
>
> b.. The rationale is to prevent noise, crime and disorder, to ensure public
> safety, and the protection of children from harm.
>
> c.. But broadcast entertainment, including sport and music, is exempt - no
> matter where, and no matter how powerfully amplified.
>
> d.. In the transition to the new regime, bars with jukeboxes, CD
> players etc were automatically granted a license to play recorded
> music; but their automatic entitlement to one or two musicians was
> abolished.
>
> e.. For the first time, private performances raising money for charity are
> licensable.
>
> f.. School performances open to friends and family are licensable -
> they count as public performances.
>
> g.. Under the old regime all premises licensed to sell alcohol for
> consumption on the premises were automatically allowed up to two live
> musicians (the 'two in a bar rule').
>
> h.. In December, DCMS published research confirming that about 40% of these
> have lost any automatic entitlement to live music as a result of the new
> Act:
>
> 'Very few establishments that wanted a new license were denied it, and many
> who were previously limited to 2-in-a-bar now have the ability to stage
> music with 2 or more musicians... This contrasts, of course, with the fact
> that 40% of establishments now have no automatic means of putting on live
> music (i.e. they would have to give a TEN).'
>
> ['Licensing Act 2003: The experience of smaller establishments in
> applying for live music authorization'; December 2006', paragraphs
> 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 'Conclusions', p54; Caroline Callahan, Andy Martin,
> Anna Pierce, Ipsos-MORI]
>
> 'TEN' stands for Temporary Event Notice - in effect a temporary
> entertainment licence. Only 12 are allowed per premises per year.
> They cost £21 each. See the full MORI reports on this site:
>
> http://www.culture.gov.uk/Reference_...ec_summary.htm
>
> link to sign petition is here..http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/licensing/
STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The UK government is KILLING live music.
IMO opinion this is far more important than: copyrights, top-posting
and definately God!
Steve thanks for bringing our attention to this petition. I've added
my name and will definately encourage others to do the same.
Cliff
P.S. I hate it when religion gets in the way of something important.
MikeMan...@aol.com
> Saying your prayers in public is simply
> inviting someone to bash your head in
> with a baseball bat.
In the Islamic world, _not_ saying your prayers in publuc _is_
punishable by immediate violence. Someone comes and holds a stick
over your head, and the violence begins.
Lumpy, I get the feeling that you don't really care much whether a
person prays or does not pray, just so long as you can be the one to
walk around with a stick.
Lumpy
> In the Islamic world, _not_ saying
> your prayers in publuc _is_
> punishable by immediate violence...
There's an intelligent, reasonable, tolerant
society we should model ourselves after.
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: MikeMan...@aol.com
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: 25 Mar 2007 06:28:19 -0700
> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>
You would not believe the look of horror on my face when I read this. And
_this_ is what we are dealing with? God help us indeed. This is the new and
improved religion?? They have the _same_ Golden Rule or guidance teaching
-- I saw at Wiki-p at least. Mike, do you know a lot about Islam? I noted
with interest your familiarity with Chinese students over here. That too is
very important. We all have _much_ work to do. ALL of us. Pardon my shouting
:)
Mike, whatever Lumpy is, or is online (sometimes), the point he is trying to
make, once communicated well, probably has some validity. We all need to cut
to the chase, come together, if and where we can. I am not perfect, God
knows, nor a Master of conflict-resolution, yet (Stephen, maybe I can [help]
write that book yet, as you claimed I could-do or that I had it in me to
do), but we have to start now, see how many degrees of separation there
really are, or that if attended-to and with _intent_, any one of them
(conflicts), might? be possible to resolve.
It does usually take two though, one to speak, one to listen. The
communication can be verbal, or body language (perhaps) or some other means,
and the "listener" listens with as many senses as he/she can muster, if the
intent is there. They might intuit. "Intuition", or as it is _usually_?
thought of, is not infallible though, because it still requires info being
filtered through your own particular set of beliefs, assumptions, knowledge,
details, conclusions, fears, interpretations. More on this later. The point
is, what is the point (I ask myself, being sleep-deprived again and zonking
out periodically ;-), the point is . . .
