Superman
CyberCypher
[...]
> COMMENTS?
>
Spam.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, ehziuh htiw rehpycrebyc ecalper.
sand
Much chopped.
>
>COMMENTS?
Shakespeare did it more elegantly.
S&
Maria Conlon
> You high baby?
> Yeahh...
> Yeah?
> hahaha..Talk to me...
> You want me to tell you somethin?
> Uh huh...
> I know what you wanna hear...
>
[...much more...]
>
> COMMENTS?
Eminim?
He lives around here someplace, but you probably know that.
I didn't read all the words, by the way. I just skimmed through. Why are
you asking for comments?
Maria Conlon
Detroit area.
Freddy
"Maria Conlon" <mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c4ul00$2m9d19$1...@ID-113669.news.uni-berlin.de...
Sad.
>
Maria Conlon
> Maria Conlon wrote:
>> DE781 wrote:
>>> You high baby?
[snip again]
Maria Conlon
Okay. I've taken a better look. Potty-mouth stuff.
Listen-to-how-bad-I-am stuff. But he broke all laws of decency with that
"between you and I."
Sheesh.
--
Maria Conlon
When it's you against the world, back the world. (Zappa)
Peter Moylan
>DE781 wrote:
>> COMMENTS?
>I didn't read all the words, by the way. I just skimmed through. Why are
>you asking for comments?
Perhaps you've just discovered the secret identity of Bun Mui.
--
Peter Moylan Peter....@newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
sand
>"Maria Conlon" <mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c4vh4v$2m2v36$1...@ID-113669.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>> Maria Conlon wrote:
>> > Freddy wrote:
>> >> Maria Conlon wrote:
>> >>> DE781 wrote:
>>
>> >>>> You high baby?
>> > [snip again]
>> >
>> >>>> COMMENTS?
>> >>>
>> >>> Eminim?
>> >>> He lives around here someplace, but you probably know that.
>> >>>
>> >>> I didn't read all the words, by the way. I just skimmed through. Why
>> >>> are you asking for comments?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sad.
>>
>> Okay. I've taken a better look. Potty-mouth stuff.
>> Listen-to-how-bad-I-am stuff. But he broke all laws of decency with that
>> "between you and I."
>
>I'm sure he would have known better, but it had to rhyme. Remember
>that Cowboy song..."Open up your moning light, and say a little prayer
>for I"? Talk about a horribly blatant error. But the *rhyme* is
>there. Plus, you folks would have to hear this song in order to
>appreciate it. Eminem's flow and assonance/aliteration-type stuff is
>more incredible than any rapper I've ever heard. Seriously, could YOU
>guys write this stuff?
Why would I want to?
S&
Raymond S. Wise
news:vfo97093q8mi6saj3...@4ax.com...
I should mention here that I listened to Jim Morrison sing the following
lyrics for many years before it occurred to me that there was anything
questionable in the grammar (the bit at the end, not the "gonna"):
From "Touch Me" by The Doors
[quote]
I'm gonna love you
Till the stars fall from the sky for you and I
[end quote]
They must have been doing something right for me not to have noticed!
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
CyberCypher
> "Maria Conlon" <mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<c4vh4v$2m2v36$1...@ID-113669.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>> Maria Conlon wrote:
>> > Freddy wrote:
>> >> Maria Conlon wrote:
>> >>> DE781 wrote:
>>
>> >>>> You high baby?
>> > [snip again]
>> >
>> >>>> COMMENTS?
>> >>>
>> >>> Eminim?
>> >>> He lives around here someplace, but you probably know that.
>> >>>
>> >>> I didn't read all the words, by the way. I just skimmed
>> >>> through. Why are you asking for comments?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sad.
>>
>> Okay. I've taken a better look. Potty-mouth stuff.
>> Listen-to-how-bad-I-am stuff. But he broke all laws of decency
>> with that "between you and I."
>
> I'm sure he would have known better, but it had to rhyme.
> Remember that Cowboy song..."Open up your moning light, and say a
> little prayer for I"? Talk about a horribly blatant error. But
> the *rhyme* is there. Plus, you folks would have to hear this
> song in order to appreciate it. Eminem's flow and
> assonance/aliteration-type stuff is more incredible than any
> rapper I've ever heard. Seriously, could YOU guys write this
> stuff?
Who would want to write and dessiminate such shit but a seriously
disturbed excuse for a human being like what'shisname?
Rap is crap.
Rappers are crappers.
If you like that shit
you're an empty twit
who is in a snit
with a snit-shit-fit.
Areff
> I should mention here that I listened to Jim Morrison sing the following
> lyrics for many years before it occurred to me that there was anything
> questionable in the grammar (the bit at the end, not the "gonna"):
>
> From "Touch Me" by The Doors
>
>
> [quote]
>
> I'm gonna love you
> Till the stars fall from the sky for you and I
>
> [end quote]
>
>
> They must have been doing something right for me not to have noticed!
That's funny... that line bothered me the first time I heard it, even
though at the time I liked the Doors (hey, it was 1981, in the midst of
the short-lived Jim Morrison revival among twelve- and
thirteen-year-olds). Were you similarly unbothered by the lines in "Light
My Fire": "If I was to say to you/Girl we couldn't get much higher"?
That always troubled me, not because of the "higher", which may have
irked the likes of Ed Sullivan back in the 'Sixties, but because of the
"was". Note that, unlike most of the Doors' songs, both "Light My Fire"
and "Touch Me" (probably their two most commercially successful songs)
were written not by Morrison but by guitarist Robbie Krieger.
Nowadays, of course, "you and I" is in standard use as the object of a
sentence (SJJLIDKTPT) in American Business English and American Polite
English, with unreformed prescriptivist folks like Liebs and me fighting a
losing battle against such a practice. I don't know whether that was
true around, say, 1970.
I think "If I was to say to you", however, is still substandard in
American Business English and American Polite English. It's
probably perfectly acceptable in British English, based on what I read in
this newsgroup (= YJE "on this board").
--
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Nowadays, of course, "you and I" is in standard use as the object of a
> sentence (SJJLIDKTPT) in American Business English and American Polite
> English, with unreformed prescriptivist folks like Liebs and me fighting a
> losing battle against such a practice.
Vicious calumny. I be very much a "reformed" prescriptivist folk.
I accept plural "there's," plural "a lot of," plural verbs after
"neither" and "either," and even, grudgingly, singular "they." I
have long since stopped correcting the ahistorical pronunciation
"coe-VERT" and have even agreed to let "ap-PLICK-able" pass.
And if my boss insists on saying "between you and I," I'd rather
keep my job than direct her to this newsgroup.
> I don't know whether that was true around, say, 1970.
Oh, I was fighting lots of losing battles around, say, 1970. But I
have since mellowed. Whether that's A Good Thing or not I leave to
be determined by others.
> I think "If I was to say to you", however, is still substandard in
> American Business English and American Polite English.
For maybe another week.
> It's
> probably perfectly acceptable in British English, based on what I read in
> this newsgroup (= YJE "on this board").
Hey, don't look at me. Last time I checked I was still speaking
American English, this "board" notwithstanding.
--
Bob Lieblich
Yankee doodling
CyberCypher
> Raymond S. Wise wrote:
>> I should mention here that I listened to Jim Morrison sing the
>> following lyrics for many years before it occurred to me that
>> there was anything questionable in the grammar (the bit at the
>> end, not the "gonna"):
>>
>> From "Touch Me" by The Doors
>>
>>
>> [quote]
>>
>> I'm gonna love you
>> Till the stars fall from the sky for you and I
>>
>> [end quote]
>>
>>
>> They must have been doing something right for me not to have
>> noticed!
