John Denver, CNN and Ketamine
Karl Jansen
screened a news item after the death of John Denver stating that he had
been taking the drug ketamine.
With thanks
Karl Jansen, MD.
K...@BTInternet.com
Just4U2Kno
No truth in it. The autopsy showed no drugs and no alcohol.
"What one man can do is change the world....." John Denver 1943-1997
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> I need to know if there is any factual basis to the rumour that CNN
> screened a news item after the death of John Denver stating that he had
> been taking the drug ketamine.
> With thanks
> Karl Jansen, MD.
> K...@BTInternet.com
Do you mean immediately before getting into that plane? Seems like the
autopsy yielded a "clean" report as regards alcohol and drugs.
In the period prior to the crash?
Who knows? Denver had a "significant" history as regards alcohol abuse
and the use of illicit drugs.
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> >Who knows? Denver had a "significant" history as regards alcohol abuse
> >and the use of illicit drugs.
>
> "significant" alcohol abuse. they just point out that the man did not
> excercise good judgement a couple of times. something I've done and I sure as
> hell don't have a problem. And just because someone says, oh, yeah, I've
> experimented does NOT mean that he was an addict.
By any reasonable standards, two DUI arrests within any given decade
are "significant." Talk to any social worker, any one who works in the
alcohol rehab industry, any state trooper, any county attorney, any
judge, any one whose personal agenda doesn't include lionizing John
Denver and you'll learn the adjective "significant" is, so far as many
of those people are concerned, an understatement.
fgos...@infoave.net
to this rumor at all.
Dot
In South Carolina
In article <01bd6c7d$07ce14e0$e32d63c3@default>,
"Karl Jansen" <Karl....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I need to know if there is any factual basis to the rumour that CNN
> screened a news item after the death of John Denver stating that he had
> been taking the drug ketamine.
> With thanks
> Karl Jansen, MD.
> K...@BTInternet.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
JKeenan688
>> screened a news item after the death of John Denver stating that he had
>> been taking the drug ketamine.
This would be the same CNN that reported US troops secretly went after
deserters with nerve gas. Rumors are best left unreported until verified and
then reverified. Something today's news industry neglects to do with the
increased competition and limited viewerships.
JesseWndsn
>and the use of illicit drugs.
excuse me, but, define "significant." two arrests, one conviction do not make
"significant" alcohol abuse. they just point out that the man did not
excercise good judgement a couple of times. something I've done and I sure as
hell don't have a problem. And just because someone says, oh, yeah, I've
experimented does NOT mean that he was an addict.
You know, I vacillate between finding you interesting and finding you to be the
worst example of Kentuckians in the entire state. Fortunately, you don't
represent all of us...not even a small portion of us.
valerie r. williams
"The wind is the whisper of our Mother, the Earth.
The wind is hand of our Father, the sky.
The wind watches over our struggles and pleasures.
The wind is a Goddess that first learned to fly."
--John Denver, "Windsong"--
JesseWndsn
>deserters with nerve gas. Rumors are best left unreported until verified and
>then reverified. Something today's news industry neglects to do with the
>increased competition and limited viewerships.
>
>
>
>
AMEN, JOE!!!!
No 8 of 9
>are "significant."
Yes, it is. And John aknowledged that over and over and over. He never
dismissed it as a minor little screw-up on his part. It bothered him
tremendously. But, that man's selfless contributions to the world far outweigh
any of his wrongdoings. So can we PLEASE stop rehashing this old garbage????
I think John's family would appreciate it.
Cindy
Kennon Baird
>I need to know if there is any factual basis to the rumour that CNN
>screened a news item after the death of John Denver stating that he had
>been taking the drug ketamine.
They say the toxicology reports came back "clean". However, Ketamine
IS used in the treatment of alcohol addiction, so it's possible that
he may have undergone therapy with it sometime before the accident.
"Special K" is also used recreationally, but I think it would be a
rought trip for a guy John's age. If he had it, it seems like it would
have been under medical supervision.
KB
Kennon Baird
>By any reasonable standards, two DUI arrests within any given decade
>are "significant." Talk to any social worker, any one who works in the
>alcohol rehab industry, any state trooper, any county attorney, any
>judge, any one whose personal agenda doesn't include lionizing John
>Denver and you'll learn the adjective "significant" is, so far as many
>of those people are concerned, an understatement.
Remember, he only got CAUGHT twice...
KB
Kennon Baird
>> By any reasonable standards, two DUI arrests within any given decade
>>are "significant."
>Yes, it is. And John aknowledged that over and over and over. He never
>dismissed it as a minor little screw-up on his part. It bothered him
>tremendously.
If it "bothered" him so much, why did he pay untold thousands to his
high-powered Denver society lawyer to delay and obfuscate his last DUI
case for nearly three years? If he was so "bothered" by it, why
didn't he set a better example and just take his medicine (so to
speak)?
The answer is obvious: He was concerned soley with himself. He was
intent on salvaging his fading commercial image and holding onto his
pilot's license. He clearly demonstrated through his actions that
setting a good example of contrition and personal responsibility
wasn't his priority.
He even had is lawyer go so far as to claim that he had a "delayed
metabolism" which caused him to test well over the DUI limit a full
TWO HOURS after his last accident. They even tried to make Denver out
to be the "victim", claiming that he was only being dragged through
court because he was a celebrity.
It was a disgusting display, almost worthy of Clinton or O.J.
KB
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> > By any reasonable standards, two DUI arrests within any given decade
> >are "significant."
>
> Yes, it is. And John aknowledged that over and over and over. He never
> dismissed it as a minor little screw-up on his part. It bothered him
> any of his wrongdoings. So can we PLEASE stop rehashing this old garbage????
> I think John's family would appreciate it.
>
Y'know, if you follow this thread, you'll see:
1. A question asked by someone about rumored use of a specific drug.
The query was a bit nebulous regarding time frame, but several persons
pointed to the autopsy results, and my own response was "Who knows?"
Such rumors always fly around the death of any public person whose
personal life included "significant" alcohol and drug abuse.
2. The "rehashing" I've seen in this group is always sparked --and
largely fueled-- by persons with an intense personal need to recast the
facts of John Denver's life, whose fingers dance across their keyboards
to insist he was a blameless innocent to whose person no negative --or
even realistic-- adjectives ought to be applied.
It puzzles me --it really does-- that the slightest allusion to
something not only factual but obvious will result in name-calling and
attacks such as this valerie person's post.
Within the week, a woman posted an article saying her young son,
observing his mother's reaction to John Denver's death --a singer she
probably never met-- decided his mother loved this voice on the radio
more than him. After some time the mother noticed the impact of her
celebrity mourning on the boy's behavior and reportedly modified her own
conduct. The point of the post --apart from revealing the depth and
breadth of the mother's celebrity worship-- was to announce she was
immensely pleased to had overheard her son once more saying nice things
about the singer to a playmate.
My server only carried two responses to this post, one calling it a
"heartwarming story," and another to the effect "my kid likes John
Denver songs too."
These people live in a world stranger than anything Alice found on the
other side of the looking glass, don't you think?
I read Eric Hoffer's THE TRUE BELIEVER thirty years ago and ever since
have been fascinated in a morbid sort of way by fanatics and cultish
behavior of all stripes. On the internet I've peeked into all sorts of
newsgroups where such fixations and obsessions are flaunted. I have
*never* seen them manifested in an odder fashion than the elevation of a
singer of Denver's stature to the status of cult-hero. It doesn't seem
to be enough to think highly of the music or to be curious enough about
its development to want to ask related questions (which is what got me
to this group in the first place).
"Curiouser and curiouser, " to quote the wandering little blonde
girl...
fgos...@infoave.net
Denver had no drugs (of any kind) in his system. What more do you need? He
was sober and he was drug free on that final flight. Why do you think that
toxicology reports are done? To prove whether the person had anything in
their system that was not supposed to be there and could have contributed to
the crash. He didn't have anything in his system that caused that crash and
it isn't a case of "Who knows." They do know.
Dot
In South Carolina
In article <3649CE...@yall.com>,
rls...@mis.net wrote:
> Y'know, if you follow this thread, you'll see:
>
> 1. A question asked by someone about rumored use of a specific drug.
> The query was a bit nebulous regarding time frame, but several persons
> pointed to the autopsy results, and my own response was "Who knows?"
> Such rumors always fly around the death of any public person whose
> personal life included "significant" alcohol and drug abuse.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Just4U2Kno
>intent on salvaging his fading commercial image and holding onto his
>pilot's license. He clearly demonstrated through his actions that
>setting a good example of contrition and personal responsibility
>wasn't his priority.>>
ROTFL! John Denver put himself into treatment after the second DUI. I think
that set a pretty darn good example. He admitted to the public that he had a
problem and he did something about it.
>He even had is lawyer go so far as to claim that he had a "delayed
>metabolism" which caused him to test well over the DUI limit a full
>TWO HOURS after his last accident.>>
Mr. Denver did have a medical condition that slowed his metabolism.
Never heard that he tested over the limit 2 hours after the accident. Surely
they tested him right away and didn't wait 2 hours.
Just4U2Kno
>largely fueled-- by persons with an intense personal need to recast the
>facts of John Denver's life, whose fingers dance across their keyboards
>to insist he was a blameless innocent to whose person no negative --or
>even realistic-- adjectives ought to be applied. >>
What I have seen spark the rehashing is comments from a few people who
"obviously" do not like Mr. Denver.
No one here has ever said he was blameless. In fact, Mr. Denver admitted he
had a problem and did something about it. Maybe you all should do something
about your own.
Now, wouldn't that be something?
Christine Moon
>Mr. Denver did have a medical condition that slowed his metabolism.
