Larry Norman
RBlake6279
I think you would like Larry Norman. He is blunt and not afraid to be
controversial in his music. He uses words which no one in CCM would ever
use. Musically, it music from the 70's accoustic guitar and 60's rock in
Roll.
Paul McCartney says he is the best lyricist of this generation.........no
lie!!
Check him out sometime.
Rob
RBl...@aol.com
"Momma bought a chicken she thought it was a duck, she put it on the table
with its legs sticking up".....Larry Norman
T. Roll
>
>Paul McCartney says he is the best lyricist of this generation.......no
>lie!!
Is this like Jimi Hendrix proclaiming Phil Keaggy to be the Best Guitar
Player In The World? (Just imagine if Phil and Larry were to get
together...The world's greatest guitarist with the world's best
lyricist! Whatta thought...)
>Rob
T.
Chip Howard
: Paul McCartney says he is the best lyricist of this generation.........no
: lie!!
Well, I agree that Larry Norman is a great writer, however just reading
that Paul McCartney praised him would keep me from listening to him ;)
Thank God for Yoko Uno (howver she spells her name).
-Chip
------------------------------------
I read the book of Job last night- |
I don't think God comes well out |
of it. |
-Virginia Woolf |
|
cho...@salus.med.uvm.edu |
cho...@moose.uvm.edu |
------------------------------------
walter gorlitz
>Jerry:
>I think you would like Larry Norman. He is blunt and not afraid to be
>controversial in his music. He uses words which no one in CCM would ever
>use. Musically, it music from the 70's accoustic guitar and 60's rock in
>Roll.
>Paul McCartney says he is the best lyricist of this generation.........no
>lie!!
Was this in a personal conversation you had with Paul, or is it something
you heard. If it's something you read, please tell me where. I would love
to know this sort of thing.
I think it's actually more like the legends that have surrouned Phil Keaggy.
The first one is that <fill in your favourite "world's greatest
guitarist"'s name here. Usually either Hendrix or Clapton> was being
interviewed on <fill in talkshow name here>.
The interviewer asks "What's it like being the world's greatest guitarist?"
The guitarist responds "I don't know. You'll have to ask Phil Keaggy."
The other legend is that Phil, who is missing a finger on his right hand
(I think it's his ring finger)
1) cut it off in a drug induced frenzy
2) cut it off as part of a wager
A) was a left handed guitarist until it happened and had to learn to play
the other way.
Actually, it was cut of at an early age when it caught in a manual water
pump near his home in Ohio. He had not learned how to play guitar yet.
>Check him out sometime.
>Rob
>RBl...@aol.com
>"Momma bought a chicken she thought it was a duck, she put it on the table
>with its legs sticking up".....Larry Norman
--------------------------------------------------------------
| walter gorlitz | "The Christian life is about |
| Vancouver, BC, Canada | the beginning of hope, |
| walter_...@mindlink.bc.ca | not the end of struggle." |
| or CIS:70404,416 | Brent Bourgeois |
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Weigel
: Jerry:
: I think you would like Larry Norman. He is blunt and not afraid to be
: controversial in his music. He uses words which no one in CCM would ever
: use. Musically, it music from the 70's accoustic guitar and 60's rock in
: Roll.
: Paul McCartney says he is the best lyricist of this generation.........no
: lie!!
Bob Weigel
: RBlake6279 (rblak...@aol.com) wrote:
: : Paul McCartney says he is the best lyricist of this generation.........no
: : lie!!
: Well, I agree that Larry Norman is a great writer, however just reading
: that Paul McCartney praised him would keep me from listening to him ;)
: Thank God for Yoko Uno (howver she spells her name).
: -Chip
Hehhe... Well, I assure you, Larry and Paul are NOT on any kind of
mutual relationship here..... Larry over pizza: "Ahhh, I think Paul's
music really reflects the amount of pot he smokes....it makes you
really lazy..." (Sorry I can't recall the exact words, but I definately
captured the heart of the statement.)...now what did Yuko-Ohno have to
do with this? -Bob
Ed Rock
> Paul McCartney says he is the best lyricist of this generation.........no
> lie!!
Hellllllo!?!
I wanna see the cards. Can you say DOCUMENTATION?
Ed Rock | "That's life.
aka Ed Crabtree | Get over it."
ercr...@email.unc.edu | --Ojo Taylor
Ed Rocks the Web http://ecsvax.uncecs.edu/~ecrab/
Ed Rock
> Ed Rock <ercr...@email.unc.edu> writes in response to someone:
>
> >> Paul McCartney says he is the best lyricist of this generation.........no
> >> lie!!
>
> >Hellllllo!?!
> >
> >I wanna see the cards. Can you say DOCUMENTATION?
>
> Well, it's not documentation per se, more like hearsay, but the first and only
> time I've heard this was from one of Larry's albums.
[snip]
> The album liner, or the other material that came with the LPs (interviews,
> etc.), contained a quote to the effect that Paul McCartney said LN could have
> really gone somewhere if he wasn't writing songs about Jesus.
This is quite a different thing than saying Larry Norman is "the best
lyricist of this generation." Further, the quote, being from one of the
_Trilogy_ albums would have to be, at the very least, about 18 years
old. It is therefor highly unlikely that Mr. McCartney still feels this
way, as the the quote above implies. If it were true, it is time for Mr.
McCartney to hear the lyrics of Bruce Cockburn or Pierce Pettis (or
countless others). (Of course, Mr. McCartney, as much as I love his
music, is not one to have written some of the best lyrics.)
> Another
> quotation cited _Billboard_ as saying LN was the best songwriter since Paul
> Simon.
Now, there's an honor.
> Sorry I can't be any more specific than this, but obviously I returned the LPs
> three years ago. 8-) But this McCartney claim came, directly or indirectly,
> from Larry Norman himself.
Surprised?
Scott A. McClare
>> Paul McCartney says he is the best lyricist of this generation.........no
>> lie!!
>Hellllllo!?!
>
>I wanna see the cards. Can you say DOCUMENTATION?
Well, it's not documentation per se, more like hearsay, but the first and only
time I've heard this was from one of Larry's albums.
The first time I heard LN, I had borrowed all three Trilogy albums from a
friend of mine, who is 10 years older than me and bought them when they were
first released.
The album liner, or the other material that came with the LPs (interviews,
etc.), contained a quote to the effect that Paul McCartney said LN could have
really gone somewhere if he wasn't writing songs about Jesus. Another
quotation cited _Billboard_ as saying LN was the best songwriter since Paul
Simon.
Sorry I can't be any more specific than this, but obviously I returned the LPs
three years ago. 8-) But this McCartney claim came, directly or indirectly,
from Larry Norman himself. At this point I can only suggest looking up some
old LPs and checking for yourself (it would have either been _Only Visiting
this Planet_ or _In Another Land_, since I borrowed _Garden_ on cassette).
Hmmm . . . now that I actually think of it, you might want to include Randy
Stonehill's _Welcome to Paradise_ LP in that list as well, as it might have had
a lot of Solid Rock paraphernalia in it too. (I hate working from memory!)