>
> That's funny... that line bothered me the first time I heard it,
> even though at the time I liked the Doors (hey, it was 1981, in
> the midst of the short-lived Jim Morrison revival among twelve-
> and thirteen-year-olds). Were you similarly unbothered by the
> lines in "Light My Fire": "If I was to say to you/Girl we
> couldn't get much higher"? That always troubled me, not because
> of the "higher", which may have irked the likes of Ed Sullivan
> back in the 'Sixties, but because of the "was". Note that, unlike
> most of the Doors' songs, both "Light My Fire" and "Touch Me"
> (probably their two most commercially successful songs) were
> written not by Morrison but by guitarist Robbie Krieger.
I was bothered by both lines back in the '60s when they opened up.
But, hey, it's just a rock song. What can one expect?
> Nowadays, of course, "you and I" is in standard use as the object
> of a sentence (SJJLIDKTPT) in American Business English and
> American Polite English, with unreformed prescriptivist folks like
> Liebs and me fighting a losing battle against such a practice. I
> don't know whether that was true around, say, 1970.
>
> I think "If I was to say to you", however, is still substandard in
> American Business English and American Polite English. It's
> probably perfectly acceptable in British English, based on what I
> read in this newsgroup (= YJE "on this board").
--
sand
>sand <jan_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2ll57091ba8e47lel...@4ax.com>...
>How so?
Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimmed,
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance, or nature's changing course untrimmed:
But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st,
Nor shall death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st,
So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee
S&
Jerry Friedman
> "Maria Conlon" <mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c4vh4v$2m2v36$1...@ID-113669.news.uni-berlin.de>...
...
[On an Eminem rap]
> > Okay. I've taken a better look. Potty-mouth stuff.
> > Listen-to-how-bad-I-am stuff. But he broke all laws of decency with that
> > "between you and I."
>
> I'm sure he would have known better, but it had to rhyme.
I wouldn't be so sure.
> Remember
> that Cowboy song..."Open up your moning light, and say a little prayer
> for I"? Talk about a horribly blatant error. But the *rhyme* is
> there. Plus, you folks would have to hear this song in order to
> appreciate it. Eminem's flow and assonance/aliteration-type stuff is
> more incredible than any rapper I've ever heard.
If you like that, try Swinburne or Chesterton (say "Lepanto") or
Vachel Lindsay. I expect that a little poetic racism wouldn't bother
you.
> Seriously, could YOU
> guys write this stuff?
...
I just can't help it. This one is from about ten or twelve years ago.
The mood is somewhat different from that of the rap we're talking
about. If anyone is tempted to reproduce it, I'd appreciate credit.
Dissatisfaction
Take me to willows, wake me with birds
When tree-trunks are yellow and dawn dies a-borning.
Lap me with woven wraps and soft words
When dark grows from ravens that croak a late warning.
Find fear so I'll walk under fir trees warily.
Reach me a stalk with a rage-red berry.
Come, hungry hawk and thirsty hare,
Scrub my talk off the deaf air.
--
Jerry Friedman, MIMIM
Areff
> I will never stop calling this a board. Hell, it's more of a chatroom
> than anything else, these days.
I hear that this is all because of Coop, that landlubber!
--
CyberCypher
[...]
> Try doing that for an entire song, let alone an entire album, let
> alone freestyle on a mike. Plus, try doing it so that at least 70
> or 80% is somewhat meaningful.
I've seen some women with very talented vaginal muscles: they can
discharge a pingpong ball across a room and score baskets. I've heard
very talented men belch loudly at will. I knew a boy scout who could
conjur up farts at will, light them with a match, and torch anything
within 12 inches of his bunghole. There are millions of birdwatchers
who can can reproduce birdcalls for what seems like hours at a time,
and people who can draw with their toes. Guys with superhard forehead
can crack nuts, break boards, and disintegrate bricks on them for
hours; I even used to be able to crack nuts with my teeth. These are
all "somewhat meaningful" activities that other people often pay to
see, and therein lies the "meaning".
sand
>
>But, Jan, Shakespeare is praising that woman; Eminem is doing nothing of the sort.
Yes and no. Both declaim their passion in different ways. My
preference is still Shakespeare.
S&
Dena Jo
> I hear that this is all because of Coop, that landlubber!
I thought it was all because of me.
--
Dena Jo
Email goes to denajo2 at the dot com variation of the Yahoo domain.
Have I confused you? Go here:
http://myweb.cableone.net/denajo/emailme.htm
Tony Cooper
>On 08 Apr 2004, Areff posted thus:
>
>> I hear that this is all because of Coop, that landlubber!
>
>I thought it was all because of me.
We can all cry "They started it!"
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>I've seen some women with very talented vaginal muscles: they can
>discharge a pingpong ball across a room and score baskets.
I'd find that highly impressive, if not incredible. I was once told of
a San Diego stripper with such fine-tuned labia majora control, she
could pick up a silver dollar stood on its edge. Unbeknown to her,
some unkind person heated it up with his lighter on one occasion, just
before her act. I don't know if either story is true though.
--
Charles Riggs
Email address: chriggs/at/eircom/dot/net
Charles Riggs
Not really. Another person here is the more [in]famous for on-line,
chatroom-like one-liners, exclamation marks, and gratuitous 'Thank
you's. Cooper, with his lackluster abilities as a sailor and all his
other faults, does seem to know the difference between a chatroom
style and newsgroup style of writing.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Rap is crap.
Those of us who think that are either too old or too white. Rap is as
valid a form of expression as song, story, or poem. Needless to say,
some poets are better than other poets.
Charles Riggs
>On 08 Apr 2004, Areff posted thus:
>
>> I hear that this is all because of Coop, that landlubber!
>
>I thought it was all because of me.
Give the lady a cigar.
CyberCypher
> On 8 Apr 2004 06:58:49 GMT, CyberCypher <cyber...@e-garfield.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Rap is crap.
>
> Those of us who think that are either too old or too white. Rap is as
> valid a form of expression as song, story, or poem. Needless to say,
> some poets are better than other poets.
Taste is not relative to age or skin color (read also as "culture").
Art is recognized as art by people who love art. Crap is always crap,
until it fossilizes and becomes and artifact for physical
anthropologists and paleontologists to study.
Michael Nitabach
news:Xns94C69E0ED...@130.133.1.4:
> Charles Riggs wrote on 08 Apr 2004:
>
>> On 8 Apr 2004 06:58:49 GMT, CyberCypher
>> <cyber...@e-garfield.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Rap is crap.
>>
>> Those of us who think that are either too old or too white. Rap
>> is as valid a form of expression as song, story, or poem.
>> Needless to say, some poets are better than other poets.
>
> Taste is not relative to age or skin color (read also as
> "culture"). Art is recognized as art by people who love art. Crap
> is always crap, until it fossilizes and becomes and artifact for
> physical anthropologists and paleontologists to study.
It's not that simple, as has been demonstrated time after time
throughout the history of art.
--
Mike Nitabach
CyberCypher
Yes, that's because art critics are such liars, as John Canaday once
admitted on NPR in 1972 or 1973 when talking about the mediocre Jackson
Pollock's action painting. But for YJ to tout Eminem's stuff as
"poetry" is ludicrous.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Taste is not relative to age or skin color (read also as "culture").
> Art is recognized as art by people who love art.
Now there's a circular argument if I ever saw one. Where does one get
one's "Person Who Loves Art" card?
> Crap is always crap,
There's a whole lot of things that "people who love art" consider
"art" that I consider "crap". Conversely, there are things that I
consider "art" that "people who love art" consider "crap"
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |A handgun is like a Lawyer. You
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |don't want it lying around where
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the children might be exposed to
|it, but when you need one, you need
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |it RIGHT NOW, and nothing else will
(650)857-7572 |do.
| Bill McNutt
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Michael Nitabach
news:Xns94C7735E...@130.133.1.4:
> Michael Nitabach wrote on 09 Apr 2004:
>
>> CyberCypher <cyber...@e-garfield.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns94C69E0ED...@130.133.1.4:
>>
>>> Charles Riggs wrote on 08 Apr 2004:
>>>
>>>> On 8 Apr 2004 06:58:49 GMT, CyberCypher
>>>> <cyber...@e-garfield.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Rap is crap.