Lumpy does not want to see anyone get their head kicked in, I am confident
of that. He is not evil. There is something else going on here, in his
particular case, because sadly there are monsters, human-made who might not
mind seeing you get your head kicked in, as they are now wired and
interpreting and filtering and reacting by conditioning and habit, or
perhaps some true mental damage, apart from emotional damage, or some true
deficiency in intellect, if only under-developed but potentially still
there.
We may need conflict-resolution, and psychology 101, and negotiation 101,
strategy, fund-raising, (and I will no doubt add to this list) type books
right now _more_ than we need "mystical" teachings books. Am I making myself
clear? We must learn to live as one, in harmony, Globally, It's time. You
start where you are at right now and work outwards from there. We have to
learn _how_. They forgot to teach us how, the particulars of it. Either that
or we forgot, or we are so stressed and time-limited day to day that we just
say F-it I need to get this done _now_ get out of my way! We are not
different! That's good to know but only a start. Is there the intent? You
have to _want_ it. Do you want it? Make up your minds quickly please. We can
not miss this boat, but do not panic either, please. I don't know how to do
this using only flowers and beads. I don't want to induce fear, but we have
to be realistic, be real. I'm trying my best here, believe that at least.
I am not being alarmist I don't think. Please open your eyes. We are heading
for disaster very likely, some way or some how. The number of possible
scenarios are mind boggling. The only way we can survive, it seems to me, is
to _do_ this. Those are the FAQs. Unless you think this is only a drill. If
that's what you believe then as I said earlier we need ways to "show and
tell" so that people will begin to realize what is our current condition and
state of being is. I may not be here to see it, any of what might happen in
future. I may be dead already of natural cuases. Do you want your children
to see it?, what _we_ created for _them_? How much longer do you think we
can put it off? Please check your watches, and your pulse rates.
If at any point you start feeling a little frightened, that is good. Fear is
not the enemy, not the only one that is. Ignorance and lack of communication
are also enemies (other things too might be added to a list of "real"
enemies). Fear is there for a reason. It is there to warn you of danger. It
is a survival mechanism, natural. It is not bad, in and of itself. Fear
connected to weird programming is though. By weird I mean incomplete
programming or bad programming, not enough information or just bad
information. If it adds up to fear, inappropriately, in our minds, then fear
_is_ an enemy. Nevertheless, if at any point you start to tingle with fear,
heart racing a bit, and weak a little, cold hands, icy cold washes over you,
hairs on body stand, that kind of stuff, as you consider the future of human
kind, yourselves and your loved ones, that means you are beginning to "get
it". That kind of fear is at least initially appropriate. Listen to it and
do not ignore it. When you pull yourself together, maybe the next day, then
you may find your "intent" levels and objectives begin to focus a little
better. [There is the matter of fake or false or synthetic? _mock_ fear too
though, ill health, bad heart or air deprived, not enough sleep ;-)
(exhaustion) heart racing feels like fear. Similar somehow to smiling on
purpose to release happy chemicals in your body, i.e. Opposite type of
thing, but good thing, is also true.] How our bodies can trick us.
How did you feel on the day of 9/11? Please stop right now and remember
yourself watching your TV screen that day. That was a wake up call. I bet
you were frightened. You did, even on the face of it, have good reason to be
frightened and in a state of shock and horror. Renegades. How do you control
them? OOPS.
Books on Government(s) and Religions, population growth, we need those too,
We need _people_ who know. The internet. We could not have done this without
the internet. Use it.
Mike, I think you will forgive my long-winded-ness. It is who I am :)
And one more thing. We must get beyond the differences among our Religions
and Spirituality-school beliefs (though knowing what those differences are
is good), which sort of means we have to get beyond them period. All the
extraneous bits I mean. Cut through it. Get to the core, the common core. We
don't have time to wallow in extraneous particulars unless absolutely
necessary at any given time, person, what ever. We must, we have to, for
now, try to not worry about the end of cosmic time, or what happens to us
after we die, and things like that. We have to worry about not dying, not
dying on earth (staying alive), destroying ourselves _or_ the earth. We need
to bring it back down to earthly reality of the moment, our present, here
now. Is that so hard to do?