Scott
-=Scott A. McClare=-
+=========================================================================+
| SMCCLARE%A1.m...@krypton.gandalf.ca Fidonet: Under Construction |
| |
| The opinions expressed, blah blah blah . . . |
+==== "Though this is madness, yet there is method in't." == Polonius ====+
Randy Robb
>In article <41kkuq$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, rblak...@aol.com
>(RBlake6279) wrote:
>>Jerry:
>>I think you would like Larry Norman. He is blunt and not afraid to be
>>controversial in his music. He uses words which no one in CCM would ever
>>use. Musically, it music from the 70's accoustic guitar and 60's rock in
>>Roll.
>>Paul McCartney says he is the best lyricist of this generation.........no
>>lie!!
>Was this in a personal conversation you had with Paul, or is it something
>you heard. If it's something you read, please tell me where. I would love
>to know this sort of thing.
At home I have all of Larry's original album inserts. One insert does have
that quote. I will look it up and post it if someone doesn't beat me to it.
-- Randy
"We are living in a stochastic house...." -- Philemon
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Randy Robb
Blurred Vision - Alternative/Folk Rock
WWW: http://philemon.asc.msu.edu/bvhp1.html
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
J. Streck
>>> Paul McCartney says he [Norman] is the best lyricist of this
>>> generation.........no lie!!
>>I wanna see the cards. Can you say DOCUMENTATION?
>Well, it's not documentation per se, more like hearsay, but the first and only
>time I've heard this was from one of Larry's albums.
Now can you say "independent documentation"? I didn't think so...
john streck
jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Ed Rock
Exactly! Thanks John>
Ed Rock | "Is it the winter of our discontent
aka Ed Crabtree | or just an early frost?"
ercr...@email.unc.edu | --Kevin Gilbert
Scott A. McClare
>> The album liner, or the other material that came with the LPs (interviews,
>> etc.), contained a quote to the effect that Paul McCartney said LN could have
>> really gone somewhere if he wasn't writing songs about Jesus.
>
>This is quite a different thing than saying Larry Norman is "the best
>lyricist of this generation."
Indeed; I took into account that the original poster might have been
exaggerating. You know how these stories tend to puff themselves up - look at
the infamous Phil Keaggy UL.
It's also possible - but less likely - that McCartney's quotation is more
praising than I've reported. As I said, it's been a few years, and I'm only
going by memory. I'm certain of the "if only he wasn't writing about Jesus"
part, but the rest is sketchy.
> Further, the quote, being from one of the
>_Trilogy_ albums would have to be, at the very least, about 18 years
>old.
It's been over 20, if you can believe that. I heard _Planet_ for the first
time right after the Gulf War. I couldn't. 8-)
> It is therefor highly unlikely that Mr. McCartney still feels this
>way, as the the quote above implies. If it were true, it is time for Mr.
>McCartney to hear the lyrics of Bruce Cockburn or Pierce Pettis (or
>countless others). (Of course, Mr. McCartney, as much as I love his
>music, is not one to have written some of the best lyrics.)
No. 8-)
>> Sorry I can't be any more specific than this, but obviously I returned the LPs
>> three years ago. 8-) But this McCartney claim came, directly or indirectly,
>> from Larry Norman himself.
>Surprised?
No, not a bit. I've always felt LN was as good a self-promoter as he was a
songwriter. 8-)
Scott A. McClare
> Hehhe... Well, I assure you, Larry and Paul are NOT on any kind of
>mutual relationship here..... Larry over pizza: "Ahhh, I think Paul's
>music really reflects the amount of pot he smokes....it makes you
>really lazy..." (Sorry I can't recall the exact words, but I definately
>captured the heart of the statement.)
"I've been listening to Paul's new record . . . I think he really *is* dead"?
Scott A. McClare
>>Well, it's not documentation per se, more like hearsay, but the first and only
>>time I've heard this was from one of Larry's albums.
>Now can you say "independent documentation"? I didn't think so...
Gee, what is this, alt.folklore.urban? I did say it was hearsay . . . 8-)
If someone wanted to investigate this, I hope I've provided a starting point.
For my part I lack the resources to go any farther; besides, I have to agree
with Ed that McCartney isn't exactly the be-all and end-all of Good Lyrics.
Bob Weigel
: In article <Pine.A32.3.91.950827...@login1.isis.unc.edu>, Ed Rock <ercr...@email.unc.edu> writes:
: >> Paul McCartney says he is the best lyricist of this generation.........no
: >> lie!!
: >Hellllllo!?!
: >
: >I wanna see the cards. Can you say DOCUMENTATION?
: Well, it's not documentation per se, more like hearsay, but the first and only
: time I've heard this was from one of Larry's albums.
: The first time I heard LN, I had borrowed all three Trilogy albums from a
: friend of mine, who is 10 years older than me and bought them when they were
: first released.
: The album liner, or the other material that came with the LPs (interviews,
: etc.), contained a quote to the effect that Paul McCartney said LN could have
: really gone somewhere if he wasn't writing songs about Jesus. Another
: quotation cited _Billboard_ as saying LN was the best songwriter since Paul
: Simon.
Yes, that's where the thing originated no doubt. It's the only thing
I've ever heard that remotely sounds like it. Given that Larry is a
great lyricist, and that he did get quite a bit of attention due to
the radical nature of what he did....it would be really stupid to think
that SOMEONE in such a position HADN'T made that kind of statement.....
just to nip ANOTHER version of "Let's condemn Larry for reporting what
people say about him/things he has 'accomplished' in his own PR" before
it gets going. If any of you EVER do anything good for the kingdom of
God, IT IS FINE to tell people about it, giving glory to God. It actually
encourages the saints, and....in cases like this....lends thoughts like
"Hey, I CAN actually preach the Gospel to the world without getting put
off in some corner by the media." Praise God for the work he has done
through the likes of Larry; people who are willing to step out of the
ordinary and do a new thing.
I'll always go back to that reporter asking Larry "How do you make
rock and roll music work together with religion?" (Larry, in his
confused voice") "Ahh, religion? I don't know, I just love Jesus...
I hear some people made up a religion about him"..... -Bob
sebas...@vaxherd.bdsnet.com
>
>>>> Paul McCartney says he [Norman] is the best lyricist of this
>>>> generation.........no lie!!
>
>
>>Well, it's not documentation per se, more like hearsay, but the first and only
>>time I've heard this was from one of Larry's albums.
>
>
> jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Yeah, I have seen this as well, it's in the liner notes for Larry's
compilation album "White Blossoms from Black Roots"
In addition, to saying that Paul paid him this compliment, He also said
that an album he had done early on inspired The Who to write their rock
opera, "Tommy".
So it's not independent documentation, but it's interesting nonetheless.
Peace,
Todd M Nelson
sebas...@bdsnet.com
Ed Rock
> So it's not independent documentation, but it's interesting nonetheless.
I can make up all kinds of interesting things. 'Course they will be hard
to independently document. Jump to your own conclusions.