>>>>
>>>> Those of us who think that are either too old or too white. Rap
>>>> is as valid a form of expression as song, story, or poem.
>>>> Needless to say, some poets are better than other poets.
>>>
>>> Taste is not relative to age or skin color (read also as
>>> "culture"). Art is recognized as art by people who love art.
>>> Crap is always crap, until it fossilizes and becomes and
>>> artifact for physical anthropologists and paleontologists to
>>> study.
>>
>> It's not that simple, as has been demonstrated time after time
>> throughout the history of art.
>>
> Yes, that's because art critics are such liars, as John Canaday
> once admitted on NPR in 1972 or 1973 when talking about the
> mediocre Jackson Pollock's action painting.
You truly believe that there cannot be conscientious disagreement
among people who genuinely care about art as to the artistic value of
a particular work of art?
> But for YJ to tout
> Eminem's stuff as "poetry" is ludicrous.
It may not be good, and you may not like it, but it is certainly
poetry.
--
Mike Nitabach
Skitt
> Areff posted thus:
>> I hear that this is all because of Coop, that landlubber!
>
> I thought it was all because of me.
And we can smile?
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Robert Lieblich
>
> Dena Jo wrote:
> > Areff posted thus:
>
> >> I hear that this is all because of Coop, that landlubber!
> >
> > I thought it was all because of me.
>
> And we can smile?
I dunno about you, Alec, but my life is now worthwhile.
--
Bob Lieblich
Also smiling
Robert Lieblich
I would pay for the privilege of NOT attending most rap
performances, if it came to that, but I have to agree with Mike on
this one. What Eminem produces is "poetry" by most common
contemporary definitions of that term. (Whoops, that looked
dangerously like a comment on English usage. Sincerest apologies.)
It features intricate rhymes and rhythms, alliteration and
assonance, vivid imagery, etc. It's a lot more structured than a
lot of what passes for poetry, with little or no dissent, these
days.
Is it Eminem's subject matter that renders his output unacceptable?
Stack against it such other crap as Oedipus Rex, Titus Andronicus,
Guernica, Pendereski's Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima, and Mel
Gibson's latest. Hoo sez art cannot be painful or even offensive?
Oh, well, it's an old battle. My dislike of rap, and of much of the
rest of contemporary popular culture, no more invalidates it than my
love of Mahler's music validates Mahler. Time, perspective, and the
collective judgment of generations yet unborn will determine what is
of lasting value and what is ephemeral. Mahler, who's been dead for
nearly a century, seems to have passed the test.
We don't yet know whether this rap stuff will prove ephemeral. I
hope it does, because I don't like it. But the best is poetry, and
much of the rest aspires to that status. We are served it, in large
helpings, because in some sense we deserve it. Even though I at
least wish I didn't.
--
Bob Lieblich
"I'm not worthy"
Dena Jo
> Skitt wrote:
>>
>> Dena Jo wrote:
>> > Areff posted thus:
>>
>> >> I hear that this is all because of Coop, that landlubber!
>> >
>> > I thought it was all because of me.
>>
>> And we can smile?
>
> I dunno about you, Alec, but my life is now worthwhile.
All because of me?
(Skitt had to explain this to me.)
Robert Lieblich
>
> On 09 Apr 2004, Robert Lieblich posted thus:
>
> > Skitt wrote:
> >>
> >> Dena Jo wrote:
> >> > Areff posted thus:
> >>
> >> >> I hear that this is all because of Coop, that landlubber!
> >> >
> >> > I thought it was all because of me.
> >>
> >> And we can smile?
> >
> > I dunno about you, Alec, but my life is now worthwhile.
>
> All because of me?
>
> (Skitt had to explain this to me.)
Just in case:
http://www.romantic-lyrics.com/lb25.shtml
--
Liebs
Because of Deej
Tony Cooper
wrote:
I don't like Eminem's stuff, but Ginsberg's "stuff" was howled at by
many.
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher <cyber...@e-garfield.com> writes:
>
>> Taste is not relative to age or skin color (read also as
>> "culture"). Art is recognized as art by people who love art.
>
> Now there's a circular argument if I ever saw one. Where does one
> get one's "Person Who Loves Art" card?
Five boxtops from any full-sized boxes of Post (R) brand cereals and US
$1.00 in a SASE to the MMMA, NYC. Don't forget to spell your name
correctly.
>> Crap is always crap,
>
> There's a whole lot of things that "people who love art" consider
> "art" that I consider "crap". Conversely, there are things that I
> consider "art" that "people who love art" consider "crap"
If you don't have the card, Evan, then your judgment is as good as
YJ's. If that's the way you like things, then you are free to have them
that way at your house. In my house, however, *I* define art for me.
You are taking this much too seriously, I fear.
CyberCypher
> CyberCypher <cyber...@e-garfield.com> wrote in
> news:Xns94C7735E...@130.133.1.4:
[...]
> You truly believe that there cannot be conscientious disagreement
> among people who genuinely care about art as to the artistic value
> of a particular work of art?
Oh, well, here we go round the mulberry bush again. I suppose you
haven't read what I've had to say about these kinds of personal
judgments. Anybody can call anything they want "art".
Some people call a beautiful sunset "art". That is an abuse of
language, unless, of course, one believes that god is a painter and
creates each sunset on some kind of supernatural canvas that we are
permitted to see.
Back in the 1950s, a chimpanzee's finger painting was given first prize
in an "art" competition. When the judges discovered that the work had
been done by a chimp and not a human chump, the prize was taken away.
Animals are incapable of creating "art" was the reason for that
decision.
Do you see what I mean here, Mike? The only value of a work of art is
the pleasure it brings those who experience it and appreciate it, or
the money it brings those who sell it.
What's to conscientiously agree or disagree about? If one is an artist,
one may be able to appreciate the skill of another artist's techniques
and call what is only of passing interest to some a work of technical
genius. If one is "a great appreciater" of art, one can claim that one
particular opus is indeed "art" and that another is indeed "crap". The
only value one's claim has is how many other's, the ones who determine
the market value (whether it be monetary or conversational) of these
works of "art". Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Some people actually accused Rod McKuen of writing poetry, but
fortunately for all of us who love good poetry, they were wrong.
>> But for YJ to tout
>> Eminem's stuff as "poetry" is ludicrous.
>
> It may not be good, and you may not like it, but it is certainly
> poetry.
It is, perhaps, like Pollock's action painting, crap thrown against a
wall (of sound, in this case) that then slithers down and is picked up
and rolled into balls by contemporary young dung beetles who thrive on
such aesthetic nourishment, but I would call it "verse" and not
"poetry". The former term is without positive connotations, but the
latter is a label of approval. I will not be forced to stamp my
imprimatur on the likes of what Eminem defecates as performance "art".
I will not call it "poetry". That is an insult to John Donne,
Shakespeare, W. B. Yeats, and G. M. Hopkins, just to mention a few real
poets.
I suppose my position is somewhat akin to those who object to calling
same-sex marriages "marriage" and prefer the term "civil union". One
may be an isomorph of the other, but as long as we make the value
distinction implied by using two terms to define the same structural
entity for two different types of content, no one is offended except
the purists on both sides who can see no difference where there is one.
The controversy over "marriage", of course, is substantial and has
legal implications, while the controversy over "art" and "poetry" has
only financial and cultural implications, which, however, can sometimes
lead to the same kind of serious legal consequences.
