Could someone explain "Sophie Tucker"?
Cobb739
"'Till There Was You," he said something about, "our favorite American band,
Sophie Tucker." His remark made the audience chuckle.
I don't get it. Is it a British thing? Who is Sophie Tucker? Could someone
please explain the joke? Thanks...
Tyrus
lstoll
I'm pretty sure he said our "favorite American
group". Sophie Tucker wasn't a group, but a
loud-voiced and large individual. I suppose it
wasn't a very PC joke. -laura
paramucho
Sophie Tucker
(January 13, 1884 - February 9, 1966)
"Last of the Red Hot Mamas": vaudeville entertainer
She was born in Russia while her mother was emigrating to America to
join her husband, also a Russian Jew. Her birth name was Sophia
Kalish, but the family soon took the last name Abuza and moved to
Connecticut, where Sophie grew up working in her family's restaurant.
Playing piano to accompany her sister at amateur shows, Sophie quickly
became an audience favorite; they called for "the fat girl." At age
13, she already weighed 145 pounds.
She married Louis Tuck in 1903, and they had a son, Bert, but she
divorced Tuck fairly quickly. Leaving Bert with her parents in 1906,
she went to New York, changed her name to Tucker, and began singing at
amateur shows to support herself.
She was required to wear blackface by managers who felt that she would
not otherwise be accepted, since she was "so big and ugly" as one
manager put it. She joined a burlesque show in 1908, and, when she
found herself without her makeup or any of her luggage one night, she
went on without her blackface, was a hit with the audience, and never
wore the blackface again.
She briefly appeared with the Ziegfield Follies, but her popularity
with audiences made her unpopular with the female stars, who refused
to go on stage with her.
Tucker's stage image emphasized her "fat girl" image but also a
humorous suggestiveness. She sang songs like "I Don't Want to Be
Thin," "Nobody Loves a Fat Girl, But Oh How a Fat Girl Can Love." She
introduced in 1911 the song which would become her trademark: "Some of
These Days."
She added jazz and sentimental ballads to her ragtime repertoire, and,
in the 1930s, when American vaudeville was dying, she took to playing
England. She made eight movies and appeared on radio and, as it became
popular, television.
She became involved in union organizing with the American Federation
of Actors, and was elected president of the organization in 1938. The
AFA was eventually absorbed into its rival Actors' Equita as the
American Guild of Variety Artists.
With her financial success, she was able to be generous to others,
starting the Sophie Tucker foundation in 1945 and endowing in 1955 a
theater arts chair at Brandeis University.
She married twice more: Frank Westphal, her pianist, in 1914, divorced
in 1919, and Al Lackey, her fan-turned-personal-manager, in 1928,
divorced in 1933.
Her fame and popularity lasted more than fifty years; she never
retired, playing the Latin Quarter in New York only months before she
died in 1966. Always partly self-parody, the core of her act remained
vaudeville: earthy, suggestive songs, whether jazzy or sentimental,
taking advantage of her enormous voice
Ian
thedra...@my-deja.com
> wasn't a very PC joke. -laura
You're right it wasn't. Sophie Tucker was a "red-hot mama" type from
earlier in the century, large and loud indeed. Very much like Bette
Midler at her brassiest.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Kpstefsma
for singing GOD BLESS AMERICA, which is sung to the tune, GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
Bradchevy
>In addition to the excellent info that precedes me, Sophie Tucker was famous
>for singing GOD BLESS AMERICA, which is sung to the tune, GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
That was Kate Smith -- another "big boned" woman.
And God Bless America is not sung to the tune of God Save The Queen. But the
song that begins "My country tis of thee..." is.
paramucho
wrote:
Well, I just found my favorite version of "God Bless America" on
Napster: Deanna Durbin.
I guess I should stop hoping for a Deanna Durbin revival.
Ian
Steve Hawk
brad...@aol.comtogether (Bradchevy) wrote:
That one is called "America" not to be confused with "America The
Beautiful".
the model poster
American singer who was popular in the 1940's,50's and even till the 60's.
MP
"Cobb739" <cob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001223231651...@ng-fh1.aol.com...