I think I am worm food after I die. You may think you are going to meet God
in Heaven. Others may think they are martyring themselves and going to be
with a couple dozen virgins for their heavily pleasures to partake. Cut
through that when you can. When you can't, you may have problems, or then
again you many not have problems, depends on the particulars of the person
or group. Some groups are not dangerous in any event. But some I would have
to believe are. That _is_ frightening. That is the problem. Any time you can
not resolve, for whatever reason, renegades and rouges in the
extreme-negative sense of the term, when communication, between states lets
say, and communications networks between them, break down, or were
nonexistent in the first place, no diplomat to contact or something, no
intermediary or agent, no way to get through, no way to keep track of (and
fear comes . . . ).
And _food_. War in the streets is even worse than contained warring armies
(I have to imagine). If global warming or climate changes impacts food
production enough, even you will kill for food. Please know who you are and
what you can do and are capable of if you need to. It would not be pretty.
If you couldn't kill someone, someone else may be willing to do it to you.
Other OOPs-factors: global epidemic type things, disease (bird-flue or
plague type), super volcanoes, asteroids. Someday they will happen again.
We would need some now order in place I think. Community is a _survival_
matter. A key player dies? I don't know. If you loose your king? If you can
replace your king or council with an equal you may be ok. Other key
players?, agents, diplomats, advisors, Generals, spiritual or religious
leaders. If anyone can reach an Islamic terrorist renegade (as just one
example) it might be a leader of his sect. Who else could? A child maybe? I
mean only and simply what we all have in our _hearts_. We all melt for
children, are _disarmed_ by them (as a rule, but not everyone is predictable
and sane, or something). A puppy? A bullet in the head?
What ever we do (and I lost my thought there) so I'll check my notes for
another . . . remember that Allies abound, they are everywhere. We are good,
and we are good at heart, and our intent is good. Good intentions can pave
the road to hell if misplaced meaning not placed in accord with wisest place
and path, and wise time too I guess.
Leaders taking the name of it's people in vain is not good, what ever
country it is occurring in. Are they taking our names and wishes in vain is
a question to consider carefully. Even if sometimes they do, sometimes they
do not. As a rule perhaps they do (take our names in vain)? it often seems,
or maybe is it that we have not communicated our wishes to them clearly? Or
that there are no good candidates? or we forget to vote? I don't know all,
trust me ;-)
The above is premised on the assumption that we understand that I mean by
"wishes of the people". If all your people are crazy and you tell your
leaders to do crazy things, that is not good, if said leaders follow the
wishes of it's people I mean. I had to come back to write these last few
lines here surrounding before sending. Democracy is good assuming voters
know what is actually going on and are voting with good intent and good
information and things like that. But "the winner", who ever that person is,
or what ever party he or she is affiliated with, the winner is then in
charge to a good degree I guess regardless. That then is what and who we are
working with -- or whoever _really_ is in charge if not that one person. If
Congress is in charge, or/and all checks and balances are working well and
right, I think? we are ok (I'm winging it here). But I think sometimes
things and balances are not working right. I don't know. I am tired and a
little frightened myself as I write, truth be told. All I know is that, we
have to use our heads. I don't know what's going on. I don't need to know
the particulars. As I said somewhere in here, the scenario possibilities of
things going awry in the world are many. All I know is that you can take
your pick ;') none of them look good.
Trying to cover so many basses in one message is maybe not good. I know so
little. I'm just a regular guy. I swear to you. This is America. Free Speech
is my Right, or so I've been told. I am not spewing hate nor advocating
toppling governments (I don't think?). I am talking about using our heads.
Are our combined global governments doing what we need for us to survive.