>Never heard that he tested over the limit 2 hours after the accident.
Surely
>they tested him right away and didn't wait 2 hours.
It was over 2 hours - that's why his license wasn't revoked at the initial
hearing, because there is a two hour limit for that.
The reason for the delay is, the police waited while he was treated for his
injuries.
Peace, in John's memory,
Christine
moon...@netcomuk.co.uk
*************************************
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~moonstar/index.html
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> I am going to reapeat this again: The toxicology report said that John
> Denver had no drugs (of any kind) in his system. What more do you need? He
> was sober and he was drug free on that final flight. Why do you think that
> toxicology reports are done? To prove whether the person had anything in
> their system that was not supposed to be there and could have contributed to
> the crash. He didn't have anything in his system that caused that crash and
> it isn't a case of "Who knows." They do know.
>
In point of fact, no one knows --and I for one don't care; I didn't
initiate this-- what Denver's drug use might have been in the days
leading up to the crash. Some drugs cannot be detected at all, some are
metabolized in a matter of two or three days, others take longer, and it
all depends on how "sensitive" the toxicology work-up was.
Terbear
>
>
> It puzzles me --it really does-- that the slightest allusion to
> something not only factual but obvious will result in name-calling and
> attacks such as this valerie person's post.
>
> to be enough to think highly of the music or to be curious enough about
> its development to want to ask related questions (which is what got me
> to this group in the first place).
>
> "Curiouser and curiouser, " to quote the wandering little blonde
> girl...
Despite the fact that John Denver's music was a source of solace and
pleasure for most of my life, and I also cried in front of my daughter
when he died (and a couple of times after) -- and even felt the need to,
finally, attend the Pacific Grove Memorial this year, I have to agree
with some of your statements.
I have also seen a sort of diefying thing happening at times here...and a
need to invalidate or excuse some of the man's shortcomings. In essense,
elevating him to something more than human. I never knew the man, but I
really doubt that he or any member of his family would want that. He was
simply a human being who had, in my opinion, a gift for putting some
pretty universal, often life-affirming, feelings to music.
I only check in from time to time, and what I find "curious", is why you
want to stick around and post so often (I've seen your posts a lot) if
this is extremely disturbing to you.
Kennon Baird
>ROTFL! John Denver put himself into treatment after the second DUI. I think
>that set a pretty darn good example. He admitted to the public that he had a
>problem and he did something about it.
My opinion is that he should have plead guilty and taken his licks
which, as I recall, would have cost him much less than his protracted
legal battle. He then could have made a very meaningful public
statement about drunken driving, and emerged from the situation with a
much more positive public image than he had at the time of his death.
Instead, a la Clinton, he chose to fight the case with expensive
lawyers whose arguments eventually bordered on the absurd.
>>He even had is lawyer go so far as to claim that he had a "delayed
>>metabolism" which caused him to test well over the DUI limit a full
>>TWO HOURS after his last accident.>>
>
>Mr. Denver did have a medical condition that slowed his metabolism.
>Never heard that he tested over the limit 2 hours after the accident. Surely
>they tested him right away and didn't wait 2 hours.
According to court testimony, Denver was taken directly to the
hospital to get his head stitched up. They didn't test him until two
hours after the accident, when he still blew over the DUI limit.
As I recall from reading news stories about the case, Denver griped
and complained about being questioned about the matter while he was
being stitched up, and was somewhat uncooperative.
Witnesses at a local tavern said he'd been drinking saki with pals
for about five hours before the crash.
KB
++:)++
> high-powered Denver society lawyer to delay and obfuscate his last DUI
> case for nearly three years? If he was so "bothered" by it, why
> didn't he set a better example and just take his medicine (so to
> speak)?
>
Whoa, KB. Normally, I tend to agree with some of your posts but I have to
take issue with your comments here. <climbs on soapbox> Here in these
United States we have a thing called the Constitution which guarantees
certain rights. One of those rights is the right to counsel. Every time a
public defender or well paid criminal defense lawyer defends an individual
charged with a crime, they are defending OUR rights - yours and mine. The
State is required to prove each and every element of a crime beyond a
reasonable doubt. A defendant is not required to prove his innocence.
Yes, some defendants choose to plea to lesser charges but a careful
examination is conducted by the court to ensure that that person knows he
is giving up a right to trial, a right to require the prosecution to prove
the crime, etc.
It is my understanding that JD had a thyroid problem which affects the
manner in which alcohol is processed in the blood stream. Many states
require by legislative enactment that a person arrested on the suspicion of
drunk driving be tested by breathalyzer, blood or urine tests within 2
hours. JD's lawyer's attempt to defend the charges was not obfuscation.
He was doing what he is ethically required to do - to defend his client
zealously. If you seriously have a problem with that then you share those
thoughts with many people who wish to trash the Constitution and make this
country a dictatorship. What's next KB? Just take 'em all out and hang 'em
in the public square without the benefit of trial by jury, or requiring the
prosecution/State to prove the crime? It is better for one guilty man to
go free than for ten innocent men to hang!
MNPearl
>screened a news item after the death of John Denver stating that he had
>been taking the drug ketamine.
>Karl Jansen, MD.
>K...@BTInternet.com
I don't know why you would "need" to know this, but this ng is not the place to
get this type of information. I suggest you contact the Aspen authorities for
your answer. "If" you have a legitimate need for the information, they should
be able to provide the answers you are looking for. I have a sneaky suspicion
that this was not really the purpose of your post though.
Peace,
Jean
"The Ten Most Powerful Two-Letter Words: If It Is To Be, It Is Up To Me."
George Schumer
banished and the like for believing that Jesus was either:
a) completely God, with no human aspect
b) part God and part human
c) simply a wise, profound human being
It is the paradox of Jesus that is the truth, that is, he had all these
qualities, godly and human. We don't read about his foibles -- except
perhaps being violent toward the money changers in the synagogue -- but
instinctively we know that Jesus struggled with all forms of human
temptation, and probably fell a coupla times in his life.
Now let's say we find out that indeed, Jesus had a short affair during
his ministry, where he just lost it when a gorgeous, charming woman had
him under her spell after a coupla glasses of that great wine he could
create out of water.
Does this diminish the incredible lessons he taught? Does this change
the miracles he wrought? Does this mean that God is no longer available
in prayer through Jesus? Of course not.
So it is with our dear John. John could touch God with a song, and in
his personal life showed us how high we could aim. His humanness showed,
too, as he fought against alcohol abuse and eventually lost his life all
too suddenly in a single-plane accident.
We are left with our memories and our music, which reach higher than
normal thought. We are left with a man who showed us what we can be, and
how to aim for the good. We are left with a world that has a direction
of peace, environmental awareness, and love for life.
John, you were everything to me you could possibly have been, and if you
were 100% human, I forgive you your sin.
george schumer
richmond, ca
Vet Trek
>hearing, because there is a two hour limit for that.
>
>The reason for the delay is, the police waited while he was treated for his
>injuries.
My understanding was that the police were called from the hospital. They did
not witness John's accident nor his driving. In fact he went home first and
then to the hospital transported by a friend. If anyone has first hand
knowledge, please correct me if I am wrong.
In Los Angeles County, he would never have been arrested under these
circumstances (at least by L.A. County Sheriff).
Val
To be always with you
And you always with me
-John Denver
JKeenan688
pleasure for most of my life, and I also cried in front of my daughter when he
died (and a couple of times after) -- and even felt the need to, finally,
statements.
I have also seen a sort of diefying thing happening at times here...and a need
to invalidate or excuse some of the man's shortcomings. In essense, elevating
him to something more than human. I never knew the man, but I really doubt
that he or any member of his family would want that. He was
simply a human being who had, in my opinion, a gift for putting some pretty
universal, often life-affirming, feelings to music.
I only check in from time to time, and what I find "curious", is why you
want to stick around and post so often (I've seen your posts a lot) if this is
extremely disturbing to you.>>
Bingo.
Robert Reck
lesser charge, there obviously was some credibility to the defense. Some
people here seem to think he should have been hanged without a trial, simply
because he was a celebrity.
CR
++:)++ wrote in message <01be0dec$d8afdec0$356332d1@cw-s-laptop>...
Robert Reck
I read that the doctor is a psychiatrist in London who is researching
certain recreational drugs. He must have a legitimate desire for this
information. I have never heard of this CNN report though.
Colleen
MNPearl wrote in message <19981111192241...@ng07.aol.com>...
hsm...@conwaycorp.net
The Bible doesn't describe Jesus' foibles because he had none. If he had, he
could not have been an acceptable sacrifice for the sins of humankind. Jesus
was both fully human and fully God. John was merely human--he was not God in
his life, and he's not God now. I'm a longtime admirer of John's music and
some of his causes, but I find this whole deification and/or beatification
process troubling and demeaning. Why can't we just say that John was a
gifted (and sometimes troubled) man who tried to impact his world positively,
and let that be enough? The question I still try to ask myself in my
decision processes is "What would Jesus do?" not "What would John do?" John
didn't save my soul. Just my two cents' worth. Henry
BTW, Jesus' "violence" toward the moneychangers in the temple was an
expression of God's distaste for those who seek to profit at the expense of
others and who corrupt truth for the sake of gain.
In article <72dbu0$23h4$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
MNPearl
>I read that the doctor is a psychiatrist in London who is researching
>certain recreational drugs. He must have a legitimate desire for this
>information. I have never heard of this CNN report though.
>
>Colleen
I guess it still doesn't make any sense to me why he would ask this question
here. Certainly it would be more advantageous to any ongoing research to
interview the person who is using the drug. Besides, if this rumor was out
there at the time of John's death, you can bet the coroner would have been sure
to look for traces of this drug. None were found. Case closed.