Bichud
favorite group.
Bob Stahley
: I guess I should stop hoping for a Deanna Durbin revival.
No, you shouldn't. Here in the States, the cable channel American Movie
Classics' Deanna Durbin revival was quite successful. They were directly
responsible for many if not most of her films being released onto the
home video market.
Of course, the channel at that time had a financial interest in the films.
I mean, c'mon, there isn't any such thing as real altrusim, right?
--
__ __
_) _) bo...@primenet.com Deck us all with Boston Charlie
__)__) 'Tosa, Witzend Walla-Walla, Wash, and Kalamazoo!
Ming Toy Epstein
It was a "fat joke".
Francie
--
As iron is eaten away by rust,
so the envious are consumed
by their own passion.
~ Antisthenes ~
~~
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
Beatle Intimacy: The Stigma/Blessing
CharmedParticles
>
> cob...@aol.com (Cobb739) wrote:
>> When Paul addressed the audience at the Royal Variety Show before breaking
>into
>> "'Till There Was You," he said something about, "our favorite American
>band,
>> Sophie Tucker." His remark made the audience chuckle.
>>
>> I don't get it. Is it a British thing? Who is Sophie Tucker? Could someone
>> please explain the joke? Thanks...
>>
>>
>
It was very light and good-natured fun, and certainly not said in any
derogatory way. Sophie Tucker was a big woman, not unlike the Queen Mother who
was in attendance, and the joke was not something anyone took offense at, I
imagine.
It was NOT a "fat" joke.
Fortunate Daughter
Oh please... it was a fat joke.
Can't stand to see any evidence of your hero's lack of taste, can you...
--
Women are repeatedly accused
of taking things personally.
I cannot see any other honest way
of taking them.
~Marya Mannes~ American writer
CharmedParticles
>
>> > cob...@aol.com (Cobb739) wrote:
>> >> When Paul addressed the audience at the Royal Variety Show before
breaking
>> >into
>> >> "'Till There Was You," he said something about, "our favorite American
>> >band,
>> >> Sophie Tucker." His remark made the audience chuckle.
>> >>
>> >> I don't get it. Is it a British thing? Who is Sophie Tucker? Could
>someone
>> >> please explain the joke? Thanks...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >It was a "fat joke".
>>
>> It was very light and good-natured fun, and certainly not said in any
>> derogatory way. Sophie Tucker was a big woman, not unlike the Queen Mother
>who
>> was in attendance, and the joke was not something anyone took offense
>at, I
>> imagine.
>> It was NOT a "fat" joke.
>>
>>
>
>Oh please... it was a fat joke.
>
>Can't stand to see any evidence of your hero's lack of taste, can you...
So, John was making fun of those in the "cheaper seats" as being POOR folk by
saying that they must clap along while the rest of the audience could just
"rattle" their "jewelry"?
What a shame that John would make fun of the unfortunate poor.
Allabest (from me to you)
Fortunate Daughter
What a shame you don't have a sense of humor.
John didn't mention the poor. He said "those of you in the cheap seats,
rattle your jewelry." There were no poor people present. Poor people
don't have jewelry to rattle.
Dummy.
paramucho
>paramucho <i...@beathoven.com> wrote:
>: I guess I should stop hoping for a Deanna Durbin revival.
>
>No, you shouldn't. Here in the States, the cable channel American Movie
>Classics' Deanna Durbin revival was quite successful. They were directly
>responsible for many if not most of her films being released onto the
>home video market.
>
>Of course, the channel at that time had a financial interest in the films.
>I mean, c'mon, there isn't any such thing as real altrusim, right?
Meanwhile I had a look for a Sophie Tucker cover of "Till There Was
You", but located nothing. I did, however, find a piece of hers called
"Life Begins At Forty", which struck my eye because of the Lennon
song. In fact, it's a charming spoken piece about how sex gets better
as you get more experience. One of those comfort/speed things.
Lovely voice.
Ian
Johnny Chan
rest rattle their jewelry. It's recorded.
I also think that Paul referring to Sophia Tucker as a 'group' rather than
an individual is a fat joke.