They need to get together, better, or better than it looks to me, from where
I sit, is all I can say and claim to know. All I want is cooperation. I am
easy to please. I would also like a place to sleep well and safely and in
healthfull nice environs and things like that in real time now. But that's
just my needs. I am a poor artist, I mean green-back deficient "poor".
"_Freedom_" to survive, pursuit of happiness (fulfillment, of our individual
unique gifts and talents), all men are created equal (oops! where have
I/we/you heard that before??!! I don't have the energy right now to look up
the rest of it all, our other national slogans :) OOPs I just remembered one
more. "In God we trust"? Now what are we going to do with this one? Is that
the fly in the ointment as they say, the deal breaker? ok. Then _trust_ in
God's Golden Rule: "Equals Treat Equals Equally". If only just _that_
(without the other baggage if you'll forgive me for the moment). Will that
be enough do you think? Enough for us all to come closer together. If we can
all agree to that, and all of it's implications and interpretations too, not
least of which is that Our Children Are Equal to Us. My oh my. That would be
something. Simple?
I do know that many things can become a sword, many mediums and art forms.
Laughter is good medicine, for example. Disarming, isn't it, magnetic, I
like you, you make me laugh. No deceit required either. Many things can
become a sword, all you have to do is pick one. The one you feel like, the
one you know best, the one you're a _natural_ at. Your gift. It is time to
_give_ it. I want you to be you. That is why you are here. To fulfill your
dreams and destiny. That is what is in every human heart.
One World, united under "something" (if not everything)
a guiding principle
I'm sorry, but we may have no other choice (sooner or later).
Let us check our math
(and pray ;-)
The math of adding up what we see going on around us, and this math too:
0+0=0
all same (at heart, really, underneath it all)
no opposites
"Equals Treat Equals Equally"
Peace on Earth? Is there any other way to do it, make it happen, facilitate
it happening? I don't even think we necessarily need to "love" each other
per say. This may be a shocker, but true, I think (I'm winging this, all of
it). When we are through with this, we may well all love each other, and for
good reason. At this point though we need less. We need to recognize that we
have no choice but to cooperate, see what _is_ common-need in our hearts and
on our planet, and see that we are in trouble. When a natural disaster
strikes, people come together (and not before?) and work like family. You
don't give a darn what religion the guy next to you is, right. You don't
necessarily "love" him, right? You simply become human, you help, and you
cooperate. You survive. _Simple_. Do we always have to wait till it's at our
door, the last minute? Can we not "predict" the future sometimes,
anticipate what's up ahead, intuit it? Is is not at our door in fact?
Please open the door and check, just for the heck. If we can survive long
enough that our children's children can "love" each other truly, if that is
what's needed or possible or something, brought up all of them in a new
world themselves, new values and education systems in place, we will have
succeeded I guess, we will have turned the tide in time, Well then that may
be the time to pat ourselves on the back. Good job, people! ;-)
Takes lots of people. I've been stressing the role of _artists_. It's key. I
do believe that. But people are people. They all have something to give.
They're all good at something. Mysticism, as far as I can tell, is based on
really _grounded_ ideas. If you are a carpenter, you know about tools, and
making your own tools, about materials, and how to make stuff. There are
analogies that you can make that all other carpenters at least would
understand. All other crafts, trades, arts. same thing. I mention artists in
part because they are _trend setters_ taste-makers, they are either at or
near the helm in the "communications" industry. Everything you see on TV,
every program or advertisement, or radio, or music CD, or in a Book, has an
*art-director* and *artists* _directly_ involved. Please do realize the
implications of that _potential_. That is what I'm talking about here
people. Our hands are in _everything_. We are already in position, our army.
All we have to do is realize we are, and what we are, and . . . . it may be
more "simple" than we thought !!!! ;)) Oooo. I am _very_ happy now. But
still, not all artists are conscious or informed enough either, to be sure.
So we have to educate each other, ourselves.
Who's paying for the shows and ads and air time commercials. Corporations.
Are they all bad? Really? That seems kind of silly to me. So who or what is
the enemy then?
ok, I think that about wraps that up for the moment.