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> Ejucaided Redneck wrote:
> Despite the fact that John Denver's music was a source of solace and
> pleasure for most of my life, and I also cried in front of my daughter
> when he died (and a couple of times after) -- and even felt the need to,
> finally, attend the Pacific Grove Memorial this year, I have to agree
> with some of your statements.
>
> I have also seen a sort of diefying thing happening at times here...and a
> need to invalidate or excuse some of the man's shortcomings. In essense,
> elevating him to something more than human. I never knew the man, but I
> really doubt that he or any member of his family would want that. He was
> simply a human being who had, in my opinion, a gift for putting some
> pretty universal, often life-affirming, feelings to music.
>
> I only check in from time to time, and what I find "curious", is why you
> want to stick around and post so often (I've seen your posts a lot) if
> this is extremely disturbing to you.
Never said it was "disturbing."
I said it was fascinating, in a morbid sort of way.
Which it is.
And I find it interesting that a post like the one I referenced sparks
the adjective "heartwarming," and a post with a reasonable use of the
word "significant" sparks an attack.
Christine Moon
Peace, in John's memory,
Christine
moon...@netcomuk.co.uk
*************************************
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~moonstar/index.html
George Schumer wrote in message
<72dbu0$23h4$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
Christine Moon
then called for an ambulance to take him to the hospital. I was surprised
to hear that part as I had understood they took him themselves. But the
person who told me, someone whom I would expect to know the truth, was quite
sure that they called an ambulance. Of course, these friends had spent the
evening at the restaurant with John. Maybe they had too much to drink, and
didn't want to risk any more driving that night?
I, too, think that he should not have been arrested. This was a one-car
accident, that occurred on private property, and that resulted in John being
injured (and no harm to anyone else). OK, I know someone will point out
that he damaged a tree. No human or animal was hurt, apart from John
himself.
Peace, in John's memory,
Christine
moon...@netcomuk.co.uk
*************************************
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~moonstar/index.html
Vet Trek wrote in message <19981111200010...@ng134.aol.com>...
Christine Moon
is ecstasy, sometimes known as E. Do you have that in the States?
Peace, in John's memory,
Christine
moon...@netcomuk.co.uk
*************************************
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~moonstar/index.html
Robert Reck wrote in message <72drul$f...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
JesseWndsn
>something not only factual but obvious will result in name-calling and
>attacks such as this valerie person's post.
ok..."this valerie person" would like to ask you a few questions.
1. Where in my posting did you infer "name calling and attacks?" So far, in
your postings, you have called all of us the equivalent of soulless and
mindless robots who have an "almost fanatical devotion" (quote from Monty
Python's skit about the Spanish Inquisiton, not from any of your postings) to
John Denver. You have used antagonisic verbiage and you sit there and are
confused as to why we would be upset about this? With all due respect, and in
the most sincere way I can ask this, are you really that clueless as to the
reaction you get? Do you really not understand? I've gotten involved in
precious little of this, by my own choice, and even I can see why. Why can't
you? And since you were the one who made the statement that as your mind
goes, so does the Applachian/Kentucky area, someone from that area had to call
you on it. Because it's not true. So, where do you infer the name calling?
Where is the attack? If you can point out your "truth," then I must be allowed
to do the same. And my "truth" is that I, too, am from the Appalachian area,
from Kentucky, and I do not think as you. Maybe in your little holler they do,
but we sure don't in the rest of the state. If pointing out the hubris of the
statement, then, I am guilty as charged.
2. And, even if you are truly surprised at the outcome of your statements, do
you even understand why? Do you care? Obviously, not, but you're not the sort
of person that has no feelings. At least, you never struck me as an automaton.
Perhaps the vehemence of my statement confused you. Allow me to explain.
I have been a John Denver fan since I was a child. In fact, I have very few
happy childhood memories, and one of them is associated with a John Denver
song. I am far too acquainted with abuse--sexual, physical,
mental/emotional--and alcholism at its worst. Yeah, my childhood...sucks to be
me. Or to quote from the play, Nuts, "Yeah, I had a rough childhood. Poor
me."
But, I have loved his music for years. I admire the man and what he stood for,
despite his faults. And after all these years, I am sick and tired of having
to defend my choice in music. "You like JOHN DENVER?" has been a constant jibe
and I have had it. And, while I appreciate a good discussion about the man,
his music, and his causes, I have come to loathe the occasional poster who has
come to be the "enlightening saviour" and "the voice of truth." There's always
some jackass who feels the need to bring heroes down off the pedestal we choose
to put them on, and takes it upon him- or herself to do that in the most
arrogant and ultracrepidarian (you're a wordman, look it up) way possible.
And when the tone of the postings is as insulting and arrogant to the readers
as possible, then the offender has the unmitigated gall to stand back and be
surprised at the backlash of the feelings that s/he has stirred up. And whine
and complain that anyone else gets the "peace and love" treatment but him/her.
OH, stop. Please. This newsgroup is for John Denver fans. If we so choose to
gush and praise, while it may be a bit maudlin at times, we are permitted to do
so in the confines of the "Family." We neither need nor want your (generalized
term, not focuse at you!) enlightenment, your education, your edification, or
your probably well meaning histrionics/history lesson on Mr. Denver's faults
and idiosyncracies. And, as I am Pagan--and have stated before--if I so
choose to elevate the man to Demi-God status, that's my religious freedom, his
deification, and none of your (again, generalized term) business. Who are you
to tell me who I can and cannot worship and admire?
**Quick digression here...Sean Connery admitted in an interview for People
Magazine that he is not above--and firmly believes in--smacking his wife around
because "women need that sort of thing." Did you stop watching his movies?
Do you go to alt.fan.sean-connery and point out that little piece of news to
them? Do you do that in the same voracious way that you have attacked us and
Mr. Denver? But, I digress.
3. And, lastly, why do you care? And this is an honest and sincere question.
WHY ARE YOU HERE? Everyone has a reason for being here, whether you agree
with it or not, and you don't seem to. Your postings "From the Mountain Top"
have been most enjoyable and take me home when I cannot be physically. That's
all I've seen you post that has not been a gauntlet thrown before the group.
ARE you a John Denver fan? Do you even care for his music? Do YOU espouse the
causes he fought for? And why do you care if we hold the man in such esteem
that we do tend to go overboard in the glorification of him? Why does it
matter to you?
You want a discussion, welcome. You want to disagree, have at. You attack,
insult, or condescend, don't stand there like a little boy with your hand in
the cookie jar and not understand why we are upset.
And, by the way, another quick digression, don't talk to me like I wasn't
there. You're not that much older than I am and I'm not some prepubescent
teenybopper with half a brain. My memory of the "facts" is just as good as
yours, and since I had family in those riots in Harlan County and I've heard
those stories about good old John L. Lewis and the UMWA since I was knee high
to a grasshopper from my family, I do have a great deal of knowledge about the
environmental movement in Ky. And it sure wasn't because of the UMWA, but in
spite of the buggers. That union is the sole reason that the Open Shop law
was passed at all. I'd love to introduce you to my Grandfather Williams and
his brothers who were beaten bloody and senseless during those riots, but they
have all passed away...due to the injuries they received for not selling the
mineral rights to their land or because they were going to testify against Mr.
Lewis at the trial. Probably the reason Ole John was told to take his Hazel
and go to the other side of the mountain. You should be familiar with the
reference. Tell anyone in Harlan County you support that union, and your body
won't be found. They feel that strongly against it there. But, again, I
digress. Don't condescend to me or insult my intelligence, and I promise not
to do the same to you. If you wish to engage me in conversation and express
your views about the man, I'm willing to carry one on. NO insults of ethnic
origin, no name calling, just a good old fashioned exchange of views. Maybe
we both can learn from each other. That's what social intercourse is for.
valerie r. williams
"The wind is the whisper of our Mother, the Earth.
The wind is hand of our Father, the sky.
The wind watches over our struggles and pleasures.
The wind is a Goddess that first learned to fly."
--John Denver, "Windsong"--
JesseWndsn
>IS used in the treatment of alcohol addiction, so it's possible that
>he may have undergone therapy with it sometime before the accident.
>
>"Special K" is also used recreationally, but I think it would be a
>rought trip for a guy John's age. If he had it, it seems like it would
>have been under medical supervision.
>
>KB
>
Kennon, you constantly amaze me. I will say this, you piss me off a lot, but
you are interesting. I am educated about something I never knew before. Thank
you.
JesseWndsn
I hadn't either. I had to look it up. Interesting stuff. Nothing I'd want to
have a "good time" with, but....
>The drug popular with young people here
>is ecstasy, sometimes known as E. Do you have that in the States?
OH, HONEY!!! Do we ever. And it's just as scary here as it is there.
LARussl
AMEN
Kennon Baird
>I, too, think that he should not have been arrested. This was a one-car
>accident, that occurred on private property, and that resulted in John being
>injured (and no harm to anyone else).
I think the problem is that he drove on public streets to get home.
He clearly endangered others.
KB
Fiona or Ezza
you. They certainly can't come in to a hospital and say "someone told
us you were in charge of a car while pissed."
Example. Rev head acquaintance of mine, totalled his car taking a corner
too fast on the way home, ended up in a ditch. Fortunately his girl
friend was following. They left the car where it was and didn't go back
until the next day to pick it up. Believe me if they'd been foolish
enough to have called for a tow truck that night he might have been
dobbed in by the driver, although I doubt it. Most Aussie men have a
great tolerance for young males who drink and drive.
Which is why the Dept. of Transport spends a small fortune every year in
eduacation commercials and literature.