Ed Rock
> In article <1995Aug31....@vaxherd.bdsnet.com>, sebas...@vaxherd.bdsnet.com says:
>
> >In addition, to saying that Paul paid him this compliment, He also said
> >that an album he had done early on inspired The Who to write their rock
> >opera, "Tommy".
> >
>
> Coming Next Month: Larry talks about his influence on Elvis Presley and
> The Beatles, and discusses his role in the making of
> "Sgt Pepper".
Don't forget his convincing Handel to do a sacred work called "Messiah."
BSey
Double H & Pjon Pjon
Hello sebastian !
Do you know how Larry Norman is doing at the moment ? Has
he got enough monery for his operation ?
Larry Norman has by the way inspired more artists than Paul
Mcartney and The Who. Artists like Bono and the Edge in U2
and a whole buch of others like Bob Dylan.They asked
Mr.Norman if he would like to join one of their conserts
but unfortunatly his health would not permit it......
Unfortunatly I have never got the chance to attend his
concerts.But like Norman says: I hope I see you in
heaven... And there will be concerts in heaven !
By the way my e-mail adress is: holl...@oslonett.no
--
- Double H & Pjon Pjon
Proud Dog
BSey...@hcf.tdh.state.tx.us (BSey) writes:
>Coming Next Month: Larry talks about his influence on Elvis Presley and
> The Beatles, and discusses his role in the making of
> "Sgt Pepper".
Okay -- now you've gone too far . . . Larry only taught Elvis a few
Chords and Simply changing the title from Sgt Salt to Sgt Pepper hardly
means that Larry made the whole thing!
Kirk
>
Proud Dog
<Pine.A32.3.91.950831...@login0.isis.unc.edu>, Ed Rock
<ercr...@email.unc.edu> writes:
>> Coming Next Month: Larry talks about his influence on Elvis Presley
and
>> The Beatles, and discusses his role in the making
of
>> "Sgt Pepper".
>
>Don't forget his convincing Handel to do a sacred work called "Messiah."
>
>
Oh, Please! I can't Handel this! I think I'll go out Chopin and Come
Bach after it's over (sorry -- Corny and stupid is a way of life . . . )
Kirk
BSey
>Oh, Please! I can't Handel this! I think I'll go out Chopin and Come
>Bach after it's over (sorry -- Corny and stupid is a way of life . . . )
>
>Kirk
Thanks Kirk! I really enjoyed this.
BSey
(who enjoys corny humor just as much as the next guy. Uh, no...not him,
the guy next to him)
Scott A. McClare
>>Don't forget his convincing Handel to do a sacred work called "Messiah."
>Oh, Please! I can't Handel this! I think I'll go out Chopin and Come
>Bach after it's over (sorry -- Corny and stupid is a way of life . . . )
Now that settles it. A pun like that gets you into my twit Liszt.
8-)
Scott
--
-=Scott A. McClare=- SP2 (finally!) |PGP fingerprint:
cj...@freenet.carleton.ca |4135A8BA40E65657
samc...@artspas.watstar.uwaterloo.ca |064671A9CF2B8A1C
*Though this be madness, yet there is a method in't. - Polonius*
Ed Rock
> Larry Norman has by the way inspired more artists than Paul
> Mcartney and The Who. Artists like Bono and the Edge in U2
> and a whole buch of others like Bob Dylan.They asked
> Mr.Norman if he would like to join one of their conserts
> but unfortunatly his health would not permit it......
All together now, "independent documentation, please."
> And there will be concerts in heaven !
Documentation?
RBlake6279
Keith Green
Daniel Amos
Randy Stonehill
Shelia Walsh
This does not include the hundreds of others he has influencced through
his music. I believe in the early 1980's CCM magazine had four of Larry's
albumns as the among the top 20 most infuential. And two of those albumns
in the top 5, I think he was even number one. This is written
documentation of his influence of an outside source.
Rob
RBl...@aol.com
"Some people say that God is dead, that He doesnt exist except inside your
head. I wonder how many are going to be surprised when they look straight
up and see him coming through the skies".....Larry Norman
J. Streck
>This does not include the hundreds of others he has influencced through
>his music. I believe in the early 1980's CCM magazine had four of Larry's
>albumns as the among the top 20 most infuential. And two of those albumns
>in the top 5, I think he was even number one. This is written
>documentation of his influence of an outside source.
No, this is written documentation of what a bunch of critics believe his
influence was. (The article even begins with a bunch of disclaimers
about how the list was generated.) That is something very different.
john streck
jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Double H & Pjon Pjon
all say they are a big fan of Mr.Morman.
Why is this so hard for you to belive ? The man is a
musical genious !
Bono said in the interview that Larry Norman had been a big
inspiration when the band where in a depression and they
where wondering if they should drop the whole band ! As I
wrote in my last letter Bono personally rang up Larry
Norman and asked him if he could join them on a concert.
Unfortunatly Larry's doctor wouldn't let him join them
,because of his bad health. You may wonder where I have
read this..... Here are some: The Norwegian newspaper
called Vaart Land, and a music magazine called Treff....
Love in Christ,
Asbjorn Hollerud
holl...@oslonett.no
Rob Russell
I'd like to testify to Gods grace and Larry Norman. In 1972 my brother
brought home "Upon this Rock" as he was a Christian. Up to this point
I had disliked all Christian music and had no time for Christ. But all
this was to change when I heard that album. I loved it to death. A few
months later I gave my life to Lord.
I have met Larry twice now, the last time being at Greenbelt where I
was playing with my old band Press Any Key. I found him to be very
genuine and sincere and very humble. He put me to shame. I must say
that Larry has had a great influence on my life and my songs. I even
give him a name check in the lyrics of one of my songs called '72
which is all about my walk with the Lord.
By the way, this is the documentation.
God Bless
Rob Russell.
See ya all soon.
luv Rob
Gary Studivan
> Fm IntrNet: rblak...@aol.com [rec.music.christian]
> Other artists that Larry directly produced and inspired:
> Keith Green
I know not how to express my surprise and elation to see Larry Norman as the
first message in this newly established echo here. Even though it's been
many many years since I've heard any of his music, I can still recall the
potent lyrics and melodic synergy.
...and the band played six-sixty-six
Do you know if any of his albums made it to CD? Sure would be tickled to
find out that it's so.
- Pedit Ver 2.2
---
chee...@netaxs.com
others before me have said. BUT, was it not Mr. Norman who sang in one of
his songs, "I've been listening to some of Paul's records. I think he
really is dead!"
It does not seem that Mr. McCartney would be too likely to consider these
words to belong to the 'greatest lyricist of our generation'. Besides,
everybody knows the Beatles were all big Honeytree fans. ;)
J. Streck
> Yes, that's where the thing originated no doubt. It's the only thing
>I've ever heard that remotely sounds like it. Given that Larry is a
>great lyricist, and that he did get quite a bit of attention due to
>the radical nature of what he did....it would be really stupid to think
>that SOMEONE in such a position HADN'T made that kind of statement.....
Well that's certainly a stretch.