But both are really funny and healthy. Today, people are too sensitive
about political correctness and the world is not funny and happy anymore.
I'm not advocating to laugh at fat people or poor people. So, where are our
sense of humor?
"Fortunate Daughter" <frn...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:92e5en$a6h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
R.A.G. Seely
>Yep. I never quite got John's spastic imitations as
>humor though. Maybe you had to be there. -laura
That was very common "humour" then - I can recall doing it, and all my
friends too, and that before we ever knew celebrities did it. Poor taste,
no doubt, infantile, equally no doubt (hey - we were barely teenagers then,
"mature" was an insult!) - but we thought it was the height of wit at the
time. What can I say? ... I guess you really did have to be there!
-= rags =-
--
To reply by email, use "@" not "__A@T__"
<rags AT math.mcgill.ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>
paramucho
Seely) wrote:
>lstoll <la...@lstoll.com> wrote in <3A4ABCA9...@lstoll.com>:
>
>>Yep. I never quite got John's spastic imitations as
>>humor though. Maybe you had to be there. -laura
>
>That was very common "humour" then - I can recall doing it, and all my
>friends too, and that before we ever knew celebrities did it. Poor taste,
>no doubt, infantile, equally no doubt (hey - we were barely teenagers then,
>"mature" was an insult!) - but we thought it was the height of wit at the
>time. What can I say? ... I guess you really did have to be there!
It seems to have been a nervous reaction of John's.
Ian
rally tally
<frn...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> >Oh please... it was a fat joke.
>> >
>> >Can't stand to see any evidence of your hero's lack of taste, can you...
Oh please. And what about John's making fun of the handicap. No big
deal. Still hurting over Paul aren't we?
>John didn't mention the poor. He said "those of you in the cheap seats,
>rattle your jewelry." There were no poor people present. Poor people
>don't have jewelry to rattle.
>
>Dummy.
You're the dumbass 'cause that's not what John said. I hope you
research your books better than this jap tart lover!
-------------------
Bob Stahley
: So, John was making fun of those in the "cheaper seats" as being POOR folk by
: saying that they must clap along while the rest of the audience could just
: "rattle" their "jewelry"?
Yes, actually, he was. Nothing wrong with that, tho. I was poor once,
too, and I, too, had to sit in the "cheaper seats." I could laugh at
myself then. And I can laugh at myself now. And I'm sure that John, who
once also had to sit in the "cheaper seats," could laugh at himself, too.
: What a shame that John would make fun of the unfortunate poor.
What a shame not only that you're unable to appreciate self-depreciating
humor but also that you equate "poor" with "unfortunate." It may surprise
you to know that some of us don't equate success with money and property.
For some of us, some things are more important.
Of _course_ it was a "fat joke." So what? It was a different time. No
big deal.
Y'know, you people really will grab anything, no matter how trifling, as
an excuse to beat each other up, won't you?
CharmedParticles
>
>CharmedParticles <charmedp...@aol.com> wrote:
>: So, John was making fun of those in the "cheaper seats" as being POOR
>folk by
>: saying that they must clap along while the rest of the audience could
>just
>: "rattle" their "jewelry"?
>
>Yes, actually, he was. Nothing wrong with that, tho. I was poor once,
>too, and I, too, had to sit in the "cheaper seats." I could laugh at
>myself then. And I can laugh at myself now. And I'm sure that John, who
>once also had to sit in the "cheaper seats," could laugh at himself, too.
>
>: What a shame that John would make fun of the unfortunate poor.
>
>What a shame not only that you're unable to appreciate self-depreciating
>humor but also that you equate "poor" with "unfortunate." It may surprise
>you to know that some of us don't equate success with money and property.
>
>For some of us, some things are more important.
>
>Of _course_ it was a "fat joke." So what? It was a different time. No
>big deal.
>
>Y'know, you people really will grab anything, no matter how trifling, as
>an excuse to beat each other up, won't you?
I think you missed the point, Bob. Francie was trying to insinuate that Paul
was being CRUEL. I thought Paul's remark about Sophie Tucker was said as a
lighthearted fun way of introducing the song.