So under our law, if John had got home and not reported the accident
(did he have to if it happened on a private road?) there would have
been no legal problems. (except with his insurance co. who might have
had a few suspiscions(sp) about how it happened)
I wish the guys he'd been out with that night hadn't let him have his
keys. But I believe they were employees (?) and might have been
reticent to tell the boss he had drunk too much and should get a lift.
Legal to drive is not safe to drive- I know that. It's why hubby and I
walk home from mess functions.
Fiona <we're never going to know so why are we getting heated about it?>
Dr Pepper
Gosh, Valerie. You have a gift with words. Remind me never to argue with
you about anything, because I would forget the topic because I would be
so overwhelmed with the intellectual verbage (I love it). I love the
skillful way you deliver your feelings....It would take me a year to
write what you just wrote, and even then, it would not be nearly as well
written. Have you ever considered running for President? (I am not
kidding.) Peace, Lorraine ( I am really impressed.)
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> >It puzzles me --it really does-- that the slightest allusion to
> >something not only factual but obvious will result in name-calling and
> >attacks such as this valerie person's post.
>
> ok..."this valerie person" would like to ask you a few questions.
>
> 1. Where in my posting did you infer "name calling and attacks?"
How's this?
> You know, I vacillate between finding you interesting and finding you to be the
> worst example of Kentuckians in the entire state.
> So far, in your postings, you have called all of us the equivalent of soulless and
> mindless robots who have an "almost fanatical devotion" (quote from Monty
> Python's skit about the Spanish Inquisiton, not from any of your postings) to
> John Denver.
I haven't called "all" of you anything. I *have* commented on things
such as that mother whose celebrity worship had some sort of negative
impact on her son. I *have* commented when someone misrepresented John
Denver's role in the environmentalism movement, the nuclear disarmament
movement, made the statement --inflammatory for some-- that he had a
"significant alcohol history" and the like.
I have never used any phrasing about "all" of anyone or anything.
> You have used antagonisic verbiage and you sit there and are
> confused as to why we would be upset about this?
I'm not at all confused that I'd antagonize fanatics and revisionists.
> And since you were the one who made the statement that as your mind
> goes, so does the Applachian/Kentucky area, someone from that area had to call
> you on it.
I never said that either. When I've expressed an opinion it has been
couched in the first person singular, not plural. I don't pretend to
represent anyone but myself.
> 2. And, even if you are truly surprised at the outcome of your statements, do
> you even understand why? Do you care?
No, I don't care about that outcome.
> But, I have loved his music for years. I admire the man and what he stood for,
> despite his faults. And after all these years, I am sick and tired of having
> to defend my choice in music.
Why do you feel compelled to defend it?
One of the songwriters and performers I most admire is John Prine, and
can make a pretty reasonable presentation of reasons why. But I've
never felt compelled to defend my feelings for his music or composition,
or obliged to take offense when someone points out the fact so many of
his medleys are oddly similar.
> And, while I appreciate a good discussion about the man, his music,
> and his causes, I have come to loathe the occasional poster who has
> come to be the "enlightening saviour" and "the voice of truth."
I've never claimed to be either of the above. I'm real suspicious of
*any* "savior" or "voice of truth."
> And when the tone of the postings is as insulting and arrogant to the readers
> as possible, then the offender has the unmitigated gall to stand back and be
> surprised at the backlash of the feelings that s/he has stirred up. And whine
> and complain that anyone else gets the "peace and love" treatment but him/her.
> OH, stop.
I don't think I've whined or complained about anything. Simply stated,
the near-deification of John Denver is a puzzling, entertaining and
bemusing phenomenon. If I choose to comment on it, that's within my
rights.
> Please. This newsgroup is for John Denver fans.
Or anyone else with access to usenet.
> And, as I am Pagan--and have stated before--if I so choose to
> elevate the man to Demi-God status, that's my religious freedom, his
> deification, and none of your (again, generalized term) business.
So far as I'm concerned people can elevate anything or everything to
whatever status they choose. They can wear any sorts of clothing they
elect to wear, wear pins through their noses and nipples or anywhere
else, believe their cat is Christ reborn... It's okay with me if
someone wears funny underwear and believes American Indians are the Lost
Tribes. I won't tell someone they can't pick up snakes or drink
strychnine in the name of religious freedom.
But a natural consequence of any "alternative" belief system is the
reaction of others to what may seem so "out there" it boggles the mind.
> Who are you to tell me who I can and cannot worship and admire?
See above.
> **Quick digression here...Sean Connery admitted in an interview for People
> Magazine that he is not above--and firmly believes in--smacking his wife around
> because "women need that sort of thing." Did you stop watching his movies?
> Do you go to alt.fan.sean-connery and point out that little piece of news to
> them? Do you do that in the same voracious way that you have attacked us and
> Mr. Denver? But, I digress.
No, but when, from time to time, I've peeked into sundry "fan"
newsgroups I haven't observed anything like the elevation of a singer or
an actor to demi-gawd status, haven't seen history distorted, haven't
seen child abuse ignored and the phrase "significant alcohol history"
spark such vehemence.
> 3. And, lastly, why do you care? And this is an honest and sincere question.
> WHY ARE YOU HERE?
Because I choose to be.
Because it amuses and interests me to be here.
Because I have actually found the occasional interesting email as a
result of posting here.
Everyone has a reason for being here, whether you agree
> That's all I've seen you post that has not been a gauntlet thrown
> before the group.
Why is the phrase "a significant alcohol history," in response to
another poster's question, a "gauntlet?"
> ARE you a John Denver fan? Do you even care for his music? Do YOU espouse the
> causes he fought for?
I was not and am not a particular fan of John Denver. The only two
Denver recordings songs I thought worth hearing more than once were
"Country Roads" and "Some Days Are Diamonds" or whatever it was. No
one's shown me he "fought" for anything except to keep his driver's
license.
> And why do you care if we hold the man in such esteem
> that we do tend to go overboard in the glorification of him? Why does it
> matter to you?
See above.
> You want a discussion, welcome. You want to disagree, have at. You attack,
> insult, or condescend, don't stand there like a little boy with your hand in
> the cookie jar and not understand why we are upset.
I understand why you're upset. "Funny underwear and believes American
Indians are the Lost Tribes" would raise hackles in Salt Lake City. I
*was surprised to see the story about the little kid and his grieving
mama called "heartwarming."
> And it sure wasn't because of the UMWA, but in spite of the buggers. That
> union is the sole reason that the Open Shop law was passed at all...Tell anyone in
> Harlan County you support that union, and your body won't be found.
You *know* the above is so wildly hyperbolic as to deserve being
ignored.
Are there anti-union people in Harlan County?
Sure. There's never been a dearth of domestic, locally raised scabs or
sheriff's deputies or gun thugs there.
Does everyone in Harlan County hate the UMWA?
Of course not.
LARussl
> Why do you feel compelled to defend it?
I can answer this one ER and I would bet I would speak for a lot of other's on
this group. I FEEL Compelled to defend myself when I am attacked. YES I SAID
MYSELF! Me and many others have taken so much sh*t from people for many years
simply becuase of the music we care to listen too.
I have listened to JD since I was 10. He was not HIP or COOL or whatever with
many of the kids in school. And as kids do, they pick on people who they see as
different. So I learned from early on to defend my right to be different, and
listen to what I care for. I never critisize any for their choice of music. I
am glad for them when they have found something they enjoy, whether or not I
personally like it. I have always been that way. I only ever wanted the same
respect back from them. And sometimes I got it. Those were my friends. They
didn't judge, or ridicule even if they didn't like JD.
However, I found that their were more people willing to hurt than to defend, so
I became a defender. And in defence of myself I will defend John as much as
can and not you or anyone else has the right to tell me that I can't do that.
I am so sick to death of it! I thought that when I became an adult, that
people would leave me alone for my choice of music. For the most part that's
true, but as you have pointed out, their are still people who are more willing
to hurt than to defend.
> I most admire is John Prine, and
>can make a pretty reasonable presentation of reasons why. But I've
>never felt compelled to defend my feelings for his music or composition,
That is wonderful for you. I am glad you enjoy John Prine. You've never felt
compelled to defend your feelings. Let me ask you, how many school yard bullies
ever cornered you and beat the crap out of becuase you like John Prine? WHAT?
NONE? Well aren't you lucky. How many adults have come to you waving news
articles and tabloid releases about John Prine and ridiculing you because you
listen to them? My bet would be none.
We JD fans have had more than our share of ridicule over the years. We're
pi**ed off and are not going to take it anymore.
>I was not and am not a particular fan of John Denver. The only two
>Denver recordings songs I thought worth hearing more than once were
>"Country Roads" and "Some Days Are Diamonds"
Than you missed out on everything.
ASLTsmile
VERY limited knowledge of John Denver's music, yet you come here and say things
like he was limited, and he never ventured out of his "vinella" white boy
music. How would you know? If you have not sat down and listened to each and
every one of his albums and CD's, then how can you venture an opinion of any
kind on this man's music? Have you ever heard "One World," "World Game," any
of the DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS CD? I tend to dought it. If you did, you would
know he did indeed venture outside the "safe" confines of what people expected
of John Denver.
Have you ever heard "For You," "Whispering Jesse,""The Wandering Soul" and
countless other very beautiful songs? If not, you are truely cheating yourself
out of some very wonderful music. And why, just because they were written by
John Denver so therefore they must be less than worthwhile? I challenge you
to sit down and really listen to these songs and then come back here and tell
us this man didn't write some damn good stuff. I'm willing to bet you
wouldn't be able to. But, I'm also willing to bet you won't take me up on my
challenge either.