>just to nip ANOTHER version of "Let's condemn Larry for reporting what
>people say about him/things he has 'accomplished' in his own PR" before
>it gets going. If any of you EVER do anything good for the kingdom of
>God, IT IS FINE to tell people about it, giving glory to God. It actually
Uhm, for most of us who question these statements that Larry makes, it's
not an issue of the morality or permissibility of self-promotion, but rather
the underlying truth of the statements.
john streck
jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
J. Streck
>I have met Larry twice now, the last time being at Greenbelt where I
>was playing with my old band Press Any Key. I found him to be very
>genuine and sincere and very humble. He put me to shame. I must say
>that Larry has had a great influence on my life and my songs. I even
>give him a name check in the lyrics of one of my songs called '72
>which is all about my walk with the Lord.
>By the way, this is the documentation.
No, it's not. It's your impression of Larry Norman; and while certainly
valid for what it is, it has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of
the statement "Paul McCartney said Larry Norman was the greatest lyricist
ever" (or whatever it was).
john streck
jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Gideon van Zyl
Gary Studivan <gary_s...@oblique.org> wrote:
>I know not how to express my surprise and elation to see Larry Norman as the
>first message in this newly established echo here. Even though it's been
>many many years since I've heard any of his music, I can still recall the
>potent lyrics and melodic synergy.
>
>...and the band played six-sixty-six
>
>Do you know if any of his albums made it to CD? Sure would be tickled to
>find out that it's so.
I just wanted to let you know that Larry's stuff is not generally
commercially available. You might have noticed that he has made quite a
few enemies in his colourful career.
If you want to get some of his stuff on CD, you can try the Phydeaux
homepage at http://sg23.ch.qub.ac.uk:80/staff/tim/Phydeaux/
There you will find all relevant details :)
God bless (Not just the cliche)
-Gideon-
Gideon van Zyl
Bob Weigel
Hmmm, this documentation thing is getting to sound a lot like a
conversation I had some years back in talk.religion.misc (the one
where I got the whole universities access policies altered, because
of the idiot that called and harrassed the administrator until he
just decided it wasn't worth it.).....I mean all I did was reply
to the statement "If I could just see some good, solid historical
evidence for the resurrection, I might believe", with "Oh yeah?
Well what could I hypothetically give you?".
It's amazing how those words brought that long intellectual
conversation to an embarassing train wreck. :-) So, maybe I should
ask today, "Well John, what could I hypothetically give you that
would serve as 'independant documentation' that Larry is one of the
most influential artists in ccm history?"...or whatever. Or maybe
I should just say "These responses are starting to look really
silly".
I have no reason to glorify Larry, and I don't think Larry
would approve. It looks to me like Larry set out to show people that
you could glorify God blatantly and STILL have relationships with the
world that might serve to bring them to salvation. Too bad nobody
much listened to that message. Or maybe they did, and just wanted
money more. I dunno. All I know is that I am to have nothing to do
with the deeds of idleness. Most of the music coming out definately
qualifies. I can't discern anything productive it is doing for the
kingdom of heaven. If there's something deeper going on that I can't
see, that's great. And if I'm to be involved somehow, God will show
me. But it's nice to know that I have a brother in Larry who is not
doing idle things. He has a well defined message and vision which
does come under the heading of "God glorifying". It's nice he took
that vision as a pioneer in a way that no one else had done up to
that time. That's why his name comes up. We think of his life, and
see a great work that God did through him and give glory TO GOD for
it. Larry's just a servant, like the song says. I'm just a servant.
But we see various things about the master through the deeds of the
servants. Praise God for those things he worked through Larry. -Bob
J. Streck
> Hmmm, this documentation thing is getting to sound a lot like a
>conversation I had some years back in talk.religion.misc (the one
>where I got the whole universities access policies altered, because
>of the idiot that called and harrassed the administrator until he
>just decided it wasn't worth it.).....I mean all I did was reply
>to the statement "If I could just see some good, solid historical
>evidence for the resurrection, I might believe", with "Oh yeah?
>Well what could I hypothetically give you?".
Your powers of comparison must be much stronger than mine. I see little to
compare between someone asking for documentation of the resurrection and
someone asking for documentation for the fact that Paul McCartney said
Larry Norman is the best lyricist ever.
> It's amazing how those words brought that long intellectual
>conversation to an embarassing train wreck. :-) So, maybe I should
>ask today, "Well John, what could I hypothetically give you that
>would serve as 'independant documentation' that Larry is one of the
>most influential artists in ccm history?"...or whatever. Or maybe
>I should just say "These responses are starting to look really
>silly".
You know, I was thinking the same thing. So, once and for all (I hope),
here's something I would buy as independent documentation. A statement
from someone, other than Larry Norman, who actually heard Paul McCartney
claim Norman was the world's greatest lyricist. (Some context would be
nice, too.) A statement from someone, other than Larry Norman, who was
actually present when Dylan "got saved" and who is willing to attribute
that event to Norman. A statement from someone, other than Larry Norman,
who knew Pete Townsend when "Tommy" was written and who can identify
Norman as the creative influence for that. A statement -- well, you get
the picture.
This isn't rocket science here. Larry Norman has made some grandiose
claims which necessarily involve a lot of other people. It seems to me
that a few of those people should be able to confirm what he says. I don't
know of anyone doing that.
> I have no reason to glorify Larry, and I don't think Larry
>would approve. It looks to me like Larry set out to show people that
>you could glorify God blatantly and STILL have relationships with the
>world that might serve to bring them to salvation. Too bad nobody
>much listened to that message. Or maybe they did, and just wanted
>money more. I dunno. All I know is that I am to have nothing to do
>with the deeds of idleness. Most of the music coming out definately
>qualifies. I can't discern anything productive it is doing for the
>kingdom of heaven. If there's something deeper going on that I can't
>see, that's great. And if I'm to be involved somehow, God will show
>me. But it's nice to know that I have a brother in Larry who is not
>doing idle things. He has a well defined message and vision which
>does come under the heading of "God glorifying". It's nice he took
>that vision as a pioneer in a way that no one else had done up to
>that time. That's why his name comes up. We think of his life, and
>see a great work that God did through him and give glory TO GOD for
>it. Larry's just a servant, like the song says. I'm just a servant.
>But we see various things about the master through the deeds of the
>servants. Praise God for those things he worked through Larry. -Bob
You know, for someone who has no reason to glorify Larry Norman you
sure do quite a lot of it.
john streck
jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Bob Weigel
: As J. Streck <jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> so eloquently put it:
: >This isn't rocket science here. Larry Norman has made some grandiose
: >claims which necessarily involve a lot of other people. It seems to me
: >that a few of those people should be able to confirm what he says. I don't
: >know of anyone doing that.
tend to believe them unless
1) It would mean something dangerous if it weren't true.
2) I see definate evidence that it ISN'T true.
eg. If someone tells me "gravity isn't working today, go ahead and
walk off the cliff"....I'll probably do some checking first. But if
someone tells me "There is a pumpkin in a cave 10 feet below the edge
of the cliff",...am I GOING TO CHECK OUT THE STORY? HELL NO! I have
a life,...I think. Jesus, do I have a life? Yes, I have a life! :-)
: You almost sound skeptical about this, John. Perhaps a reminder that
: Larry Norman was the one who created rap music will help you be more
: confident of these other feats.