Again. I hope I didn't waste your time. :)
Oh, and one more thing, a song.
Slow down, you're moving to fast
got to make the morning last.
take a breath
Music is good stuff. None gooder.
Dally not though :)
Trust (good) intuition
They say, "you have what you need", you have all you need, you have what you
need. Think, trust, remember, believe in your selves, do, and talk to each
other too, of course ;-) That's what I'm doing here, talking to my
community, where I am right now.
All my best to you and to us.
If you have any questions or comments, or something to add . . . begin.
Roger°
P.S. If I can do it once can I do it again? Shall I practice? Do you mind
too much if I do it here? A trial run, Will it fly? Does it have it's wings?
A good enough voice too, to rise above. Will it harm me? Am I in danger?
Something to fear? being honest like this
shall we see? . . . . if I send this . . . now . . . .
It might be better if all my recent posts, their content, were included in
here some how, into one whole freestanding message and statement, but it's
all in the record, and if this is just a trial run I can polish it up next
time. I am a perfectionist, but I'm not prefect ;-)
It's Time°
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: "Roger E. Blumberg" <rblu...@jps.net>
> Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 04:59:31 GMT
I have one comment.
1 must die
to become zero
0+0=0
better solution
not all "1"
all Equal
Peace
David Haggett
>
>
>> From: "Roger E. Blumberg" <rblu...@jps.net>
>> Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
>> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
>> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 04:59:31 GMT
>> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>>
[Snip]
>> here some how, into one whole freestanding message and statement, but
>> it's all in the record, and if this is just a trial run I can polish it
>> up next time. I am a perfectionist, but I'm not prefect ;-)
>>
>>
>> It's Time°
>
>
> I have one comment.
>
>
> 1 must die
> to become zero
> 0+0=0
> better solution
> not all "1"
> all Equal
>
>
> Peace
Hi, Roger
Have you ever considered trimming the previous message before posting a
response?
--
David Haggett
Linux user since 01/01/2003
Email: david<at>haggett<dot>demon<dot>co<dot>uk
Roger E. Blumberg
> From: David Haggett <news...@haggett.demon.co.uk>
> Reply-To: news-...@haggett.demon.co.uk
> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:12:00 +0100
> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:53:06 +0000, Roger E. Blumberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> From: "Roger E. Blumberg" <rblu...@jps.net>
>>> Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
>>> Newsgroups: alt.guitar.beginner
>>> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 04:59:31 GMT
>>> Subject: Re: UK Musicians read this now!!!!!!!!!
>>>
> [Snip]
>
>>> here some how, into one whole freestanding message and statement, but
>>> it's all in the record, and if this is just a trial run I can polish it
>>> up next time. I am a perfectionist, but I'm not prefect ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>> It's Time°
>>
>>
>> I have one comment.
>>
>>
>> 1 must die
>> to become zero
>> 0+0=0
>> better solution
>> not all "1"
>> all Equal
>>
>>
>> Peace
>
> Hi, Roger
>
> Have you ever considered trimming the previous message before posting a
> response?
Forgive me :)
Roger
David Haggett
>> Have you ever considered trimming the previous message before posting a
>> response?
>
>
>
> Forgive me :)
Forgiven <grin>
Stephen Calder
>>
>> If at any point you start feeling a little frightened, that is good. Fear is
>> not the enemy, not the only one that is.
Actually, fear is, to me, the only "enemy" and not even a "real" one.
Since only love is real, and fear blocks the awareness of love, fear
itself is not real.
Dedication to the abandonment of fear and determination to remember the
love you are leads to the solution of all problems.
>>Ignorance and lack of communication
>> are also enemies (other things too might be added to a list of "real"
>> enemies). Fear is there for a reason. It is there to warn you of danger. It
>> is a survival mechanism, natural.
To me, that's alarm, which merely alerts you to action to be taken. It's
still fear and need not be reacted to in a knee-jerk way. The impulse to
run does not have to be obeyed when I know there is nothing to fear.