Peace,
Tricia
Kennon Baird
>We JD fans have had more than our share of ridicule over the years. We're
>pi**ed off and are not going to take it anymore.
Please...don't sic the Muppets on us!
KB
Christine Moon
JesseWndsn wrote in message <19981112205234...@ng84.aol.com>...
>>They say the toxicology reports came back "clean". However, Ketamine
>>IS used in the treatment of alcohol addiction, so it's possible that
>>he may have undergone therapy with it sometime before the accident.
>>
John was not physically addicted to alcohol. Not only did he clearly state
that he was not an alcoholic, but I think the evidence bears out his
statement. In the last year or two of his life, he was frequently observed
sipping a glass of wine. One glass. If he was addicted, how could he stop
at that? And I understand that for his body to be completely free of
alcohol when he died, as it was, he would have had to go without for at
least 24 hours. Could an addict do that? As I understand it, John's
"alcohol problem" was more of a psychological one. At times of emotional
pain, he would binge on alcohol as a way of numbing the pain. Most people
who drink alcohol at all have done that at some time. It is a very
short-term solution of course - one wakes up the next morning feeling
physically ill to add to the emotional pain. John got help in dealing with
his problems in a more suitable and effective way, so the bingeing stopped,
as far as I know. But he continued to enjoy a glass of wine after a
concert, or a beer on a hot day. As I do myself.
Siri Wheeler
You go woman!!! I'm with Lorraine, I wouldn't want to have to argue a
point with you either. Lucky for me it seems I never have to because I
always agree. I love reading your posts!
Peace and love,
Siri
Jan Mc Reynolds
>
> >John was not physically addicted to alcohol. Not only did he clearly state
> >that he was not an alcoholic, but I think the evidence bears out his
> >statement. In the last year or two of his life, he was frequently observed
> >sipping a glass of wine. One glass.
> >If he was addicted, how could he stop
> >at that?
>
> And being observed sipping one glass of wine doesn't mean that one can't go
> home and drink a whole bottle. My point is, not one of us here knows whether
> John was an alcoholic. He was the only one who knew how much he drank or how
> much he wanted/needed to drink.
>
> > As I understand it, John's
> >"alcohol problem" was more of a psychological one. At times of emotional
> >pain, he would binge on alcohol as a way of numbing the pain.
>
> So maybe he was or maybe he wasn't. What difference does it make anymore?
Alcoholism is a devastating disease! After counseling many recovering
alcoholics, I learned that they are EXTREMELY intelligent (many times
having 170+ IQs--unless they've already fried their brain cells); very,
very sensitive; intuitive; creative; and psychic. I loved them dearly
and joined them in their struggles so that they could teach me about
their lives. My heart went out to them, and I would have done most
anything to keep them sober--and I used some pretty weird therapy
techniques. I'll never forget the client who called me in the middle of
the night, as she was very suicidal. If she put her feet on the floor,
she knew that she was going to harm herself. So we both talked from our
beds for a long time. She's still alive; she still owes me money; and
I'd still lay down my life for her. My only sibling is also an
alcoholic. I'd do the same for her, too. Alcoholics have the ability
to change the world, but "the men in gray" won't listen to them.
Unfortunately, their thinking is light years ahead of ours. My dad
always said that perhaps in the next life those who are
institutionalized today may be labeled as "sane" and will be in power.
Jan in Nebraska
Jan Mc Reynolds
>
> Get a grip! We promise not to sic the Muppets on you.
>
> Dot
> In South Carolina
>
> In article <364c97e0...@news.dnai.com>,
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Speak for yourself, Dot. LOL Jan in NE, Mrs. Muppet
fgos...@infoave.net
fgos...@infoave.net
Dot
In South Carolina
In article <19981113145657...@ng85.aol.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
fgos...@infoave.net
like. It seems so stupid to me to pick on someone because they like someone's
music. Have never been able to figure that out. Good for you, Lorrie.
Dot
In South Carolina
n article <19981113141658...@ng92.aol.com>,
lar...@aol.com (LARussl) wrote:
> >
> > Why do you feel compelled to defend it?
>
> I can answer this one ER and I would bet I would speak for a lot of other's on
> this group. I FEEL Compelled to defend myself when I am attacked. YES I
SAID
> MYSELF! Me and many others have taken so much sh*t from people for many years
> simply becuase of the music we care to listen too.
>
> I have listened to JD since I was 10. He was not HIP or COOL or whatever with
> many of the kids in school. And as kids do, they pick on people who they see
as
> different. So I learned from early on to defend my right to be different, and
> listen to what I care for. I never critisize any for their choice of music. I
> am glad for them when they have found something they enjoy, whether or not I
> personally like it. I have always been that way. I only ever wanted the same
> respect back from them. And sometimes I got it. Those were my friends. They
> didn't judge, or ridicule even if they didn't like JD.
>
> However, I found that their were more people willing to hurt than to defend,
so
> I became a defender. And in defence of myself I will defend John as much as
> can and not you or anyone else has the right to tell me that I can't do that.
>
> I am so sick to death of it! I thought that when I became an adult, that
> people would leave me alone for my choice of music. For the most part that's
> true, but as you have pointed out, their are still people who are more
willing
> to hurt than to defend.
>
> > I most admire is John Prine, and
> >can make a pretty reasonable presentation of reasons why. But I've
> >never felt compelled to defend my feelings for his music or composition,
>
> That is wonderful for you. I am glad you enjoy John Prine. You've never felt
> compelled to defend your feelings. Let me ask you, how many school yard
bullies
> ever cornered you and beat the crap out of becuase you like John Prine? WHAT?
> NONE? Well aren't you lucky. How many adults have come to you waving news
> articles and tabloid releases about John Prine and ridiculing you because you
> listen to them? My bet would be none.
>
> We JD fans have had more than our share of ridicule over the years. We're
> pi**ed off and are not going to take it anymore.
>
> >I was not and am not a particular fan of John Denver. The only two
> >Denver recordings songs I thought worth hearing more than once were
> >"Country Roads" and "Some Days Are Diamonds"
>
> Than you missed out on everything.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
CatTess
>ever cornered you and beat the crap out of becuase you like John Prine?
>WHAT?
>NONE? Well aren't you lucky. How many adults have come to you waving news
>articles and tabloid releases about John Prine and ridiculing you because you
>listen to them? My bet would be none.
>
>We JD fans have had more than our share of ridicule over the years. We're
>pi**ed off and are not going to take it anymore.
>
I've been a John Denver fan for what seems like forever. If a friend, or a
relative or anyone else said something negative about John and/or his music, I
never felt the need to defend him or to try and convert the nay-sayer. For
what purpose? To what end? Why should I care if they don't like John? How
does another person's musical preferences have any impact on my life? I don't
recall John ever exhorting his fans to "Go forth and multiply."
If someone beat you up because you like John Denver, that says more about the
bully than it does about John Denver...since bullies don't really care about a
reason, they just like to beat people up.
I am going to have to agree with ER on this one...I do not understand the great
need I see here for 'defending' John. He doesn't need to be defended. If
people don't like him, that's fine. If they do like him...great. He wasn't
some underrated, second-class singer...he was one of RCA's biggest artists for
a long time. He got plenty of respect and he earned plenty of money. He was a
talented, flawed human being...amazingly, just like the rest of us. He wasn't
a god...he wasn't god-like...he had highs and lows...just like the rest of us.
The problems he had with the media are the same problems all celebrities have
with the media. "Singer sings songs" isn't news..."Drunk singer crashes car
into tree" is.
It's as simple as that.
Now...back to our regularly scheduled arguing. :)
CatTess
CatTess
>alcoholics, I learned that they are EXTREMELY intelligent (many times
>having 170+ IQs--unless they've already fried their brain cells); very,
>very sensitive; intuitive; creative; and psychic.
Was this the Mensa offshoot of AA or something? Not that I'm doubting that
geniuses can also fall victim to liquor, but I do doubt that this description
fits most alcoholics.
>Alcoholics have the ability
>to change the world, but "the men in gray" won't listen to them.
>Unfortunately, their thinking is light years ahead of ours.
I'll have to admit ignorance here...I have no idea who the 'men in gray' are.
Or how alcoholics can change the world. Could you please explain what you
meant by this? Thanks.
Kennon Baird
>Unfortunately, their thinking is light years ahead of ours. My dad
>always said that perhaps in the next life those who are
>institutionalized today may be labeled as "sane" and will be in power.
The thinking of alcoholics is "light years ahead of ours"? Wow! Then
I guess that heroin junkies must be REALLY REALLY smart!
All bow before the mighty Crackhead!
I'll pass on that "next life" your Dad was talking about. If downtown
San Francisco is anything to go by, schitzo-land won't be any picnic.
KB
Ejucaided Redneck
> That is wonderful for you. I am glad you enjoy John Prine. You've never felt
> compelled to defend your feelings. Let me ask you, how many school yard bullies
> ever cornered you and beat the crap out of becuase you like John Prine? WHAT?
> NONE? Well aren't you lucky.
I don't know if it's luck or the fact I'm not a Prine fanatic insisting
he's something other than what he is, a tremendously talented songwriter
and entertaining performer. For that matter I cannot recall ever in my
life, even in those ever-so-unforgiving-schoolyards, seeing someone
cornered and beaten because of their taste in music. I *can* recall
kids being cruel to other kids because of religious beliefs, race,
ethnicity, "country" kids vs. "city" kid conflicts, nerds being punished
for their "nerdishness" and the like.
But not over music.
In fact that's so far outside my experience I cannot help but suspect
more than just the music was involved...
> How many adults have come to you waving news articles and
> tabloid releases about John Prine and ridiculing you because you
> listen to them? My bet would be none.