In any case, there is no argument here. We are all expressing our
personal opinions and judgments about the worth of something that looks
and quacks like a duck but is as much a duck as that greasy pressed
pink-dyed shark meat is crab meat. Well, that's what they call it,
isn't it?
I know, it's pointless to root for the Brooklyn Dodgers anymore. They
no longer exist. I cannot switch my loyalties to the LA Dodgers.
Areff
> I know, it's pointless to root for the Brooklyn Dodgers anymore. They
> no longer exist.
Say what? That's Crazy Talk[1]!
[1]Copyright (C) (Copr.) 2001, J. Manfre.[2]
[2]True story: A few weeks ago I was waiting for the bus in downtown
Chicago (Third Largest City in America). (More specifically, this was
either in or slightly outside of the Loop, depending on how you define
that term.) It was fairly late at night (for Chicago), like maybe
midnight or so. As an expert on urban public transportation like Mark
Brader can tell you, after about 7pm buses in Chicago run about once every
six or seven hours or so.
Well, anyway, so I'm waiting for the bus, trying to dodge all the
aggressive Chicago cabbies, and this young man and young woman arrive on
the scene. And the young man starts speaking in an Irish (from Ireland)
accent, a brogue if you will, asking me if I knew of any places where one
could get some food around there. So I told him, "This is *Chicago*, man!
Everything around here shuts down at 8 o'clock!" Then I consider the
matter for a moment and say: "You could go up Michigan Avenue, and
eventually you'll find some restaurants that are open I think."
So the Irish fellow says, "Do you know how many meters that would be?"
So I say (suppressing a laugh), "I don't know meters, but it might be,
say, a fifteen or twenty-minute walk in that direction," and I point
northward along Michigan Avenue, beyond the icy waters of the Chicago
River.
So the Irish fellow says: "Fifteen or twenty minutes? That's crazy
talk!" And then he and his companion hail and get into one of the
aggressive Chicago cabs. And before he gets into the cab he turns around
and says to me, "Crazy talk!"
I swear, that's a completely true story.
--
CyberCypher
But, Bob, this is all about English usage. That's the main concern,
not whether Eminem creates "poetry" or "art" or "music". The question
is whether it is proper to call what he produces by those venerated
terms of honor. These are value judgments. They have nothing to do
with reality, only with usage. But Brutus is an honorable man.
> It features intricate rhymes and rhythms, alliteration
> and assonance, vivid imagery, etc. It's a lot more structured
> than a lot of what passes for poetry, with little or no dissent,
> these days.
Roses are red,
vi'lets are blue.
Eminem sucks
and rap does too.
Do you think that Hallmark will hire me?
> Is it Eminem's subject matter that renders his output
> unacceptable? Stack against it such other crap as Oedipus Rex,
> Titus Andronicus, Guernica, Pendereski's Threnody to the Victims
> of Hiroshima, and Mel Gibson's latest. Hoo sez art cannot be
> painful or even offensive?
The NEH (lately), Jesee Helms, and Rudi Giulliani
> Oh, well, it's an old battle. My dislike of rap, and of much of
> the rest of contemporary popular culture,
"Popular culture". Now we're talkin' seriously.'Nuff said. I hadn't
realized that culture was all that popular. I'm convinced that it
isn't. But if the original of the Mona Lisa is worth millions of
dollars, why wouldn't an essentially perfect copy be equally
valuable? Remember how, back in the '50s, mass-produced stuff was all
the rage because each piece was identical to every other piece? Then
somehow in the decades that followed, people began to feel that hand-
crafted stuff that sort of all looked alike, but was really a set of
unique pieces, was so much better, and we went full circle?
> no more invalidates it than my love of Mahler's music validates
> Mahler. Time, perspective, and the collective judgment
> of generations yet unborn will determine what is of lasting
> value and what is ephemeral. Mahler, who's been dead for nearly
> a century, seems to have passed the test.
Yo, dude, if you'd written the score for Death in Venice and 2001: A
Space Odyssey, you'd pass the same tests.
> We don't yet know whether this rap stuff will prove ephemeral. I
> hope it does, because I don't like it. But the best is poetry,
> and much of the rest aspires to that status. We are served it, in
> large helpings, because in some sense we deserve it. Even though
> I at least wish I didn't.
Oh, yes, I agree. In general, we get what we deserve, but only in
general.
Now to my backlog of artsy Jacqueline Suzanne novels.
CyberCypher
[...]
> I don't like Eminem's stuff, but Ginsberg's "stuff" was howled at
> by many.
That I love most of Ginsberg's stuff, especially when listening to him
read it --- and 'Howl' in particular --- is of no consequence. He was
only one of many members of the Beat Generation to write and perform
what he called "poetry" publicly. Most of those other folks are long
since forgotten. Allen Ginsberg produced something of aesthetic value,
it appears. In 50 or 100 years, Eminem will have long since melted in
everyone's ears.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>Evan Kirshenbaum wrote on 09 Apr 2004:
>
>> CyberCypher <cyber...@e-garfield.com> writes:
>>
>>> Taste is not relative to age or skin color (read also as
>>> "culture"). Art is recognized as art by people who love art.
>>
>> Now there's a circular argument if I ever saw one. Where does one
>> get one's "Person Who Loves Art" card?
>
>Five boxtops from any full-sized boxes of Post (R) brand cereals and US
>$1.00 in a SASE to the MMMA, NYC. Don't forget to spell your name
>correctly.
You mean MOMA? It's rather difficult to accept art criticism from
someone that doesn't know MOMA from MMA.
>If you don't have the card, Evan, then your judgment is as good as
>YJ's. If that's the way you like things, then you are free to have them
>that way at your house. In my house, however, *I* define art for me.
>
Why am I thinking Elvis on velvet?
CyberCypher
[...]
> Why am I thinking Elvis on velvet?
Because you have no taste.
sand
wrote:
>
>What's to conscientiously agree or disagree about? If one is an artist,
>one may be able to appreciate the skill of another artist's techniques
>and call what is only of passing interest to some a work of technical
>genius. If one is "a great appreciater" of art, one can claim that one
>particular opus is indeed "art" and that another is indeed "crap". The
>only value one's claim has is how many other's, the ones who determine
>the market value (whether it be monetary or conversational) of these
>works of "art". Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Although I have been trained in and produced what might be judged art,
it has seemed to me that there are three separate and probably mostly
unconnected aspects of "Art".
The first is the viewpoint of the artist who produces the work. The
individual artist has his/her own standards and interests. In these
later years there have been no limits to the material used in its
construction which can vary from purely mental constructs to pieces of
craft made from wood, stone, textile, paint or even the absence of
these materials within a matrix that can define that absence. Many
artists begin by manipulating materials with no conscious end in
initial conception, permitting the nature of the materials to indicate
where and how the production may proceed. Others can preconstruct the
end result in thir mind and render that conception in a material.
Michaelangelo, in that context, spoke of freeing the figure from the
stone. What results from these efforts must satisfy the artist's goal.
Whether it satisfies anybody else's conception of art is not the good
artist's problem and should not concern him/her as an artist. Insofar
as it qualifies as something satisfactory to a viewer, a gallery, or a
critic is something altogether different as that is the second
viewpoint. It very much depends upon whether it brings something
different and valuable into their lives.
"Art", like many other words created at first in a limited context and
then generalized, has become so amorphous over the years that almost
anything can be fitted into that category. Originally, photography was
excluded but now is well accepted because it has been acknowledged
that the photograph is an object of an individual's perception and as
such purveys a viewpoint that can reveal to the viewer an aspect of
the universe not previously suspected and becomes thereby valuable.