Actually, "Reader's Digest" was a sort of rap tune, though quite different
from todays rap. I don't think Larry though of the concept...he sure thought
of some funny ways to use it though in that tune. I still crack up, and the
stuff he's talking about is...pretty dated. -bob
: Just trying to help...
: Reverend Phool - Dispenser of Truth and Official Voice o' God
: --
: ^$% Terry Leifeste, Scholar and Fool /// now as: hatf...@phoenix.net %#$
: *&#&^%#&@*$(%)^*(^($%^#^$%$(^()&_^(*$%&^%#$%^@#*^%$^$%@*%$(^$&%^#&^$(^*&$%*^#
: @ *DISCLAIMER: Any authorized post bearing this signature file may be prone $
: #%& to sudden and uncontrollable bouts of sarcasm. You have been warned. &#@
--
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++=+=+=+=+=+=+=
"I simply can't get a fix on it sir." "It simply doesn't
obey the laws of physics".
"It would seem the only logical recourse, captain, is prayer."
"I.....just..can't accept that...reasoning. I don't know what
to do-Bones! Do you have any ideas?"
"Blast it Jim, I'm a surgeon, not a seminarian!" (-Dematerialize, BW)
Bob Weigel
: b...@garcia.efn.org (Bob Weigel) writes:
: > Hmmm, this documentation thing is getting to sound a lot like a
: >conversation I had some years back in talk.religion.misc (the one
: >where I got the whole universities access policies altered, because
: >of the idiot that called and harrassed the administrator until he
: >just decided it wasn't worth it.).....I mean all I did was reply
: >to the statement "If I could just see some good, solid historical
: >evidence for the resurrection, I might believe", with "Oh yeah?
: >Well what could I hypothetically give you?".
: Your powers of comparison must be much stronger than mine. I see little to
Youre ability to answer the question I posed above,...and my patience,
is gone. What could I give you, John?
: compare between someone asking for documentation of the resurrection and
: someone asking for documentation for the fact that Paul McCartney said
: Larry Norman is the best lyricist ever.
: > It's amazing how those words brought that long intellectual
: >conversation to an embarassing train wreck. :-) So, maybe I should
: >ask today, "Well John, what could I hypothetically give you that
: >would serve as 'independant documentation' that Larry is one of the
: >most influential artists in ccm history?"...or whatever. Or maybe
: >I should just say "These responses are starting to look really
: >silly".
: You know, I was thinking the same thing. So, once and for all (I hope),
: here's something I would buy as independent documentation. A statement
: from someone, other than Larry Norman, who actually heard Paul McCartney
: claim Norman was the world's greatest lyricist. (Some context would be
: nice, too.) A statement from someone, other than Larry Norman, who was
: actually present when Dylan "got saved" and who is willing to attribute
: that event to Norman. A statement from someone, other than Larry Norman,
: who knew Pete Townsend when "Tommy" was written and who can identify
: Norman as the creative influence for that. A statement -- well, you get
: the picture.
Yes, you aren't willing to give it your best shot. "Always one more
question to pose..." Not going to play your game John. Pick the one you
are surest about. We'll do a full scale research project on it. If you
pick one that there is no way to prove one way or the other, you loose.
So pick one like the one about Paul claiming Larry is a good lyricist
(like who cares), and we'll look at it.....OF COURSE, that one seems
like a silly one to be bringing up, because so far I don't even know if
Paul might have said that to Larry....and 50 other people in his life!
I don't know if there was ANYONE besides Larry there? (NOTE how we might
be able to apply the princples that I'm working with here in the lives of
others who are perhaps even more near and dear than Larry...family members,
wives, etc.) SOOOOO, if no one else was there, does that make Larry a liar?
Of course not!! It just means he might have had that very conversation with
Paul or whatever. Like I said, I'm pretty oblivious to that one, but if that's
the one you want to go with, just speak up and I'll hone right up on it.
Now, there are people like Warnke....people who make claims that come
back to haunt them. Mike could have pulled it off, but he made some bad
assumptions. Most liars do. If Larry was a liar, I think we'd have seen
a bad assumption by now. I haven't seen one. If you think you know one
of those (FOR example, if we could discover that Larry has been arrested
in Rio, while he is supposedly spending his heart surgery money at some
hospital and going through recovery), BRING IT ON.
But like I said, give it your best shot and let's incinerate this file
once and for all. If I was so damn smart, I'd be willing to put my
reputation on the line for something that I WOULD COME OUT WITH ABOUT
ANOTHER PERSON. (And so maybe I am :-) ) Well, do you get the picture?
"Get 'em while they're hot".... And, may God judge between us as to
whether I give a crap about glorifying Larry. All you call glorifying
Larry is not aimed that way as perhaps you are beginning to see. I want
to see people get a clue about how we are to treat each other as the body
of Christ, so we don't go around looking like a disgrace. I will continue
to preach it using Larry or anything else that seems a handy tool. -Bob
Scholar and Fool
>: >This isn't rocket science here. Larry Norman has made some grandiose
>: >claims which necessarily involve a lot of other people. It seems to me
>: >that a few of those people should be able to confirm what he says. I don't
>: >know of anyone doing that.
> The disturbing question....WHY? If someone tells me something, I just
>tend to believe them unless
>
>1) It would mean something dangerous if it weren't true.
>2) I see definate evidence that it ISN'T true.
>
>eg. If someone tells me "gravity isn't working today, go ahead and
>walk off the cliff"....I'll probably do some checking first. But if
>someone tells me "There is a pumpkin in a cave 10 feet below the edge
>of the cliff",...am I GOING TO CHECK OUT THE STORY? HELL NO! I have
>a life,...I think. Jesus, do I have a life? Yes, I have a life! :-)
so you won't check it out. But does that mean you believe it? Some of us
are "skeptics" and don't believe everything we're told, particularly if the
person makes grandiose claims (as John Streck specifically stated above).
Per your example, someone telling you that "gravity isn't working today" is
a grandiose claim, "a pumpkin in a cave" isn't much of a claim at all. Just
because it isn't dangerous and/or you don't have definite contrary evidence
aren't good reasons to accept something as true, though. We should care if
gravity is working. I think we should also care if a Christian artist is
going around making a bunch of grandiose claims that no one else can back up.
Throwing your example into the blender along with Larry Norman, one pumpkin
incident might be believed although kind of questioned...15 pumpkin incidents
and several pumpkin conspiracies become grandiose and make one skeptical
about *all* of the pumpkin incidents. Makes you wonder if there isn't a
problem with having pumpkin on the brain.
>: You almost sound skeptical about this, John. Perhaps a reminder that
>: Larry Norman was the one who created rap music will help you be more
>: confident of these other feats.
>
> Actually, "Reader's Digest" was a sort of rap tune, though quite different
>from todays rap. I don't think Larry though of the concept...he sure thought
>of some funny ways to use it though in that tune. I still crack up, and the
>stuff he's talking about is...pretty dated. -bob
I think you missed the point, but without saying it outright you seem to
agree that Larry isn't, in fact, one of the founders and originators of
rap music.