You'd be right.
And if someone came to the house today waving a clipping that said
Prine had been caught in bed with two drunken midget wrestlers, a chain
saw and a half-dismembered sofa, I wouldn't feel particularly defensive,
because I've never felt compelled to elevate Prine --or any other
performer-- above the status of entertainer, or postulated his moral or
philosophical superiority, or made of him more than he is.
> We JD fans have had more than our share of ridicule over the years. We're
> pi**ed off and are not going to take it anymore.
>
So long as some of you hold to --and advertise-- fanaticism as opposed
to mere affection for a particular brand of music, I suspect you *are*
gonna take it, like Moonies and Dead Heads and zealots of all stripes.
It's the price of being a fanatic.
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> If you have not sat down and listened to each and every one
> of his albums and CD's, then how can you venture an opinion
> of any kind on this man's music?
Y'know, thinking about it, I can't think of a single performer about
whom I could say I've "listened to each and every one of his albums and
CD's." There are a few writers about whom I think I might honestly say
I've read everything they've published, but even that can be difficult.
There are a couple of ways I find myself sufficiently interested enough
in someone's recorded work to go out and buy as many as say, half a
dozen albums.
One is to find their early work interesting enough to explore later
stuff. Sometimes that pays off --it did with Chapin and Prine and
Raitt-- and sometimes it doesn't, as with Kristofferson whose work
degenerated into one maudlin love song after another. With the
exception of "Country Roads" I heard nothing at all from John Denver
that was interesting, and some --"Thank God I'm a Country Boy" and
"Rocky Mountain High" come to mind-- was absolutely irritating.
Sometimes I see or hear a performance --hopefully live, but once in a
while on TV-- that makes me want to buy something. I saw Denver live in
1974, in Minneapolis, at a benefit for Walter Mondale. I didn't have to
buy the tickets, they were a gift from a friend active in the DFL. I
could have had as many tickets as I wanted because the party hadn't been
able to sell all that many, and they gave them away rather than have a
slew of empty seats embarrassing Mondale. Denver did two full sets, and
though that's a long time ago, I recall recognizing most of the music,
that being the period when he seemed to get a lot of radio air play.
I found nothing in that performance that made me want to go spend money
on his recordings. The musical arrangements were predictable and
unimaginative, and the whole point of the exercise seemed to make the
performance sound as much like the radio as possible, rather than
perhaps allowing the presumably capable musicians backing him up to
"stretch" themselves a bit.
> I challenge you to sit down and really listen to these songs
> and then come back here and tell us this man didn't write some
> damn good stuff. I'm willing to bet you wouldn't be able to.
> But, I'm also willing to bet you won't take me up on my challenge
> either.
If he wrote some "damn good stuff," it's a puzzlement to me other
singers didn't show much interest in covering it. A hallmark of a good
writer is the respect of his or her peers, and an inclination to record
their music, and it's one way I've been made aware of some performers.
With the exception of "Country Roads," which Denver didn't write, and
"Leavin' on a Jet Plane" I'm not aware of a great deal of Denver's work
being recorded by other singers.
So far as I'm concerned, Denver had his shot at engaging my attention,
and didn't, and I've seen and heard nothing that would make me change my
mind.
The fantaticism of "the Family" does interest me though...
Julia Park
I can't speak about John specifically but I can speak about alcoholism. I am a
therapist and
worked in the specialty area of addiction for 14 years. Alcoholism has phases
to it similar to
other things like diabetes etc...In the early phase the relationship with the
drug is more of an
attachment and there are not many consequences. Some people drink too much and
don't like
the feeling afterwards but others who still don't like the feeling afterwards
drink anyways to get
the high of drinking during the drinking (despite a hangover). In the early
phase no one knows
that the process is really ensuing. The middle phase shows some loss of
control and mood
changes, an increase in frequency. Interestingly enough, many people who are
showing the
classic symptoms do not drink daily or even feel the urge to. It is more about
loss of control
once one starts to drink. Some people only drink on the bowling night or for
football games
but WHEN they drink they overindulge and have the after effects. If this
pattern occurs frequently
over time a few things happen : increased tolerance (need to have more to get
the high you used
to get on one or two), loss of control (overindulging), mood swings (hot and
cold personality),
not following through with promises, memory lapses, planning to drink, drinking
is a 'haven',
increasing amounts.
Still in the early part of this middletype of phase a person does not hide
alcohol or need to drink
daily. The physical changes are in cravings (blood sugar stuff), and in the
increased tolerance
(if you used to drink two beers after work-suddenly you feel no euphoria with
two and you go to
three). This phase has an insidious edge to it. Family and friends notice
that something is not
quite right but it is written off to stress, a phase, or due to problems in a
marriage or at work.
The second part of the middle phase the family and friends notice the increased
drinking and
begin to wonder or consider that alcohol may be a problem. Often family and
friends have their
own denial at this point. Many people live and work and stay in this stage for
a long time. The
consequences get pronounced and usually something happens to draw attention to
a problem
with alcohol. The person usually 'knows' somewhere inside that there is a
problem but may
still deny that it is actually alcoholism. This is where the boss wonders and
may speak to a person,
the spouse notices a pattern of drinking alot (may not call it alcoholism),
health may be affected,
memory and personality changes will occur. Some people die at this stage due
to peripheral
circumstances like a heart attack but actually it is the body's reaction to
having imbalance and
stress there. Some people fall asleep at the wheel while sober but it is
brought on by a fatigue
from drinking alot in the day or two previous.
Some people die in bar fights brought on by the mood swings and so it is
indirectly related to
the drinking problem. Alot of family violence (shootings) happen at this point
due to rage
and the depression that also display.
Some people go "on the wagon" in this phase or attempt to regain control of the
drinking by
switching brands or types i.e. "I'll stay off the hard stuff and switch to
beer". This usually
backfires.
At this stage people can go in and out of binging and losing control.
The distinction is to look at people who do not have an alcohol problem:
Usually can 'take or leave' a drink
Usually don't care if they go to a restaraunt that has a bar or not
Usually feel satisfied with one drink
Usually drink infrequently---a few times a year or once a month (1-2 drinks)
When they feel the mild euphoria they have no need / want for more
Do not like the after effects or a too high of a feeling
Often get so engrossed in conversation at a party they leave the drink half
full
Do not have severe mood swings (unless they have another prob like PMS etc)
Do not have regular memory lapses or lose 'blocks of time'
Do not drink regularly
]Don't show the side effects : lateness to work, hangovers thus taking days off
work,chronic unfinished projects and unkept promises, relationship difficulties
etc.
Cultures and work cultures that tend to utilize the local bar for business
deals or relaxation have
higher rates of alcoholism. Certain religions where drinking is ok but
drunkenness is not also have
lower rates. In the US where alcohol is associated with sporting events,
socializing, 'happy hour'
etc... is a set up or almost an invitation to have alcoholism occur.
Moving into the last phase a person has obvious signs and physical addiction
has occured. The
person feels a need to maintain a certain level of alcohol in the system. This
is where a person
looks like the Hollywood version of an alcoholic--a beggar on the street or a
chain drinker. This
is a small percentage of all alchoholics because most do not live long enough
to get to this stage.
Usually the body wears out first.
Anyone can get a DUI if they drink too much on a given day. It is a pattern of
regular drinking,
losing control, overindulging, mood swings, memory lapses, Jeckyll /Hyde
personality that lends itself
to the symptoms of alcoholism and eventually may lead to the late phase of
total dependence.
Most alcoholics are in the mid to late middle stage of the syndrome/disease.
Alcoholism's stages progress five times faster for women than men and women die
five times
faster of alcoholism than men.
Women who drink more than one drink a week MAY increase their risk of getting
breast cancer.
Treatment and an augmentation of thought and lifestyle are what seems to work
most.
Total abstinence works best for most but some people (a small small
percentage) can learn to
control their drinking .
Group treatment works better than individual therapy and women do better in
programs
specifically designed for women and not when they are in mixed groups.
Alcoholism is not a reflection of human weakness. It is the body's and mind's
reaction to a
substance which has mind altering effects and can cause life damaging and
relationship damaging
consequences.
I consider my clients to be my teachers and I have great love and repect for
them.
John was/is my teacher too. I don't know whether or not he had these symptoms.
We know that he showed no late phase symptoms for sure.
John may or may not have fit into the scenario or symptoms I described. Only
he and his family
know for sure or people who were around him on a regular basis.
John Denver was a great man no matter what. I miss his physical presence on
this earth.
Hope this could be helpful in some way.
Peace,
Julia Park :)
Christine Moon wrote:
> JesseWndsn wrote in message <19981112205234...@ng84.aol.com>...
> >>They say the toxicology reports came back "clean". However, Ketamine
> >>IS used in the treatment of alcohol addiction, so it's possible that
> >>he may have undergone therapy with it sometime before the accident.
> >>
>
> John was not physically addicted to alcohol. Not only did he clearly state
> that he was not an alcoholic, but I think the evidence bears out his
> statement. In the last year or two of his life, he was frequently observed
> sipping a glass of wine. One glass. If he was addicted, how could he stop
> at that? And I understand that for his body to be completely free of
> alcohol when he died, as it was, he would have had to go without for at
> least 24 hours. Could an addict do that? As I understand it, John's
> "alcohol problem" was more of a psychological one. At times of emotional
fgos...@infoave.net
statement, and we will sic the Muppets on this person!! LOL!!!
Dot
In South Carolina
In article <364CF9...@navix.net>,
em3...@navix.net wrote:
> fgos...@infoave.net wrote:
> >
> > Get a grip! We promise not to sic the Muppets on you.