But art is nevertheless a human creation and even if it is no more
than a pointed finger at a natural or previously unconsidered
artificial object such as Duchamp's urinals or the manic self
destructive machinery of Tinguely, if it reveals something unique and
interesting, it becomes valuable. I had once thought of constructing
an open pipe framework on wheels which could be pushed over almost any
object to focus attention on something not before considered closely
as a worthwhile instrument of art.
The final and least worthy aspect of art is the financial evaluation
of the object, considered by many as the final arbiter of its worth.
In this context it might be noted that Van Gogh never sold a painting
during his lifetime and some other painters of his age tossed their
paintings into the river when they didn't meet their standards, later
to be frantically hunted for when the galleries had elevated their
financial value. I have heard that Picasso occasionally paid his bills
by check on the confidence that his signature was more valuable than
the cash value of the check and it would never be cashed.
S&
Tony Cooper
> And the young man starts speaking in an Irish (from Ireland)
>accent, a brogue if you will,
He spoke *in* an Irish accent? I might use "with an Irish accent", or
speaking "in Irish" (if he was speaking Gaeilge), but not *in* an
accent. How did you tell he was "from Ireland" and not from, say,
Ballymena?
> asking me if I knew of any places where one
>could get some food around there. So I told him, "This is *Chicago*, man!
>Everything around here shuts down at 8 o'clock!" Then I consider the
>matter for a moment and say: "You could go up Michigan Avenue, and
>eventually you'll find some restaurants that are open I think."
>
>So the Irish fellow says, "Do you know how many meters that would be?"
>
>So I say (suppressing a laugh), "I don't know meters, but it might be,
>say, a fifteen or twenty-minute walk in that direction," and I point
>northward along Michigan Avenue, beyond the icy waters of the Chicago
>River.
So you were south of the Chicago River, and directed him to go north
on Michigan Avenue, and that is "up"? I don't know that Michigan
Avenue has an "up" or a "down". Granted, the "Uptown" area of Chicago
is 'way out north around Broadway and Lawrence. The Balaban brothers
and Sam Katz put the elegant Uptown Theater out there. But "up" or
"down"? I dunno.
I am also surprised that you were surprised that a man from an island
with palm trees would not want to walk across the Michigan Avenue
bridge across the Chicago River in early April. He'd be a bluer Celt
than Mel Gibson's.
Areff
> On 10 Apr 2004 05:11:15 GMT, Areff <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> And the young man starts speaking in an Irish (from Ireland)
>>accent, a brogue if you will,
>
> He spoke *in* an Irish accent? I might use "with an Irish accent", or
> speaking "in Irish" (if he was speaking Gaeilge), but not *in* an
> accent.
I suppose "with" is, indeed, better there, Coop. "In" should be regarded
as a mistake.
> How did you tell he was "from Ireland" and not from, say,
> Ballymena?
I'm fairly confident about this, despite my general lack of knowledge of
these things. This was about as mild an Irish accent as you can imagine
while still retaining some recognizably Irish features. I'm not sure
specifically about Ballymena, but I've heard Northern Ireland accents, and
this was nothing like that. I'm guessing it was Postwar Prestige Dublin,
if there is such a thing.
>>So the Irish fellow says, "Do you know how many meters that would be?"
>>
>>So I say (suppressing a laugh), "I don't know meters, but it might be,
>>say, a fifteen or twenty-minute walk in that direction," and I point
>>northward along Michigan Avenue, beyond the icy waters of the Chicago
>>River.
>
> So you were south of the Chicago River, and directed him to go north
> on Michigan Avenue, and that is "up"?
Of course, Coop. This is Lamerica. By default, "north" = "up", or vice
versa anyway.
> I don't know that Michigan
> Avenue has an "up" or a "down". Granted, the "Uptown" area of Chicago
> is 'way out north around Broadway and Lawrence. The Balaban brothers
> and Sam Katz put the elegant Uptown Theater out there. But "up" or
> "down"? I dunno.
I'm not sure about "is". I get the sense that no one alive today speaks
of "Uptown" in Chicago, but historically it seems to have referred to the
area north of mighty Belmont Avenue. The current Chicago gay district,
centered around Halsted just north of Belmont, is called "Boys Town", even
in serious publications, and FWIU that name is meant to echo the
ancient "Uptown", but I might have that wrong.
Seems to me that if you have an "Uptown" that's north of the more central
part of the city, then the default usage of "up" = "north" has to apply.
I'm surprised that you have such a problem with "up" = "north".
> I am also surprised that you were surprised that a man from an island
> with palm trees would not want to walk across the Michigan Avenue
> bridge across the Chicago River in early April. He'd be a bluer Celt
> than Mel Gibson's.
Thing is, Coop, it was a relatively mild night, as I recall, perhaps no
colder than an Irish winter evening. I think he just didn't like the idea
of walking for the metric equivalent of a mile. Maybe Irish people
aren't used to walking anywhere. Too much peat or something. To a New
Yorker, by contrast, a mile is just twenty city blocks. More likely,
they were too hungry to be patient enough to walk anywhere.
You mentioned the Michigan Avenue bridge in another posting
recently. What's the big deal about that bridge, Coop? The whole
city is Arctic-style freezing. It's not like things are going to be that
much worse for the 20 seconds it takes to walk across that bridge (= ChiE
"bretch"). It's not like it's the Brooklyn Bridge, which takes quite a
bit of time to walk across. The Chicago River is not exactly the
widest river in the world; it's really more like a narrow canal. ICBW,
but I don't think the climate suddenly changes when you're right over the
Chicago River. Proximity to Lake Michigan seems to have some general
effect on temperature (warmer, so to say, in the winter and cooler in the
summer).
--
Tony Cooper
>You mentioned the Michigan Avenue bridge in another posting
>recently. What's the big deal about that bridge, Coop? The whole
>city is Arctic-style freezing. It's not like things are going to be that
>much worse for the 20 seconds it takes to walk across that bridge (= ChiE
>"bretch"). It's not like it's the Brooklyn Bridge, which takes quite a
>bit of time to walk across. The Chicago River is not exactly the
>widest river in the world; it's really more like a narrow canal. ICBW,
>but I don't think the climate suddenly changes when you're right over the
>Chicago River. Proximity to Lake Michigan seems to have some general
>effect on temperature (warmer, so to say, in the winter and cooler in the
>summer).
I used to walk across that bridge every weekday morning going from
Tribune Tower to the Loop, and then back across it every afternoon.
It is the second coldest spot in Chicago.
The wind whips right up the Chicago river from Lake Michigan unimpeded
by buildings or barriers. It's cold enough on that bridge to keep Ted
Williams's head frozen from December to April even if it was wrapped
in a feather duvet.
I don't think people walk across the Brooklyn Bridge to get to work.
The only foot traffic on that bridge is window washers.
The coldest spot in Chicago was a seat in the old Soldier's Field at
the Bears/Packers game. Not only was the wind unimpeded, but the
concrete sucked in the cold and returned it to the feet.
Areff
> On 10 Apr 2004 06:33:36 GMT, Areff <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>You mentioned the Michigan Avenue bridge in another posting
>>recently. What's the big deal about that bridge, Coop? The whole
>>city is Arctic-style freezing. It's not like things are going to be that
>>much worse for the 20 seconds it takes to walk across that bridge (= ChiE
>>"bretch"). It's not like it's the Brooklyn Bridge, which takes quite a
>>bit of time to walk across. The Chicago River is not exactly the
>>widest river in the world; it's really more like a narrow canal. ICBW,
>>but I don't think the climate suddenly changes when you're right over the
>>Chicago River. Proximity to Lake Michigan seems to have some general
>>effect on temperature (warmer, so to say, in the winter and cooler in the
>>summer).
>
> I used to walk across that bridge every weekday morning going from
> Tribune Tower to the Loop, and then back across it every afternoon.