Dave DiSabatino
<< Anyway, my point.... Who cares if someone thinks by mistake that
Larry influenced Keith Green. If they are STUPID enough to think that 99.9%
of what Keith did didn't come from factors outside Larry, LET THEM. You
can't gain by arguing with STUPID PEOPLE. Get my point? Why argue about
0.1%? Good night. -Bob>>
Because truth is an issue that some of us still care about. I believe the
Charisma article stated that Larry was the focal reason that Keith became a
Christian. I'm not sure where the fellow got that information. . . but one can
only hazard a guess as to the source.
You're right in one sense. . . I feel no compunction to follow anyone around
to keep dispelling the myths that are dreamed up . . .who could keep up with
it anyway?. . . but on the other hand we have seen the havoc within the
Christian community when people think it is ok to fudge the truth now and
again.
Dave
--
David Di Sabatino
sa...@daystorm.com
Don't ask me nothin' about nothin'
I just might tell you the truth.
--
Usenet News Administration ne...@westonia.com
Westonia BBS, Weston ON
Dave DiSabatino
<<.Oh YEAH! Can you say DOCUMENTATION?
(In all this mess, the only remotely close thing I've seen is that Larry
had some rare release overseas that used a Steve Scott song...and the
album failed to give him credit for writing it. I posed the question to
Larry and he hasn't gotten back to me yet.>>
First, I'm not sure the onus is on me to document anything. I am not making
any claims. I think documentation is incumbent on Mr. Norman.
Second, let me quote Randy Stonehill in a 1988 interview in CCM. . . a man who
knows Larry better than most. . . "as a Christian, I can have nothing to do
with Larry Norman." I think you should give serious thought to the severity
of that statement.
Third, as for Larry getting back to you on the Steve Scott incident. . . don't
hold your breath.
Jeroen J-W Tiggelman
> The disturbing question....WHY? If someone tells me something, I just
>tend to believe them unless
>1) It would mean something dangerous if it weren't true.
I do not act this way in any relevant sense. The reason that I put in
"relevant" is that I think that _any_ untruth is potentially dangerous.
For that matter, i also think misleading statements as "I agree" to what
you said, because I technically don't disagree [I just answer "yes"
to 1) in about all cases ;)].
>eg. If someone tells me "gravity isn't working today, go ahead and
>walk off the cliff"....I'll probably do some checking first. But if
>someone tells me "There is a pumpkin in a cave 10 feet below the edge
>of the cliff",...am I GOING TO CHECK OUT THE STORY? HELL NO! I have
>a life,...I think. Jesus, do I have a life? Yes, I have a life! :-)
I think there is a fundamental difference here, and it is that the second
claim does _in no way_ have any effect on you. I also think that you do
not _believe_ the claim so much as you _ignore_ it, because irrelevant.
But those are two very different things.
I too, am willing to assume _a lot_ for the sake of argument,
investigation, etc. I am _not_, however, very willing to incorporate random
musings into the belief system I act upon.
--
--Jeroen------------------------------------------------------
Tigg...@StPC.WI.LeidenUniv.NL JTig...@WI.LeidenUniv.NL
walter gorlitz
jtig...@artemis.wi.leidenuniv.nl (Jeroen J-W Tiggelman) wrote:
>In article <42rj2c$l...@mars.efn.org>, Bob Weigel <b...@garcia.efn.org> wrote:
>> The disturbing question....WHY? If someone tells me something, I just
>>tend to believe them unless
>>1) It would mean something dangerous if it weren't true.
>>2) I see definite evidence that it ISN'T true.
>
>I do not act this way in any relevant sense. The reason that I put in
>"relevant" is that I think that _any_ untruth is potentially dangerous.
>For that matter, i also think misleading statements as "I agree" to what
>you said, because I technically don't disagree [I just answer "yes"
>to 1) in about all cases ;)].
I have to agree with Jeroen. "You shall not lie is a pretty strong basis
of the Judeao Christian values system.
to argue against point #1, in general: If you let people lie in small
areas, you set yourself up for accepting things that they say in the
larger area. This is how cults work. Change the basis on enough seemingly
irrelevant issues and the relevant ones become clouded.
to argue against point #1, in Mr. Norman's specific case: He has made
similar claims about a lot of people and the question is, was Larry Norman
that influential in the Christian music industry or with people in general
that he can not only be considered the father of Christian rock but also
the Billy Graham to musicians?
to argue on point #2: I have not read _No Compromise_ but I'm sure that
Melody would mention something as significant as this. Can anyone who has
read the book coroborate this theory?
--------------------------------------------------------------
| walter gorlitz | "The Christian life is about |
| Vancouver, BC, Canada | the beginning of hope, |
| walter_...@mindlink.bc.ca | not the end of struggle." |
| or CIS:70404,416 | Brent Bourgeois |
--------------------------------------------------------------
RBlake6279
Larry because he married his ex-wife. Im not saying it is right or not but
R. Stonehills attitude is just as sinful as the remarriage.
Gideon van Zyl
>
>to argue on point #2: I have not read _No Compromise_ but I'm sure that
>Melody would mention something as significant as this. Can anyone who has
>read the book coroborate this theory?
>
I only recall reading one reference to Larry in the book. Only a passing
reference. I think he is also mentioned in the passing as an influencial
Jesus Rock musician along with Phil Keaggy, Randy Stonehill and a few
other.
-Gideon-
Tim Evans
>On Sept 11, 1995 Bob wrote
>
><<.Oh YEAH! Can you say DOCUMENTATION?
>(In all this mess, the only remotely close thing I've seen is that Larry
>had some rare release overseas that used a Steve Scott song...and the
>album failed to give him credit for writing it. I posed the question to
>Larry and he hasn't gotten back to me yet.>>
>as for Larry getting back to you on the Steve Scott incident. . . don't
>hold your breath.
>
>Dave
>
>
>--
>
>David Di Sabatino
>sa...@daystorm.com
>Don't ask me nothin' about nothin'
> I just might tell you the truth.
>
>--
>Usenet News Administration ne...@westonia.com
>Westonia BBS, Weston ON
And just who do you answer to, Dave? No doubt you would enjoy being shredded on
rec.music.disabatino.rumors.
Perhaps you might like to provide us all with DOCUMENTATION for everything you
have ever done or said, so we can scrutinise it and decide whether or not you
should really be called "Christian".
Get my drift?
--
****************************************************************************
* * Dr. Tim Evans ** *
* Zzzzz/Phydeaux * Department of Chemistry ** *
* Tim....@qub.ac.uk * The Queen's University of Belfast ** ** *
* * N. Ireland **** AMIGA *
* * ** *
* "Love is a corpse, we sit and watch it harden, *
* We left it oh so long ago the garden........" *
****************************************************************************
Gideon van Zyl
>
>First, I'm not sure the onus is on me to document anything. I am not making
>any claims. I think documentation is incumbent on Mr. Norman.
allegations in this case. You are obviously aware of the fact that Larry never
reacts to this kind of thing anyway. You seem to have quite a protracted history of
not having a great liking for Larry. Does the digging up of unsubstantiated rumours
spread by certain members of the media (who have maintained a more that mildly
virulent strain of anti-Norman talk since the late 80's) add to dialogue?