I was trying to make a point that John wasn't making caustic remarks about the
POOR anymore than Paul was making FAT JOKES!
R.A.G. Seely
<20001228114034...@ng-fg1.aol.com>:
> I think you missed the point, Bob. Francie was trying to insinuate
> that Paul was being CRUEL. I thought Paul's remark about Sophie
> Tucker was said as a lighthearted fun way of introducing the song.
> I was trying to make a point that John wasn't making caustic
> remarks about the POOR anymore than Paul was making FAT JOKES!
You know a joke has fallen flat when it has to be explained - in this case
the "context" has changed (in certain quarters!), and this poor discussion
shows how much. (I always thought if John was being "cruel" to anyone, it
was about the rich posh folk with the jewelry! (remember his "intention"
was to be even "edgier", though I expect everyone knew it was just bravado)
and Paul's Sophie Tucker joke was funny - even Sophie would have "got" it!
Her size was part of her act. And anyway, her voice was bigger than the
rest of her - she sang as if the PA system wasn't working!)
Bob Stahley
> I think you missed the point, Bob.
Did I? Maybe yes, maybe no.
> Francie was trying to insinuate that Paul was being CRUEL.
Was she? I didn't read it that way. Maybe your inference is right.
Maybe it's not.
> I thought Paul's remark about Sophie Tucker was said as a lighthearted
> fun way of introducing the song.
I think so, too.
> I was trying to make a point that John wasn't making caustic remarks
> about the POOR anymore than Paul was making FAT JOKES!
I disagree. I think that John _was_, in fact, making a caustic remark
toward the poor. And that Paul, in fact, _was_ making a disparaging
remark regarding Ms Tucker's rotundity (if that's a word :) ). And it's
those exact qualities (the causticity, the disparagment) that, in fact, is
what makes these statements _funny_.
All humor, no matter how "benign" it might seem on the surface, has, at
its base, hostility. That's, in fact, what makes things funny.
And thank God for that. If we didn't "poke fun" at the unfairness and
downright hostile nature of life on this planet, we'd have all killed
ourselves off a few millenia ago.
The point I was making is three-fold. First: Let's not kid ourselves: it
was a fat joke. Only an idiot wouldn't recognize that. But, second: so
what? _All_ humor ridicules something, so as long as there's no malice
intended, let's why not laugh together?
And third: If you want to pick on Francie (and I'll be the first one to
acknowledge that she baits her attackers far more often than she's hit for
"no reason"), pick on somethings she's wrong about, 'cause in this
particular instance, her interpretation of the fact is spot-on, even if
her alleged assumption of Paul's alleged motivation may be _way_ off-base.
CharmedParticles
I don't want to pick on anybody.
The press were ready that evening to see if The Beatles might be insolent and
rude in the presence of the Queen Mother. The Beatles' weren't perceived as
being rude by the "ready-to-ponce" press at the end of the evening hence my
reticence in calling Paul's lighthearted humorous introduction to a beautiful
song a "fat" joke since that word is so obviously loaded with negative
connotations. That's all I was saying.
Bob Stahley
: [...] hence my
: reticence in calling Paul's lighthearted humorous introduction to a beautiful
: song a "fat" joke since that word is so obviously loaded with negative
: connotations.
Which word? "Fat?" What word would you rather Francie had used?
"Plump?" "Chubby?" "Corpulent?" "Obese?" "Fluffy?" "Plenteous?"
"Stick-figure-challenged?"
C'mon, let's call the damn spade (you should pardon the expression) a
spade, can't we? It was a "fat" joke. John used to make fun of the
disabled on stage. Just last week I'm listening to the Christmas album:
"It's an all white policy in this group," says John; "Well, that should
cover Israel," says Ringo.
"Politically incorrect?" You bet! Insensitive? More than likely.
Understandable, given the times? Absolutely. Forgivable? I think so.
Funny, as long as you allow for historical context? Hell, yes!
I really think we all need to cut each other some slack, being that it's
the holidays and all. I know: Santa Claus didn't show up _again_ this
year, but we don't want to believe that our mommies and daddies lied to
us, so sure, we're all a bit bummed out this time of year. But lets not
take it out on each other, 'kay?