> It is the second coldest spot in Chicago.
I dunno, Coop. I've walked across that bridge many times, and I didn't
notice any greater degree of coldness. Then again, it might be difficult
for me to notice the difference between, say, -40 deg. (F.) and -50 deg.
(F.).
> The wind whips right up the Chicago river from Lake Michigan unimpeded
> by buildings or barriers.
I haven't really noticed that buildings or other 'barriers' have any
effectiveness in reducing the effects of the wind, despite what I recently
posted in a followup to Tootsie. Speaking of Chicago buses, I've noticed
that people like to get inside the bus shelter thing even when the weather
is not inclement in the precipitation sense, I think because they believe
that the shelter thing will keep them warmer or protect them against the
wind. I think that's sort of like how people think that pressing an
elevator button several times is going to increase the likelihood of the
elevator arriving anytime soon.
> I don't think people walk across the Brooklyn Bridge to get to work.
> The only foot traffic on that bridge is window washers.
Dead wrong, Coop. Lots of people walk across the Brooklyn Bridge to get
to work. As you might expect, it's mainly people who live in Brooklyn
Heights or elsewhere in the vicinity of Downtown Brooklyn and who work in
the Wall Street area. The bulk of such a 'commute' will comprise the time
spent walking across the bridge. It's one of the known attractions of
living near the Bridge. OTOH, the advantages disappear if you don't work
in lower Lower Manhattan.
OTOH, one occupational group I wouldn't particularly expect to see walking
across the Brooklyn Bridge is window washers. Perhaps I have
misunderstood your comment. Window washers get plenty of work in the Wall
Street area but much more work in Midtown. There is going to be less work
in Downtown Brooklyn (fewer *and* older buildings), and I doubt most
window washers would be able to afford to live close enough to the
Brooklyn Bridge to make walking across the Bridge a viable commute
anyway. OCTAE.
--
Tony Cooper
>OTOH, one occupational group I wouldn't particularly expect to see walking
>across the Brooklyn Bridge is window washers. Perhaps I have
>misunderstood your comment. Window washers get plenty of work in the Wall
>Street area but much more work in Midtown. There is going to be less work
>in Downtown Brooklyn (fewer *and* older buildings), and I doubt most
>window washers would be able to afford to live close enough to the
>Brooklyn Bridge to make walking across the Bridge a viable commute
>anyway. OCTAE.
I was thinking of the attack washers that smear dirty rags on the
windows of automobiles.
Areff
> I was thinking of the attack washers that smear dirty rags on the
> windows of automobiles.
You mean the squeegee men, so despised by non-Sandian New Yorkers and so
feared by the touristi and out-of-towners? They haven't been around,
TTBOMK, in about a decade; it was one of the first acts of the Giuliani
administration to put a stop to their practices (making good on a
campaign promise), much to the consternation of folks like Jan Sand and
his Upper West Side comrades.
In any event, though, IME neither end of the Brooklyn Bridge was ever
particularly known as a hangout for squeegee men. You sort of have the
wrong conditions there for a profitable squeegeeing enterprise. The
Manhattan end is right near One Police Plaza, the headquarters of the
NYPD (New York's Finest), and the Brooklyn end is pretty close to an
affluent residential neighborhood. Certain other bridges, sure, those
were squeegee territory. I remember reading a while ago about how the
squeegee men were trying to make a comeback, but I can't see how this
could be too successful in the Post-Nine-Eleven Era with all the bridge
and tunnel access points being so closely watched.
--
Michael Nitabach
news:Xns94C786BD4...@130.133.1.4:
And this is where you are wrong. As a matter of English usage, the
terms "poetry", "art", and "music" are frequently used in a value-
neutral manner. This is why one hears, "Boy, that sure was some great
poetry we heard at the reading last night", or "That music totally
sucked." One also hears, "Wow, that sure was some poetry!", or "Now
*that* was music!", but those are examples of a special emphatic form
(which probably has a technical linguistic name).
--
Mike Nitabach
Michael Nitabach
news:Xns94C78841E...@130.133.1.4:
> Tony Cooper wrote on 09 Apr 2004:
>
> [...]
>> I don't like Eminem's stuff, but Ginsberg's "stuff" was howled at
>> by many.
>
> That I love most of Ginsberg's stuff, especially when listening to
> him read it --- and 'Howl' in particular --- is of no consequence.
> He was only one of many members of the Beat Generation to write
> and perform what he called "poetry" publicly. Most of those other
> folks are long since forgotten. Allen Ginsberg produced something
> of aesthetic value, it appears. In 50 or 100 years, Eminem will
> have long since melted in everyone's ears.
And if that is what happens, it will be because he created bad poetry,
not because what he created was not poetry. This is how the word
"poetry" is used.
--
Mike Nitabach
CyberCypher
I prefer the old saqw that goes "Ah, that's music to my ears". But I'll
get back to this in my reply to your other post in this thread.
CyberCypher
There are value-neutral terms for the artifacts that humans create,
like "verse" instead of "poetry" and "tunes" instead of "music". How
other people use these terms is not necessarily how I use them, and
vice versa.
You are arguing two things here. One is that anything that meets the
criteria set out in a particular definition of a term is an example of
what that term means. That Plato's theory of forms. Okay, I can agree
that people use language that way. That which seems to have all the
formal requirements is, for the mass of men, neutrally acceptable as a
manifestation of that form. That works just like grade inflation at
any university, or the wish that everyone could be a millionaire. Hey,
here in Taiwan, I am a millionaire --- in New Taiwan Dollars (NT$), of
course, so it doesn't mean all that much. A much greater proportion of
the population here is in the "millionaire" category here than in the
USA. And if I were living in Korea, I'd be a multi-billionaire, for all
the good it'd do me. So the terms that we use to characterize human
artifacts (chimps also create artifacts to capture termites) are as
empty as our grandiloquent philosophical and political terms, eg
"democracy", "equality", "fairness", "freedom", etc.
The second thing that you are arguing is that in order to make value
judgments about these manifestations of stipulated forms, we must add
modifiers like "good" and "bad", "high-level" and "low-level",
"outstanding", mediocre", and "egregious", etc.
In sum, we have a bunch of words that intrinsically mean nothing (ie
have no connotations whatsoever) --- "poetry", "music", and "art" ---
and in order to evaluate the manifestations of these intrinsically
meaningless terms, we have so say that they are "good" or "bad" in
their intrinsic meaninglessness.
> This is why one hears, "Boy, that sure was some
> great poetry we heard at the reading last night", or "That music
> totally sucked." One also hears, "Wow, that sure was some
> poetry!", or "Now *that* was music!", but those are examples of a
> special emphatic form (which probably has a technical linguistic
> name).
Stress.
Tony Cooper
>
>Hoo sez the best art isn't almost always "painful or offensive"? The
>stuff that makes people think is nearly always controversial. The
>stuff that brings about societal change generally has to shock first.
>Eminem has perfected the blending of shock tactics with meaning with
>popularity. I'd even have to credit society's more open views on
>gayness partially to Eminem.
Where in the world do you come up with these ideas? To have some
effect on society, society must somehow know about you. Once they
know about you, they must actually listen to what you have to say and
mentally process the message. I doubt if you could fill a football
stadium with people that know about Eminem, actually listens to the
words he uses, and processes that information in any way. Even that
group will soon be bored and move on to the next fad.
Sure, he has a lot of fans. His fans can probably recite the words to
his songs. Mentally process the words in such a way to produce
societal change? C'mon now.
>We'll always long for the stuff that we liked "back in the day".
>We're all sentimental like that. The newer stuff doesn't seem to
>compare. I'm finding myself wishing for the 90's pop culture more &
>more lately. Though, I still love most of the new stuff; but it
>doesn't seem AS "cool", somehow, as 90's culture. I can finally
>understand how this feeling will just grow stronger and stronger with
>time. In 2050, I'll probably think the latest trends are ridiculous
>and telling young people how good things were before 2010.