> >
> > Dot
> > In South Carolina
> >
> > In article <364c97e0...@news.dnai.com>,
> > k...@dnai.com (Kennon Baird) wrote:
> > > lar...@aol.com (LARussl) wrote:
> > >
> > > >We JD fans have had more than our share of ridicule over the years.
We're
> > > >pi**ed off and are not going to take it anymore.
> > >
> > > Please...don't sic the Muppets on us!
>
> Speak for yourself, Dot. LOL Jan in NE, Mrs. Muppet
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Bill
>
> I said it was fascinating, in a morbid sort of way.
>
> Which it is.
>
Why ?
Ejucaided Redneck
That's a complicated question, but I doubt you're looking for a
complicated answer.
Part of it's the same dynamic that has had me slack jawed in disbelief
when I first learned what Mormons and a few cults believe.
Part of it is sobering and saddening evidence some people, at the end
of the millennium, are so isolated they're compelled to think of persons
they've never met, with whom they may share nothing more than shared
perceptions of a dead singer, as "family."
Part of it is amusement at posts like the one from the woman who hit a
deer, who professed to care about them yet was surprised one would be
standing in the middle of the road on a full moon night when, in most
parts of the country, some form of hunting season has come in. Or the
lady who memorialized her favorite singer by driving around for hours in
the country, listening to tapes rather than parking the thing and
walking to actually see something natural.
I could go on, but you probably catch my drift here.
JKeenan688
<<Part of it's the same dynamic that has had me slack jawed in disbelief when
I first learned what Mormons and a few cults believe. >>
And your the one who claims to have an open mind and some of us are bent on
"bigoted rantings"? With your mindset, I imagine you would call Christianity a
Jewish cult. Just curious.
<<Part of it is sobering and saddening evidence some people, at the end of the
millennium, are so isolated they're compelled to think of persons they've never
met, with whom they may share nothing more than shared perceptions of a dead
singer, as "family." >>
I doth think our Kentucky scholar doth look to hard.
<<Part of it is amusement at posts like the one from the woman who hit a deer,
who professed to care about them yet was surprised one would be standing in the
middle of the road on a full moon night when, in most parts of the country,
some form of hunting season has come in. Or the lady who memorialized her
favorite singer by driving around for hours in the country, listening to tapes
rather than parking the thing and walking to actually see something natural.>>
So, if I take a few comments from some Kentuckians that may not fit a certain
biased criteria, I than can brand all Kentuckians as being the same? Just
curious.
<<I could go on, but you probably catch my drift here.>>
Yup, and it's time to change your record needle. Your mantra is starting to
skip and repeat. Oops. It's the 90's. Clean your CD player.
Bill
Ejucaided Redneck wrote in message <364F28...@yall.com>...
>Bill wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I said it was fascinating, in a morbid sort of way.
>> >
>> > Which it is.
>> >
>>
>> Why ?
>
> That's a complicated question, but I doubt you're looking for a
>complicated answer.
>
I didn't get an answer at all. Why is this fascinating ?
JKeenan688
>From: "Bill" <stan...@nospam.msn.com>
>Date: Sun, Nov 15, 1998 12:42 EST
>Message-id: <eCM2k9LE#GA....@upnetnews02.moswest.msn.net>
That's a fascinating question, but I doubt your're looking for a fascinating
answer.
Sorry, just trying to steal Bobo's thunder.
Actually, Bill, Redneck Bob Sloan has no depth in his viewpoint. It's just
shallow criticism of a few individual's hyperbolic postings. Easy targets for a
lazy "intellectual" like Redneck. When you make it harder on him to answer,
he'll just dismiss you with a short and tepid answer. Stick around. I'm sure
he'll respond soon enough. He seems to like to stick around here a little too
much, especially since the topic of this newsgroup (fans of JD) seem to so
fascinate him.
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> Ejucaided Redneck wrote in message <364F28...@yall.com>...
> >Bill wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I said it was fascinating, in a morbid sort of way.
> >> >
> >> > Which it is.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why ?
> >
> > That's a complicated question, but I doubt you're looking for a
> >complicated answer.
> >
>
> I didn't get an answer at all. Why is this fascinating ?
What? You want an even briefer answer?
Because I never in my wildest imaginative speculations would have
believed someone like John Denver would have sparked such devotion, that
such distortions of his life would occasionally be posted as truth, that
the guy's human frailties would be so vehemently denied and/or revised.
It's an interesting and altogether surprising phenomenon to me.
Why is so simple a statement difficult for you to understand?
CatTess
> I can speak about alcoholism. I am a
>therapist and
>worked in the specialty area of addiction for 14 years.
Thanks for the explanation and descriptions of the different phases of
alcoholism. I appreciate the time you took to post it here. It was very
informative and I know I learned a few things.
Thanks again!
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> From Bob Sloan:
> <<Part of it's the same dynamic that has had me slack jawed in disbelief when
> I first learned what Mormons and a few cults believe. >>
>
> And your the one who claims to have an open mind and some of us are bent on
> "bigoted rantings"? With your mindset, I imagine you would call Christianity a
> Jewish cult. Just curious.
Hush, Dullun. You don't know what --or whom-- you're talking about.
I've said before that so far as I'm concerned people are free to
believe anything the like, no matter how ludicrous or patently false it
might be. I once met, for instance, a woman in New Orleans who seemed
to be sincerely convinced she could "channel" Jean LaFitte. She had
that right, but then, I had the right to find her fake French accent and
historical inaccuracies hysterically funny.
As funny as "temple garments" and "the planet Kolob" and sundry other
tenets about which you know nothing.
> <<Part of it is sobering and saddening evidence some people, at the end of the
> millennium, are so isolated they're compelled to think of persons they've never
> met, with whom they may share nothing more than shared perceptions of a dead
> singer, as "family." >>
>
> I doth think our Kentucky scholar doth look to hard.
No he doth but readeth about a third of the postings marked "FAMILY."
> <<Part of it is amusement at posts like the one from the woman who hit a deer,
> who professed to care about them yet was surprised one would be standing in the
> middle of the road on a full moon night when, in most parts of the country,
> some form of hunting season has come in. Or the lady who memorialized her
> favorite singer by driving around for hours in the country, listening to tapes
> rather than parking the thing and walking to actually see something natural.>>
>
> So, if I take a few comments from some Kentuckians that may not fit a certain
> biased criteria, I than can brand all Kentuckians as being the same? Just
> curious.
I've never said *every* denizen of this newsgroup is ignorant of the
habits of animals about which they profess to care deeply, or that *all*
persons regularly posting to this group are so myopic as to spend hours
spewing carbon monoxide into the air so as to memorialize their favorite
environmentalist. Not *all* persons posting to this group are so
self-centered as to allow their grief over a dead entertainer to impact
the mental health of a small child, or so insensitive as to label such
an event "heartwarming."
But clearly, some *are*.
And there's little or no comment about it.
Bill
>
> What? You want an even briefer answer?
>
> Because I never in my wildest imaginative speculations would have
>believed someone like John Denver would have sparked such devotion, that
>such distortions of his life would occasionally be posted as truth, that
>the guy's human frailties would be so vehemently denied and/or revised.
>
> It's an interesting and altogether surprising phenomenon to me.
>
> Why is so simple a statement difficult for you to understand?
Why is it so surprising - the same is true of just about every public
figure. Given that your entire presence on this newgroup is predicated on
this central "fascination" I am amazed that a person who seems to be as
intelligent as you could be so naive.
Unless, of course, you aren't really fascinated in the "public
persona/private person" thing (and how we've all been sucked in by the
former) but have another agenda....
JDNVR
You keep saying that you find our admiration of and grief over the death of
John Denver fascinating. I don't care why this is. What I can't help but
wonder though, is why are you here? Are you here to learn why these things are
so? If you want to learn from us then we welcome that. But surely you are
aware that we are going to be much more willing to share information with you
if you treat us with respect rather than ridicule.
Also, in case you don't remember, I'm the woman who 'risked my son's mental
health' because of my deep feelings over John's death. On this subject, first
let me say that you are in no position to comment on my family. Even though I
feel that it is none of your business, I will say that my son is, and always
has been, just fine. He is an only child who has admittedly been doted on by
his father and I - we waited 11 years for him to come into our lives and we do
have a tendency to give him a little too much attention at times. This is what
resulted in his comments about my feelings about John - he doesn't like not
being the center of attention, something that is common for any 6 yr old.
However, I still felt the need to internalize my feelings about John. My son
wasn't the only one who was having a hard time understanding and I was tired of
dealing with everyone else.
And one more point before I go -
>As funny as "temple garments" and "the planet Kolob" and sundry other
>tenets about which you know nothing.
I am Mormon also. And none of the beliefs that I hold dear, that you seem to
find the need to ridicule, are meant to be for your own personal amusement.
As I said, if you are truly looking for knowledge, try using respect.
Debbie
Julia Park
Thanks for your comments.
With alcoholism it is sort of a paradox.
On the one hand our society is very quick to label and diagnose alot of things. We
judge alot and
at the same time we also make excuses alot.
With addiction though, we tend to be in denial about ourselves but part of that
comes out of a
misunderstanding of addiction. We get that old Hollywood image of a guy with a
bottle in a paper
bag wandering in the streets or a woman prostituting and if we don't have the
problem to that
degree then we sumise that we don't have the problem at all.
Where it really gets confusing is with DUI's. Anyone can get a DUI -alcoholic or
not alcoholic.