Who'll remember the buns? We _both_ will!
CharmedParticles
>
Just last week I'm listening to the Christmas album:
>"It's an all white policy in this group," says John;
On page 347 of *The Ultimate Beatles Encyclopedia* by Bill Harry (who launched
the Mersey Beat paper in Liverpool in 1961), one can read about an American
Black singer named Davy Jones "who had appeared on several major US TV shows,
including Ed Sullivan, Walter Winchell, Arthur Godfrey, and Alan Freed Shows,
before moving to Britain in 1960" where he signed with Pye Records.
On page 348 there is a picture of Davy Jones singing in The Cavern being
backed by The Beatles. According to Bill Harry, "He made his debut with The
Beatles on 24 November 1961 when he dropped by the Tower Ballroom, New Brighton
where the group were appearing on a Sam Leach extravaganza." Jones at that
time was back by The Beatles on two numbers.
Mr. Harry then states, "The Beatles became his backing group once again on 8
December 1961. During the day he joined The Beatles on stage at The Cavern
Club for a lunchtime session and in the evening he topped the bill at the Tower
Ballroom and The Beatles also backed him on that occasion."
Of course, we're all aware that Billy Preston joined the group for two weeks'
work on the Get Back sessions and is even credited on the single "Get Back"
-The Beatles with Billy Preston.
>"Well, that should
>cover Israel," says Ringo.
This was said by Ringo after Ringo finished singing about "the River Jordan"
on the Christmas record.
It seems to me that you are really "on it" today, Bob, and I don't really
understand why. I'm sorry Santa didn't show up for you, but he (I) arrived for
my family and friends and I had one of the best Christmases yet.
Take that walk you suggest and relax, and please stop trying to make The
Beatles look like racists.
Bob Stahley
: [...] please stop trying to make The Beatles look like racists.
Where the _hell_ do you get the idea that I was in any way shape or form
"trying to make the Beatles look like racists"?!? If you're at all
familiar with the passage, you know damn well that John's "all white
policy" quip is a play on words inspired by his free-association
mentioning of a few other colors: some folks blue, some folks green," he
says. It's patently obvious that his statement had _nothing_ whatsoever
to do with his own personal feelings on race, except as a _satire_ (have
someone try to explain to you what "satire" is) of people who support
so-called "restricted groups" (much along the same line as "No
Pakistanis"). And Ringo's "Israel" quip was inspired by a "protest song"
parody mention of the "river Jordan."
: It seems to me that you are really "on it" today, Bob, and I don't
: really understand why.
This is probably because you seem rather busy trying to place blame on
others. Try looking inward; you might find an answer there.
: I'm sorry Santa didn't show up for you,
On the contrary: I had one of the best Christmases of my life. I spent it
with the kindest and gentlest people on the face of the earth. From the
Friday before Christmas to last Tuesday, I heard not a single word that
complained about how so-and-so did such-and-such and should therefore be
labeled in such-and-such a way.
Then I came back here, only to read accusations upon accusations upon
accusations. And finally (and frankly, not suprisingly), to be myself
branded with the accusation that I'm "trying to make the Beatles look like
racists."
My, but you people certainly have the oddest way of celebrating the season
of "peace on earth, good will to man."
: but he (I) arrived for my family and friends and I had one of the best
Christmases yet.
Maybe next year he can get you a sense of humor and an understanding of
irony. And if you're _really_ good, maybe he'll give you the gift of
kindness toward your fellow man.
Bob Stahley
: I think that Charmed's sarcastic comments about
: John's joke were as much in reaction to Francie
: saying, "Can't stand to see any evidence of your
: hero's lack of taste, can you...", as to her saying
: it was a fat joke.
Then, I would respectfully suggest, he'd have had better luck addressing
the "lack of taste" quip (which _is_ debatable, to say the least!) itself
rather than to attempt to deny what is, frankly, undeniable.