Naturally I am not suggesting people walk in front of a bus or stay in a
burning house. Without fear you may be able to save someone instead of
running.
>>(Fear) It is not bad, in and of itself.
In and of itself it is nothing. All fear is false. All your fears are
groundless. If you could believe this, you could learn to have no fear
at all.
>> Fear
>> connected to weird programming is though. By weird I mean incomplete
>> programming or bad programming, not enough information or just bad
>> information. If it adds up to fear, inappropriately, in our minds, then fear
>> _is_ an enemy. Nevertheless, if at any point you start to tingle with fear,
>> heart racing a bit, and weak a little, cold hands, icy cold washes over you,
>> hairs on body stand, that kind of stuff, as you consider the future of human
>> kind, yourselves and your loved ones, that means you are beginning to "get
>> it".
No. It means you have succumbed to the illusion that the world is
outside you and out to get you. In fact, the world and the body are made
up of thought systems in your own mind projected out.
>>That kind of fear is at least initially appropriate.
It's inimical to peace. But if peace is not your goal then you can
hardly avoid living in fear.
>> Listen to it and
>> do not ignore it.
Do not listen to it. Listen instead to the still, small, calm voice of
reason, the part of you that knows what you really want, the perfect
inner spirit of you that can guide you to a state of perfect unconcern
in the knowledge that the universe knows what it's doing, appearances
are deceptive, and all is well.
>>
>> How did you feel on the day of 9/11? Please stop right now and remember
>> yourself watching your TV screen that day. That was a wake up call. I bet
>> you were frightened.
No. I am in danger nowhere in the world.
You did, even on the face of it, have good reason to be
>> frightened and in a state of shock and horror.
Fear has no reason. It is always false. The word, which can be
interpreted as Fuck Everything And Run, can also be interpreted as
meaning False Evidence Appearing Real.
>>
>> I think I am worm food after I die.
That's perfectly acceptable to me although not part of my belief system.
The lesson of love can be learned whether you believe in "God" (a very
tainted concept) or not.
>> You may think you are going to meet God
>> in Heaven.
I don't know what happens when I "die". I only know there is no death.
Others may think they are martyring themselves and going to be
>> with a couple dozen virgins for their heavily pleasures to partake. Cut
>> through that when you can.
The only thing to be cut through is fear.
When you can't, you may have problems, or then
>> again you many not have problems, depends on the particulars of the person
>> or group. Some groups are not dangerous in any event. But some I would have
>> to believe are. That _is_ frightening. That is the problem.
The only "problem" is the idea that we are separate and in competition
with each other. The unity of all living beings, when fully realised,
prevents conflict from arising in the mind, where all conflict arises.
It must first be resolved in the mind, only then will it be resolved in
the world.
Any time you can
>> not resolve, for whatever reason, renegades and rouges in the
>> extreme-negative sense of the term, when communication, between states lets
>> say, and communications networks between them, break down, or were
>> nonexistent in the first place, no diplomat to contact or something, no
>> intermediary or agent, no way to get through, no way to keep track of (and
>> fear comes . . . ).
>>
>> And _food_. War in the streets is even worse than contained warring armies
>> (I have to imagine). If global warming or climate changes impacts food
>> production enough, even you will kill for food. Please know who you are and
>> what you can do and are capable of if you need to. It would not be pretty.
>> If you couldn't kill someone, someone else may be willing to do it to you.
This is a mad fantasy born of forgetting that the universe is taking
care of everything.
If anyone can reach an Islamic terrorist renegade (as just one
>> example) it might be a leader of his sect. Who else could? A child maybe? I
>> mean only and simply what we all have in our _hearts_.
Deep in our hearts, where most people hide it under a blanket of fear,
is the purity of a love so powerful it can reach anyone and will reach
everyone.