Think about it and shudder. In 2050 you will be Franke.
>Time, perspective, and the
>> collective judgment of generations yet unborn will determine what is
>> of lasting value and what is ephemeral. Mahler, who's been dead for
>> nearly a century, seems to have passed the test.
>
>Barely. I think Michael Jackson, Madonna, & Eminem will be three
>modern-day pop stars who stand the test of time and are remembered for
>centuries.
Hah! It's damn close to Michael Who? now. Madonna? About as
rememberable as last Tuesday's fart. Eminem? About as memorable as
what caused last Tuesday's fart. They'll be lucky to be on a Trivial
Pursuit card in five years. You probably thought the Hansens would
last for centuries.
sand
>> > > Yes, that's because art critics are such liars, as John Canaday
>> > > once admitted on NPR in 1972 or 1973 when talking about the
>> > > mediocre Jackson Pollock's action painting.
I appear to be in the minority in this group, but I enjoy Pollock's
work. That a creation uses unconventional tools in manipulating
materials that seem to be random seems to offend some people. But I am
reasonably sure that Pollock utilized a reasonable discrimination in
his creation process.
>>
>> Is it Eminem's subject matter that renders his output unacceptable?
>> Stack against it such other crap as Oedipus Rex, Titus Andronicus,
>> Guernica, Pendereski's Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima, and Mel
>> Gibson's latest. Hoo sez art cannot be painful or even offensive?
>
>Hoo sez the best art isn't almost always "painful or offensive"? The
>stuff that makes people think is nearly always controversial. The
>stuff that brings about societal change generally has to shock first.
>Eminem has perfected the blending of shock tactics with meaning with
>popularity. I'd even have to credit society's more open views on
>gayness partially to Eminem.
>
>The one think I dislike about Eminem is that he removed the word
>"nigger" from all his songs. So, it's OK to harass women and gays and
>white trash, but not blacks?
>
Altough some art is offensive, it is adolescent and dangerous to
assume that a work is worthy art just because it is offensive.
S&
Charles Riggs
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>To have some
>effect on society, society must somehow know about you.
I could name many cases where that isn't so.
--
Charles Riggs
My email address: chriggs/at/eircom/dot/net
Charles Riggs
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The wind whips right up the Chicago river from Lake Michigan unimpeded
>by buildings or barriers. It's cold enough on that bridge to keep Ted
>Williams's head frozen from December to April even if it was wrapped
>in a feather duvet.
Ted could wrap his body in a duvet easily enough, but his *head*
alone? Even with a cheapy, non-fluffy, non-feather one, it'd be nigh
impossible, it seems to me.
Charles Riggs
>... I've noticed
>that people like to get inside the bus shelter thing even when the weather
>is not inclement in the precipitation sense, I think because they believe
>that the shelter thing will keep them warmer or protect them against the
>wind.
It usually will and it most often does. Wind chill is an important
consideration, wot wot?
> I think that's sort of like how people think that pressing an
>elevator button several times is going to increase the likelihood of the
>elevator arriving anytime soon.
If you include all cases of elevator button pressing, pressing it more
than once improves your chances that the elevator will arrive sooner,
or arrive at all. It usually won't make a difference, but it'd be an
exceptional case where it decreased your chances. (You broke the
button by that extra press, for example.) Therefore, I always press
the button several times: it requires very little extra energy to do
so, and no harm, 9999 times out of 10000, is done.
Charles Riggs
ObAUE: Can one smear a rag? Smear a window, yes, but a rag?
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>I prefer the old saqw that goes "Ah, that's music to my ears". But I'll
>get back to this in my reply to your other post in this thread.
I'd probably have liked my old squaw to go that way, but I don't
believe she ever did.
Maria Conlon
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> The wind whips right up the Chicago river from Lake Michigan
>> unimpeded by buildings or barriers. It's cold enough on that
bridge
>> to keep Ted Williams's head frozen from December to April even if
it
>> was wrapped in a feather duvet.
>
> Ted could wrap his body in a duvet easily enough, but his *head*
> alone? Even with a cheapy, non-fluffy, non-feather one, it'd be
nigh
> impossible, it seems to me.
Living in a foreign land, you wouldn't know, apparently, about the
demise, almost two years ago, of Mr. Williams. An article from CBS
News is on its way to you with the details.
Anyone interested, see http://tinyurl.com/2hhhk .
Also, there's an update from ABC News at:
http://tinyurl.com/m472 .
For the record, I hereby notify everyone that I do not want to be
treated the way Mr. Williams was treated should I prove to be mortal
and actually <shudder> die.
Maria Conlon
"Some people want to achieve immortality
through their works or their descendants. I
prefer to achieve immortality by not dying."
(Woody Allen)
Charles Riggs
<mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>For the record, I hereby notify everyone that I do not want to be
>treated the way Mr. Williams was treated should I prove to be mortal
>and actually <shudder> die.
I don't want to be harsh, but death comes to us all. Nothing to
shudder over, but something to avoid if reasonably possible.
Tony Cooper
<mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>> Tony Cooper wrote:
>>
>>> The wind whips right up the Chicago river from Lake Michigan
>>> unimpeded by buildings or barriers. It's cold enough on that
>bridge
>>> to keep Ted Williams's head frozen from December to April even if
>it
>>> was wrapped in a feather duvet.
>>
>> Ted could wrap his body in a duvet easily enough, but his *head*
>> alone? Even with a cheapy, non-fluffy, non-feather one, it'd be
>nigh
>> impossible, it seems to me.
>
>Living in a foreign land, you wouldn't know, apparently, about the
>demise, almost two years ago, of Mr. Williams. An article from CBS
>News is on its way to you with the details.
>
>Anyone interested, see http://tinyurl.com/2hhhk .
>
>Also, there's an update from ABC News at:
>http://tinyurl.com/m472 .
See? You *do* understand me.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> I don't want to be harsh, but death comes to us all.
And how, precisely, do you know this? There appear to be about six
billion people who have never died, probably (if I remember the math I
worked out once) about 10% of the people who have ever lived. If you
limit it to people born in the last sixty years, I suspect that more
have not yet died than have died. That seems like an awful lot of
potential counterexamples for such a strong statement.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There are just two rules of
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |governance in a free society: Mind
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |your own business. Keep your hands
|to yourself.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke
(650)857-7572
CyberCypher
> Charles Riggs <CHA...@aircom.net> writes:
>
>> I don't want to be harsh, but death comes to us all.
>
> And how, precisely, do you know this? There appear to be about
> six billion people who have never died, probably (if I remember
> the math I worked out once) about 10% of the people who have ever
> lived. If you limit it to people born in the last sixty years, I
> suspect that more have not yet died than have died. That seems
> like an awful lot of potential counterexamples for such a strong
> statement.
>
Does this mean that death is a theory? I hope so.
Arcadian Rises
<cyber...@e-garfield.com> writes:
>>
>Does this mean that death is a theory?
It was refuted by the theory of Resurrection
> I hope so.
>
Trust but don't verify.
sand
wrote:
>Evan Kirshenbaum wrote on 11 Apr 2004:
>
>> Charles Riggs <CHA...@aircom.net> writes:
>>
>>> I don't want to be harsh, but death comes to us all.
>>
>> And how, precisely, do you know this? There appear to be about
>> six billion people who have never died, probably (if I remember
>> the math I worked out once) about 10% of the people who have ever
>> lived. If you limit it to people born in the last sixty years, I
>> suspect that more have not yet died than have died. That seems
>> like an awful lot of potential counterexamples for such a strong
>> statement.