: At least it's the part that irked me ;-)
I've always dealt with trolls by trying to ignore them (as I'm doing at
present with that sick little sock puppet who seems hell bent to shout
"LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME DAMMIT LOOK AT ME!!!" every time I enter a thread
even remotely Yoko-related). Some disagree with this solution, tho, and I
can't say they're wrong.
Let's just say that if you can't persuade Francie to post her, shall we
say, less tactful mots over in alt.merde, it'd probably be best for all
concerned if we'd just let her rant.
Fortunate Daughter
Bob Stahley <bo...@primenet.com> wrote:
> lstoll <la...@lstoll.com> wrote:
> : I think that Charmed's sarcastic comments about
> : John's joke were as much in reaction to Francie
> : saying, "Can't stand to see any evidence of your
> : hero's lack of taste, can you...", as to her saying
> : it was a fat joke.
>
> Then, I would respectfully suggest, he'd have had better luck addressing
> the "lack of taste" quip (which _is_ debatable, to say the least!) itself
> rather than to attempt to deny what is, frankly, undeniable.
>
> : At least it's the part that irked me ;-)
>
> I've always dealt with trolls by trying to ignore them (as I'm doing at
> present with that sick little sock puppet who seems hell bent to shout
> "LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME DAMMIT LOOK AT ME!!!" every time I enter a thread
> even remotely Yoko-related). Some disagree with this solution, tho, and I
> can't say they're wrong.
>
> Let's just say that if you can't persuade Francie to post her, shall we
> say, less tactful mots over in alt.merde, it'd probably be best for all
> concerned if we'd just let her rant.
>
> --
Rant? You call that a rant?
LOL
Francie
Bob Stahley
: Agreed. Sometimes we're not as rational as we should be.
None of us are. Least of all me.
: I do my best to argue with Francie rationally. She
: usually ignores me but it's good practice.
Point taken.
CharmedParticles
>
>Bob Stahley wrote:
>>
>> lstoll <la...@lstoll.com> wrote:
>> : Agreed. Sometimes we're not as rational as we should be.
>>
>> None of us are. Least of all me.
>
>rational person would be able to contain their joy
>at hearing "I Saw Her Standing There", or maybe they
>wouldn't feel joy at all. I'm not sure of my point
>(if any), but I'm happy to hear you had a good Christmas.
I happy to hear that you had a good Christmas too, Bob! And I do wish you the
happiest of New Years! No hard feelings over our "debate", I hope. I do
respect you very much.
R.A.G. Seely
>A rational person would be able to contain their joy
>at hearing "I Saw Her Standing There", or maybe they
>wouldn't feel joy at all.
That doesn't sound too rational to me ... (don't make the Star Trek mistake
of confusing "rational" with "unemotional").
Bob Stahley
: No hard feelings over our "debate", I hope.
Of course not. I would, however suggest that if you (or anyone else) have
need to express something of a personal nature to me (or to anyone else),
you might consider using e-mail. The newsgroup isn't a real place and,
while it's "logical" to assume that because one reads an author's words in
a particular thread at a particular point in time that the author is
"there" to read your response, it not only is possibly not the case, but
is, in all likelihood, most likely not the case.
I, and likely the majority of contributors and readers of this venue, read
only a fraction of the total articles. So if you want to "say" something
to me, personally, send me an e-mail.
This is newsgroup netiquette at its most basic: one directs one's
comments to the newsgroup, not toward individuals. If one want to conduct
a dialog, one takes it to e-mail, unless one specifically is conducting in
so-called "Socratic" discussion (wherein participants are ostensibly
conducting a dialog, but all parties know that they're actually directing
their comments to an audience).
lstoll
I acknowledge that you may be correct as far as the
letter of netiquette goes, but I must respectfully
disagree.
Obviously there are cases where "taking it to email"
(please!) is the way to go. However, while it's a
good idea to cc a cool-down message like this to a
poster who may not read rmb thoroughly, I think that
when there's been a flare-up in the newsgroup it's
appropriate to share the cool-down with the group as
well.
I generally avoid taking the initiative of emailing
an rmb poster as I worry that they'll find it
invasive even if what I have to say isn't negative.