>
>Second, let me quote Randy Stonehill in a 1988 interview in CCM. . . a man who
>knows Larry better than most. . . "as a Christian, I can have nothing to do
>with Larry Norman." I think you should give serious thought to the severity
>of that statement.
Try quoting the context for our less informed RMC readers please. I have a good
idea of the circumstances, but a more comprehensive quote might help the readers to
make a less biased observation of the circumstances surrounding this specific
quote. There were some subjectivity envolved in that statement.
>
>Third, as for Larry getting back to you on the Steve Scott incident. . . don't
>hold your breath.
Probably he won't get back for public comment - that's not Larry's style or
conviction. I think it probably goes something like "God is my justification".
Works for me too. I also saw that in the Bible, and I tend to believe the Bible
more that the current contemporary humanistic value system. Anybody out there read
the VOG interview with Larry? That might also help with some perspective :-)
Disclaimer: These views are probably clouded by by belief that we should honour God
in all that we do and say.
-Gideon-
Scholar and Fool
>: so you won't check it out. But does that mean you believe it? Some of us
>? Not sure what you mean here. I told John to hit me with his 'best shot
>and I would check it out'.
I mean that just because you won't check something out doesn't imply that
you believe it. There are a lot of things that I don't check out, but
that doesn't mean that I believe them.
>Your grammar is...confusing Scholar/fool.
Your throughs are...confusing Scholar/fool.
>: are "skeptics" and don't believe everything we're told, particularly if the
>: person makes grandiose claims (as John Streck specifically stated above).
>
> .It is good to be a "skeptic". I am a "skeptic"....if by that you mean
>one who establishes things that are being brought to me as "truth".
You way you define your actions and reactions to statements does not set
you out as a skeptic.
>But then there are things that aren't going to affect me or anyone else with
>half a brain.
maybe you should find the other half then. :)
>If someone makes a claim like that....I'd leave it
>alone because it's stupid. I don't see why anyone...PARTICULARLY LARRY
>who has NO respect for Paul's work....would make such a claim for SELF
>AGRANDIZEMENT. HAHAHAHA.
You left it alone?
>That's insane......anyway,...
hhmmm....good call.
>I'm going to believe them, and SPEAK WELL of them".
ah, yes...let's view some, shall we...
>This is where Dave and many others have FAILED themselves and God.
>They haven't done a trickle of damage to me, Larry, or anyone else.
>They have trashed their own credibility...[...]
>And there is no repentance.
etc.
> Anyway, I'm a skeptic...I'm skeptical of the things people have said
>about Larry, and I still am...and rightfully so. People have brought
>me RUMORS, GOSSIP, SLANDER....but not a stich of evidence.
Funny...seems the "people" have said the same thing the other way around.
>: Per your example, someone telling you that "gravity isn't working today" is
>: a grandiose claim, "a pumpkin in a cave" isn't much of a claim at all. Just
>.....I was using the pumpkin in cave example to analogize the STUPID claims,
>not "grandiose" ones...
one man's "TIME WASTIN'" and "STUPID" claims are another man's grandious
claims and truth-clouding.
>BTW, I still haven't heard a claim I consider "grandiose".
Nor will you ever, probably.
>: because it isn't dangerous and/or you don't have definite contrary evidence
>: aren't good reasons to accept something as true, though. We should care if
>: gravity is working. I think we should also care if a Christian artist is
>: going around making a bunch of grandiose claims that no one else can back up.
>
> Why? Because people can't back it up doesn't make it false, as I said.
>I'll keep asking until I get an answer. You knew that though, right?
You'll never get an answer that satisfies you. Because you aren't looking
for answers. I knew that though.
>: Throwing your example into the blender along with Larry Norman, one pumpkin
>: incident might be believed although kind of questioned...15 pumpkin incidents
>: and several pumpkin conspiracies become grandiose and make one skeptical
>: about *all* of the pumpkin incidents. Makes you wonder if there isn't a
>: problem with having pumpkin on the brain.
>
> Sorry. 150 still makes you a gossip....
it's the tone of love that really brings the tear to *my* eye.
>I don't know. Who is?
this was discussed here on r.m.c by people who know stuff about the
origins of rap music. It wasn't Larry Norman.
>BUT if Larry didn't know about it and got
>the idea on his own, I guess he could confidently say he "invented or
>created rap music". Sure. Sounds ok to me.
That's a part of the problem, then.
>Just like me. [...] Oh, I can go on and on.
yup, as I'm sure most of us probably can with "ideas" that we've thought
of that later came about, not by us or our doing. Probably were hundred
and hundred of other people who also did that. As far as you claiming that
you thought of something that later came about...so? Lots of people do
that. That doesn't mean that they can lay claim to the product or the
process of creation of it or the implementation of it or anything else.
>It's the result of using my brain for many years.
>Sound "grandiose"? Who cares.
not you, obviously.
>You give your life to something, and lots of things happen
>that people will call you a liar for for decades.
yeah, depends on what you're giving your life to.
Gideon van Zyl
Just for interest, I've been watching the Dave postings carefully over the
past few weeks. He seems to at every opportunity try to hind and point at
ant-Larry rumours spread specifically through CCM magazine. From the
context of these postings my subjective view concerning these posts are
that one or all of the following are prpbably true:
1. He actually believes all these to be true
2. His stance might be born from hero-worship (or suchlike) of Randy
Stonehill. The things that went bad between Randy and Larry has sparked
a personal vendetta.
3. He is simply an opinionated schlock who likes to draw attention to
himself by attacking others
I always knew I should have studied Pscychology ;)
-Gideon-
Bob Weigel
.....
: >a life,...I think. Jesus, do I have a life? Yes, I have a life! :-)
: so you won't check it out. But does that mean you believe it? Some of us
? Not sure what you mean here. I told John to hit me with his 'best shot
and I would check it out'. Your grammar is...confusing Scholar/fool.
: are "skeptics" and don't believe everything we're told, particularly if the
: person makes grandiose claims (as John Streck specifically stated above).
.It is good to be a "skeptic". I am a "skeptic"....if by that you mean
one who establishes things that are being brought to me as "truth". But
then there are things that aren't going to affect me or anyone else with
half a brain. (eg. "Paul sez Larry is best lyricist on planet"... note
trick wording :-) ) If someone makes a claim like that....I'd leave it
alone because it's stupid. I don't see why anyone...PARTICULARLY LARRY
who has NO respect for Paul's work....would make such a claim for SELF
AGRANDIZEMENT. HAHAHAHA. That's insane......anyway,...