>>
>> "_Freedom_" to survive, pursuit of happiness (fulfillment, of our individual
>> unique gifts and talents), all men are created equal (oops! where have
>> I/we/you heard that before??!! I don't have the energy right now to look up
>> the rest of it all, our other national slogans :) OOPs I just remembered one
>> more. "In God we trust"? Now what are we going to do with this one? Is that
>> the fly in the ointment as they say, the deal breaker? ok. Then _trust_ in
>> God's Golden Rule: "Equals Treat Equals Equally".
I can treat you as an equal in the true sense only if I am unafraid of
you. So the abandonment of fear is a necessary step to loving my brother
as I love myself.
>>
>> Peace on Earth? Is there any other way to do it, make it happen, facilitate
>> it happening? I don't even think we necessarily need to "love" each other
>> per say.
I can't treat you as an equal if I don't love you. It's not about loving
the outward personality, which is just a mask, but loving the inner
essence of what everyone is; their pure innocence, however distorted it
may appear to be by fear. When my innocence recognises yours, and your
purity connects with mine, there is no possibility of a problem.
This may be a shocker, but true, I think (I'm winging this, all of
>> it). When we are through with this, we may well all love each other, and for
>> good reason. At this point though we need less.
There is only this point in time. Nothing can be done except now. The
past is gone and the future is imagined. Any time you do anything it is
going to be now.
The awareness of love in everyone, including you and me, is needed now.
It can't be done in the past and we cannot act in the "future". If I
accept that all things are already working together for good, despite
appearances, I can be more useful in the present than I would be living
in fear.
We need to recognize that we
>> have no choice but to cooperate, see what _is_ common-need in our hearts and
>> on our planet, and see that we are in trouble.
We are not in trouble unless we believe we are. The common need in our
hearts is the inner yearning for peace that occurs because we forgot
that we already have and are everything we could want or be.
Mysticism, as far as I can tell, is based on
>> really _grounded_ ideas.
On the contrary. Mysticism is not grounded at all. It is free.
If you are a carpenter, you know about tools, and
>> making your own tools, about materials, and how to make stuff. There are
>> analogies that you can make that all other carpenters at least would
>> understand. All other crafts, trades, arts. same thing. I mention artists in
>> part because they are _trend setters_ taste-makers, they are either at or
>> near the helm in the "communications" industry.
Mysticism is the art of living fearlessly. In that state you are better
able to do whatever it is you need to do.
Everything you see on TV,
>> every program or advertisement, or radio, or music CD, or in a Book, has an
>> *art-director* and *artists* _directly_ involved. Please do realize the
>> implications of that _potential_. That is what I'm talking about here
>> people. Our hands are in _everything_. We are already in position, our army.
>> All we have to do is realize we are, and what we are, and . . . . it may be
>> more "simple" than we thought !!!! ;)) Oooo. I am _very_ happy now.
What worked? You moved from talking about fearful things to talking
about things you love.
>>
>> Trust (good) intuition
>>
>> They say, "you have what you need", you have all you need, you have what you
>> need.
See what happens when you use intuition instead of thinking? You arrive
at a great truth. We have all we need. Right now. There is nothing to
worry about.
Think, trust, remember, believe in your selves, do, and talk to each
>> other too, of course ;-) That's what I'm doing here, talking to my
>> community, where I am right now.
>>
>> All my best to you and to us.
Thank you for taking the time to express your love to us in this way.
>>
>> If you have any questions or comments, or something to add . . . begin.
>>
>> Roger°
>>
>> P.S. If I can do it once can I do it again? Shall I practice? Do you mind
>> too much if I do it here? A trial run, Will it fly? Does it have it's wings?
>> A good enough voice too, to rise above. Will it harm me?
No.
Am I in danger?
No.
>> Something to fear? being honest like this
No.
>
> Peace
>
>
Yes!
--
Stephen
Ballina, Australia
Stephen Calder
> On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 11:36:39 +0000, Roger E. Blumberg wrote:
>
>>> Have you ever considered trimming the previous message before posting a
>>> response?
>>
>>
>>
>> Forgive me :)
>
> Forgiven <grin>
>
That will work every time.
--
Stephen
Ballina, Australia