I don't feel invaded myself by receiving such
emails, so maybe I'm wrong to worry about it. -laura
Bob Stahley
: Obviously there are cases where "taking it to email"
: (please!) is the way to go. However, while it's a
: good idea to cc a cool-down message like this to a
: poster who may not read rmb thoroughly, I think that
: when there's been a flare-up in the newsgroup it's
: appropriate to share the cool-down with the group as
: well.
Oh, I agree completely. That, tho, would be, again, an example of one of
those "for the audience" conversations I mentioned before. The dialog in
that situation is made public for the benefit of the "public personas" of
those engaging in the dialog.
: I generally avoid taking the initiative of emailing
: an rmb poster as I worry that they'll find it
: invasive even if what I have to say isn't negative.
An interesting concept. Utterly alien to my way of thinking, tho. If one
wants to "say" something to someone that isn't on topic or of interest to
the rest of the planet, how would one go about expressing it?
The newsgroup paradigm, contrary to how it's often perceived, is that of a
stage: it's participants the authors and performers in an endless play
(more to the point, it's a soap opera). Rather than, say, in a "dinner
party" or "pub" atmosphere, where the dialog is immediate and spontaneous,
one can take minutes, hours or even days to compose, re-write and
otherwise "rehearse" what one is about to "say" to his or her "audience"
of fellow actors and non-particiatory readers (of which there are far more
than you'd probably ever imagine).
The _last_ thing a newsgroup is is spontaneous.
IF you want to actually" know" people rather than characters in a play,
you'll be far more likely to do so in e-mail then from exchanging lines
with each other in front of an audience.
Abyssinia
la...@lstoll.com wrote:
>
>
>
> I generally avoid taking the initiative of emailing
> an rmb poster as I worry that they'll find it
> invasive even if what I have to say isn't negative.
> I don't feel invaded myself by receiving such
> emails, so maybe I'm wrong to worry about it. -laura
>
Wasting bandwidth and everyone else's time is a lot more invasive than
sending someone an email, Laura.
You've peppered the board with partial quotes from my posts this morning
- ever stop to think it might be more polite to ask me first, if I wanted
to re-read stuff that I've read before? Or just to ask me first - period
- if you had my permission to repost things I'd just posted in the last
three days?
Didn't think so.
Francie
--
"These girls wouldn't let just anyone
Spew on their vital parts...
They want a guy from a group with a big
Hit single in the charts!"
~~Frank Zappa, "Mothers Live at the Fillmore East" June, 1971.
~~
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
Moving to Ruth & Angie's Next Week!
lstoll
>
> You've peppered the board with partial quotes from my posts this morning
> - ever stop to think it might be more polite to ask me first, if I wanted
> to re-read stuff that I've read before? Or just to ask me first - period
> - if you had my permission to repost things I'd just posted in the last
> three days?
It's my understanding that you can't read posts that
have "x-no-archive: yes" at the beginning.
I don't need permission to repost what has been
written here. -laura
Abyssinia
la...@lstoll.com wrote:
> Abyssinia wrote:
> >
> > You've peppered the board with partial quotes from my posts this morning
> > - ever stop to think it might be more polite to ask me first, if I wanted
> > to re-read stuff that I've read before? Or just to ask me first - period
> > - if you had my permission to repost things I'd just posted in the last
> > three days?
>
> It's my understanding that you can't read posts that
> have "x-no-archive: yes" at the beginning.
>
I asked someone else to post ONE of your idiotic comments to me.
> I don't need permission to repost what has been
> written here. -laura
>
Of course you don't.
And you don't need to practice good netiquette either.
It was just a thought.
Once again, you show everyone how rude and classless you really are.
Especially when it has anything to do with your obsessive pursuit of me.
the walrus was Danny
> - if you had my permission to repost things I'd just posted in the last
> three days?
God Franks, this is usenet remember, should we all send you our posts for
you to verify before we send em in? You're not that important as the number
of your white album shows. My scrotal sac comes to mind, a bag indeed.
How many Frank's does it take to change a light bulb?
Just the one, she holds it up and the whole world revolves around it.
Danny
the walrus was Danny
> written here. -laura
Laura, the correct response is "Fuck off Franks"
Danny