I had many clients who were alcoholic without getting DUI's but, it was true that
only a small
percentage of my clients (referred by the courts) for DUI's were not alcoholic. A
large part of
that is that they were on their 2nd or 3rd DUI before I got them as a client. If
you are not an
alcoholic and you get a 2nd DUI that is amazing because you would have gotten info
about
blood alcohol levels and have the ability to control alcohol intake etc... Let me
just say though,
that in John's second DUI there were such outrageous circumstances involved and
that was
not a typical DUI case at all. Firstly in that he was not stopped by police and
given a breathalizer
etc...
Back on the topic though-in DUI's the courts use terminology to imply alcoholism
often as a
defense for the lack of judgement in overindulging in the first place. That has
sort of carried over
into the societal view and there is sort of a given assumption that a DUI implies a
possible problem
with alcohol. Sometimes it is just due to lack of knowledge.
One huge mistake that people make is that they think 'drunk driving' is soley about
swirving and
appearing 'drunk'. In legal arenas drunk driving is mostly about blood alcohol
levels and that alone
can get you a DUI. You can drive straight, recite the alphabet backwards
-correctly, and if you have
an illegal blood alcohol level you can get a DUI, arrested, charged and convicted.
In most states, if you are of average size and weight the recommended amount to
drink is
1 drink within about 90 minutes if you are a woman and 2 if you are a guy. If you
do more than
that and within an hour or two have to drive -you can get a DUI. Eating food helps
you out.
Drinking over a long evening makes it worse. The liver can only metabolize 1 drink
per hour.
If you have more than one drink per hour it takes the liver twice as long to work
it through your
system. That is why you can stop drinking at 8p.m. but if you drank 3 or 4 since
6p.m. the alcohol
is still running through your blood stream and you will fail a breathalizer even if
you don't 'feel'
drunk. In the time frame of 6-8 p.m. I'd recommend having 2 beers/glasses of win/or
mixed
drinks and no more than that to avoid DUI. If you are 100lbs or less-drink even
less.
So, given that, a person who drinks once a year at a Christmas party can get a DUI
if they
do not do it(drink alcohol) within the recommended amounts.
I hope I was helpful.
Best Wishes,
Julia Park :)
JesseWndsn wrote:
> Julia, thanks for the lesson. I have a question, if you don't mind.
> Because you're involved in this quite extensively, and have the practical
> expertise....
>
> After dealing with so many, do you think we as society tend to go overboard on
> this subject, though? It seems that we presume a problem when often there
> isn't one. Or, at least, given the predilection of how we treat our children
> and the "ADD" situation, I wonder if we do the same for the alchohol situation.
> With ADD, if a child is bored, the child is labeled ADD...whether the child is
> or not. It seems an easier way to go than admit that maybe the child is just
> that, BORED.
>
> I'm wondering if a man with 2 DUI arrests is labeled an alcoholic simply for
> possessing bad judgment in getting behind the wheel when he shouldn't have.
> So, we label it an alcohol problem because it's easier than admitting that he
> practiced bad judgment. Gives an "excuse" so to speak.
>
> I hope that made sense. Thanks for any answer you can give me.
>
> valerie r. williams
> "The wind is the whisper of our Mother, the Earth.
> The wind is hand of our Father, the sky.
> The wind watches over our struggles and pleasures.
> The wind is a Goddess that first learned to fly."
> --John Denver, "Windsong"--
JesseWndsn
>
>Debbie
well spoken, Debbie. I am sorry that this "gentleman" said something that hurt
you. We Kentuckians, for the majority, are not that tactless. We do, as a
majority, tend to practice Southern Gentility and display a regard for other's
feelings.
Please take his thoughtless remarks for what they were and do not hold them
against the rest of us. There are far too many from my Home State that would
be appalled at his insensitivity and disrespect.
JesseWndsn
Because you're involved in this quite extensively, and have the practical
expertise....
After dealing with so many, do you think we as society tend to go overboard on
this subject, though? It seems that we presume a problem when often there
isn't one. Or, at least, given the predilection of how we treat our children
and the "ADD" situation, I wonder if we do the same for the alchohol situation.
With ADD, if a child is bored, the child is labeled ADD...whether the child is
or not. It seems an easier way to go than admit that maybe the child is just
that, BORED.
I'm wondering if a man with 2 DUI arrests is labeled an alcoholic simply for
possessing bad judgment in getting behind the wheel when he shouldn't have.
So, we label it an alcohol problem because it's easier than admitting that he
practiced bad judgment. Gives an "excuse" so to speak.
I hope that made sense. Thanks for any answer you can give me.
JKeenan688
>And one more point before I go -
>
>>As funny as "temple garments" and "the planet Kolob" and sundry other
>>tenets about which you know nothing.
>
>I am Mormon also. And none of the beliefs that I hold dear, that you seem to
>find the need to ridicule, are meant to be for your own personal amusement.
>
>
Bob Sloan, Ejucaided Redneck, is simply amazing. Disagree with the cranky ol'
fraud and you are accused of "bigoted rantings". What would we call his comment
about the Mormon religion?
Bob, explain to us how making a nasty comment regarding the Mormon religion is
not bigoted. And, Bob, you would be surprised how much I and others know about
the Mormon religion.
Ejucaided Redneck
>> Because I never in my wildest imaginative speculations would have
> >believed someone like John Denver would have sparked such devotion, that
> >such distortions of his life would occasionally be posted as truth, that
> >the guy's human frailties would be so vehemently denied and/or revised.
> >
> > It's an interesting and altogether surprising phenomenon to me.
> >
> > Why is so simple a statement difficult for you to understand?
>
> Why is it so surprising - the same is true of just about every public
> figure.
The elevation of John Denver to the place where some on this newsgroup
hold him is hardly true of "just about every public figure."
> Given that your entire presence on this newgroup is predicated on
> this central "fascination" I am amazed that a person who seems to be as
> intelligent as you could be so naive.
"Naive" is a word hardly ever applied to me, though in this instance
--the "John Denver as avatar, spiritual leader and role model"
phenomenon-- I suppose it's apt.
> Unless, of course, you aren't really fascinated in the "public
> persona/private person" thing (and how we've all been sucked in by the
> former) but have another agenda....
What's with this word "agenda" which seems to crop up so often in
response to postings from persons critical of "the phenomenon?" What
"agenda" could anyone possibly bring to a newsgroup, other than
transitory amusement, curiosity, that sort of thing. The implication
that there's "another agenda" assumes there could be other reasons for
my reading this newsgroup, other than what I've explained in other
posts. I can't imagine what they could be.
Ejucaided Redneck
>
> ER -
>
> You keep saying that you find our admiration of and grief over the death of
> John Denver fascinating.
Not just admiration, and not just "grief." If you've read my posts you
know I'm reacting to far more than admiration or grief.
> What I can't help but wonder though, is why are you here?
And that's been answered in other posts too. Short answer is "because
I choose to be, because this interests me."
> Also, in case you don't remember, I'm the woman who 'risked my son's mental
> health' because of my deep feelings over John's death.
Is "risked my son's mental health" a direct quote from one of my
posts? Seems to me I used phrasing indicating insensitivity,
self-centeredness, those kinds of things.
> On this subject, first let me say that you are in no position to comment
> on my family.
In truth I am in *just* such a position. That's what usenet is, a
place where people can comment, positively or negatively, in open
newsgroups on what others have written. You wrote about your family;
that puts me in a position to comment on it, and if I didn't --and
don't-- find the story "heartwarming," as someone else did, them's the
breaks.
> Even though I feel that it is none of your business,
> I will say that my son is, and always has been, just fine.
That's good to hear.
You nevertheless said in your post the boy thought, for at least a
while, that his mother loved a dead entertainer more than she loved
him. I'm not making that up.
> And one more point before I go -
>
> >As funny as "temple garments" and "the planet Kolob" and sundry other
> >tenets about which you know nothing.
Just what I've read, and what those who've left the church have told
me... Oh, and the occasional door-to-door missionary... They can be
interesting and informative, sometimes unintentionally so.
> I am Mormon also. And none of the beliefs that I hold dear, that you seem to
> find the need to ridicule, are meant to be for your own personal amusement.
Neither is the Republican Party.
Or the Kentucky State Legislature.
Or Ted Kennedy.
Neither was J. Edgar Hoover.
Nevertheless, amusement is where one finds it.
Ejucaided Redneck
>
>
> Bob, explain to us how making a nasty comment regarding the Mormon religion is
> not bigoted. And, Bob, you would be surprised how much I and others know about
> the Mormon religion.
It's the difference between making a comment about the Mormon religion
and making a comment about Mormons.
I know that's a subtle concept for you to grasp, Dullun, but
nevertheless, there it is.
There are broader concepts that come to bear, like whether or not one
supports the right of others to believe anything they want, and that
sort of thing, but the above is probably enough to keep you occupied for
a time.
Debbie Rose
Karl Jansen wrote:
> I need to know if there is any factual basis to the rumour that CNN
> screened a news item after the death of John Denver stating that he had
> been taking the drug ketamine.
> With thanks
> Karl Jansen, MD.
> K...@BTInternet.com
Karl,
Don't know if this is true, but as a long time veterinary technician I know
this drug to be a
paralytic, commonly used in feline anesthesia. Can't imagine why John or
anyone else would be taking it.Debbie
CKenney194
>this drug to be a
>paralytic, commonly used in feline anesthesia. Can't imagine why John or
>anyone else would be taking it
I have seen it put a 1200 lb. horse completely out, on the ground in about 5
seconds. They use it before surgery.
Peace,
Carole
JesseWndsn
Al-anon. Or maybe I just missed the right teacher.
Julia Park
I'm happy to be able to share that stuff with you.
Sincerely,
Julia :)
JesseWndsn wrote:
> Julia, thank you again. This is stuff they sure don't always teach in
> Al-anon. Or maybe I just missed the right teacher.
>