>>
>Does this mean that death is a theory? I hope so.
Of course it's a theory. Ask any paramecium.
S&
Simon R. Hughes
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote on 11 Apr 2004:
>
>> Charles Riggs <CHA...@aircom.net> writes:
>>
>>> I don't want to be harsh, but death comes to us all.
>>
>> And how, precisely, do you know this? There appear to be about
>> six billion people who have never died, probably (if I remember
>> the math I worked out once) about 10% of the people who have ever
>> lived. If you limit it to people born in the last sixty years, I
>> suspect that more have not yet died than have died. That seems
>> like an awful lot of potential counterexamples for such a strong
>> statement.
>>
> Does this mean that death is a theory? I hope so.
I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to dying: no more
stoopid religious nutcases to put up with.
I hope this statement offends the religious sensibilities of as
many as possible.
--
Simon R. Hughes
sand
Well, unfortunately, you'll never have the enjoyment you've earned.
S&
CyberCypher
Sorry, but I'm like so not into faith in things that cannot be verified
or falsified.
CyberCypher
Don't they also suffer apoptosis?
CyberCypher
> Thus spake CyberCypher:
>
>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote on 11 Apr 2004:
>>
>>> Charles Riggs <CHA...@aircom.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> I don't want to be harsh, but death comes to us all.
>>>
>>> And how, precisely, do you know this? There appear to be about
>>> six billion people who have never died, probably (if I remember
>>> the math I worked out once) about 10% of the people who have ever
>>> lived. If you limit it to people born in the last sixty years, I
>>> suspect that more have not yet died than have died. That seems
>>> like an awful lot of potential counterexamples for such a strong
>>> statement.
>>>
>> Does this mean that death is a theory? I hope so.
>
> I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to dying: no more
> stoopid religious nutcases to put up with.
Me too, but not until I'm ready.
> I hope this statement offends the religious sensibilities of as
> many as possible.
I'm sure it hasn't. Those that ought to be offended are too stoopid to
realize what nutcases they really are.
sand
wrote:
Perhaps, but the request was, more or less, for examples for creatures
that do not die. Some do, some don't.
S&
CyberCypher
> On 11 Apr 2004, CyberCypher wrote:
[...]
>>>>Does this mean that death is a theory? I hope so.
>>>
>>> Of course it's a theory. Ask any paramecium.
>>>
>>Don't they also suffer apoptosis?
>
> Perhaps, but the request was, more or less, for examples for
> creatures that do not die. Some do, some don't.
I see, because they keep multiplying, they are always their original
selves. The problem with that is that I don't think a one-celled being
can operate a computer. Not yet, at least. I'll pass.
sand
wrote:
>sand wrote on 11 Apr 2004:
>
>> On 11 Apr 2004, CyberCypher wrote:
>[...]
>>>>>Does this mean that death is a theory? I hope so.
>>>>
>>>> Of course it's a theory. Ask any paramecium.
>>>>
>>>Don't they also suffer apoptosis?
>>
>> Perhaps, but the request was, more or less, for examples for
>> creatures that do not die. Some do, some don't.
>
>I see, because they keep multiplying, they are always their original
>selves. The problem with that is that I don't think a one-celled being
>can operate a computer. Not yet, at least. I'll pass.
If you will permit theoretical speculation, most chemical processes
are reversible. It is, no doubt, a formidable undertaking and not one
I expect to see succeed within my lifetime, but, probably, organic
life of an individual can be prolonged indefinitely. The consequences
of this are obviously horrific but science could probably attain this
goal. Religion, of course, would be somewhat frustrated by
underpopulation of heaven and hell and a lack of work for St. Peter,
but I doubt that this would trouble a humanity offered the
opportunity, whatever their religious convictions.
S&
Martin Ambuhl
> Religion, of course, would be somewhat frustrated by
> underpopulation of heaven and hell and a lack of work for St. Peter,
> but I doubt that this would trouble a humanity offered the
> opportunity, whatever their religious convictions.
Heaven reached its quota of 64,000 a long time ago. We're all going to
hell.
sand
Anyway, the general aptitudes of human capabilities and the
governments in charge are a good preparation.
S&
Charles Riggs
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>Charles Riggs <CHA...@aircom.net> writes:
>
>> I don't want to be harsh, but death comes to us all.
>
>And how, precisely, do you know this?
In the same way I 'know' this pen I'm holding will drop when I release
it. It may not drop and Maria, you, and I may not die, but I'd bet the
farm all four events will happen.
> There appear to be about six
>billion people who have never died, probably (if I remember the math I
>worked out once) about 10% of the people who have ever lived. If you
>limit it to people born in the last sixty years, I suspect that more
>have not yet died than have died. That seems like an awful lot of
>potential counterexamples for such a strong statement.
In not too many years the very rich will be able to have, if
reasonably lucky, a life expectancy well over a hundred years, I and
others predict. Some may see their thousandth birthday in the distant
future, but I can't easily see how immortality would be possible,
especially if we restrict ourselves to strictly biological entities,
no Million Dollar Men allowed. Cloning successes could prove me wrong,
should society decide immortality has any value. No need for hordes of
new babies after a while -- it does have its virtues. But an endless
life for nearly everyone, with few newcomers? Nah. That's no way to
have it.
If what makes you you can be transferred to a machine, I suppose
immortality, in that sense, is feasible. If anyone would want it.
Charles Riggs
<a57998.no...@yahoo.no> wrote:
>I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to dying: no more
>stoopid religious nutcases to put up with.
I'd love to give death a try, myself; the one drawback is that the
process is irreversible.
>I hope this statement offends the religious sensibilities of as
>many as possible.
Why should it? It's you who will be doing the dying.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
Leave it to the social misfit, disguising himself with the names of
CyberCypher or Franke, being on the run, to turn a humorous thread
into a nasty one, an amusing thought into an unpleasant one. As Bob
Dylan used to say about the masters of war, may your death come soon,
'Franke'. You ain't no good.
sand
wrote:
>In not too many years the very rich will be able to have, if
>reasonably lucky, a life expectancy well over a hundred years, I and
>others predict. Some may see their thousandth birthday in the distant
>future, but I can't easily see how immortality would be possible,
>especially if we restrict ourselves to strictly biological entities,
>no Million Dollar Men allowed. Cloning successes could prove me wrong,
>should society decide immortality has any value. No need for hordes of
>new babies after a while -- it does have its virtues. But an endless
>life for nearly everyone, with few newcomers? Nah. That's no way to
>have it.
>
>If what makes you you can be transferred to a machine, I suppose
>immortality, in that sense, is feasible. If anyone would want it.
The only use for a piece of meat is to eat it but this logical use for
dead bodies is discarded by humans if the meat is human, an
unfortunate prejudice (discounting prions) but one I too am subject
to. So I must resign myself to trying to live as long as I can as long
as it is enjoyable. If this condition persists for eons, I see no
reason to not persist in this effort.
S&
CyberCypher
Just leave it alone, Charles. Your harangues are not going to have any
effect on me, but they will embarrass you when you return to normal.
Robert Lieblich
>
> sand wrote on 11 Apr 2004:
[ ... ]
> > Perhaps, but the request was, more or less, for examples for
> > creatures that do not die. Some do, some don't.
>
> I see, because they keep multiplying, they are always their original
> selves. The problem with that is that I don't think a one-celled being
> can operate a computer.
Oh, I don't know. How long did you say you'd been posting to AUE?
> Not yet, at least. I'll pass.
We'll all pass. That's the point, no?
--
Bob Lieblich
In no hurry
Peter Moylan
Which means that hell will have to keep expanding. Have you ever
thought about the consequences of an adiabatic expansion of hell?
It _will_ freeze over, some day.
--
Peter Moylan Peter....@newcastle.edu.au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)