There are also things that I can't prove one way or the other. This
stuff, I just go, "well, 'Love believes all things', and if someones
trying to make a fool out of me, God will avenge me. I'm going to believe
them, and SPEAK WELL of them". This is where Dave and many others have
FAILED themselves and God. They haven't done a trickle of damage to me,
Larry, or anyone else. They have trashed their own credibility by bringing
up things that can't be proven one way or the other....repeatedly. And
there is no repentance. That's how you re-establish your credibility and
bring glory to God. You repent of gossipping and don't do it any more.
Anyway, I'm a skeptic...I'm skeptical of the things people have said
about Larry, and I still am...and rightfully so. People have brought
me RUMORS, GOSSIP, SLANDER....but not a stich of evidence. BTW, I spoke
with a guy who was around Steve Scott some the other day, and he said
"Oh yeah, he's really cool. He wouldn't care if people used his songs
for a thing like what Larry did." I suspect that's what it will all come
down to. A non-issue. A low budget production Larry did to try and put
a light in a dark place, which he gained no net proceeds from...and here's
his reward. People who pick out the technical flaw that the (probably
clueless) person who put the jacket together forgot or didn't know
enough to credit Steve Scott.
Now we all know that Larry, and the rest of us, have sinned....and
that "All who claim to be without sin are liars". The way we deal with
that sin is often confusing, because groups can ALIENATE rather than
RESTORE quite often. This hurts. LIfe is full of hurts. But through
those things, God builds us up and draws us nearer to himself. From
the spirit I've seen in Larry, this process bears witness. I think
he's just a regular old brother who happens to have been used in some
profound ways in things related to this newsgroup. I don't know the
motives in his heart for a lot of things BUT HERE THIS PLEASE. If
you go around pre-judging (before ALL the facts are in), you will be
a gossip, NOT a person who can ever be part of building up another
person who IS struggling with something. So, repent, get the log out
of your own eyes so that if there is something in Larry's, or anyone
elses, you can HELP THEM in a Matthew 18:15 fashion. (BTW, next time
someone posts something, let's all just bombard them with the
question "did the people who told you this confront Larry in a Matthew
18:15 fashion?....did they try? Who was the witness? You see, I
think a lot of the people talking about Larry are IN SIN, and continue
to be in sin. WHY? Because they say things about him in a gossip like
manner, and don't care to listen to a rebuke. That's what it means to
be "in sin". ) -Bob
PS
: Per your example, someone telling you that "gravity isn't working today" is
: a grandiose claim, "a pumpkin in a cave" isn't much of a claim at all. Just
.....I was using the pumpkin in cave example to analogize the STUPID claims,
not "grandiose" ones...BTW, I still haven't heard a claim I consider "grand-
iose". I consider most of the claims to be pretty superficial things that
basically serve to establish ONLY that Larry was a prominent figure in the
Christian Music scene when various groups were getting started (true), and
when the Jesus movement was going on. Being who he was led to various
connections which help people tie together things about his life....
NOW BEGINS THE 'Journal of Bob'; I'll be sharing various stories and
things for the sake of helping people understand that you can't judge
the truth of a story by it's "grandiose" or "absurd" sound...and you won't
try if you Love god. Rather, you will wait for him to CLEARLY reveal the
sin of another person to you. Read the "Journal of Bob" for more....in
the "Journal of Bob" thread near you. :-)
: because it isn't dangerous and/or you don't have definite contrary evidence
: aren't good reasons to accept something as true, though. We should care if
: gravity is working. I think we should also care if a Christian artist is
: going around making a bunch of grandiose claims that no one else can back up.
Why? Because people can't back it up doesn't make it false, as I said.
I'll keep asking until I get an answer. You knew that though, right?
: Throwing your example into the blender along with Larry Norman, one pumpkin
: incident might be believed although kind of questioned...15 pumpkin incidents
: and several pumpkin conspiracies become grandiose and make one skeptical
: about *all* of the pumpkin incidents. Makes you wonder if there isn't a
: problem with having pumpkin on the brain.
Sorry. 150 still makes you a gossip....but ONE that is documented with
a witness, or some kind of irrefuteable evidence and HEY, you've got one
certified psycho in Mr. Norman there.
: >: You almost sound skeptical about this, John. Perhaps a reminder that
: >: Larry Norman was the one who created rap music will help you be more
: >: confident of these other feats.
: >
: > Actually, "Reader's Digest" was a sort of rap tune, though quite different
: >from todays rap. I don't think Larry though of the concept...he sure thought
: >of some funny ways to use it though in that tune. I still crack up, and the
: >stuff he's talking about is...pretty dated. -bob
: I think you missed the point, but without saying it outright you seem to
: agree that Larry isn't, in fact, one of the founders and originators of
: rap music.
I don't know. Who is? Reader's digest is technically a rap tune. Thus,
unless you know of an earlier one, I guess he is. I would guess Larry
probably did things like that even before 1972...just a guess. I'm sure,
as I said, others did also...BUT if Larry didn't know about it and got
the idea on his own, I guess he could confidently say he "invented or
created rap music". Sure. Sounds ok to me. Just like me. I invented
the little suit that has trigger devices in it so that every part of your
body that you slap can generate a signal that drives a trigger input on
a midi control device, or whatever....HOWEVER, someone else actually had
the time and cash and built the thing. Also, the "wave sequencing"
engine used in the Korg Wavestation, and other keyboards. Oh, I can go
on and on. It's the result of using my brain for many years. Sound
"grandiose"? Who cares. I can produce a line of witnesses to verify
these and many other "amazing" stories. But then there's Larry...using
his gifts in the realm he was in. Not surprising AT ALL that he can
say a lot of the things he can say. It just kind of comes with the
territory. You give your life to something, and lots of things happen
that people will call you a liar for for decades. That's the way it
goes. BUT GOD IS CALLING SOME PEOPLE TO GET THE LIFE HE WANTS TO GIVE
THEM. Yes, instead of talking about other people, God has a plan for
each of you. You TOO can go on to do things that people will doubt...
because they themselves do not know what it is to have the life "on
the edge" that God has for them. -Bob
Jorn Heggset
I'll give it a try anyway. In the Norwegian magazine "Treff" (2/95) there is
an interview with Charly Norman, Larry's brother, who now is a member of the "Norwegian"
band "Merchant of Venus". He speaks a lot about Larry in that interview and
about Merchant's links to "Guns 'n Roses". He also touches into things that are relevant to
this discussion here on r.m.c. There are of course some weaknesses about such
documentation. The 2 most obvious are:
1. Charly is Larry's brother (but he's not a professional liar, is he?)
2. The interview is in Norwegian. That means of course that Charly's statements
have been translated from English to Norwegian and now I'm translating them back
to English again. (But I don't think the interviewer would have any interest of
making things up either)
Here follows a (nearly word to word) translation of an interesting part of the interview:
Charly: "I know a lot of rock celebrities. Partly because I have a highly respected
artist brother. Larry is considered a cult person among some leading rock artists. One night
I met Francis Black, who is the leader of my favourite band, the Pixies, in a club in LA.
We talked about musical inspirations, and among Johnny Rotten and a bunch of others he
mentioned Larry Norman. When I told him Larry was my brother he didn't seem to believe
his own ears, and he invited me spontanousely to a jam-session the next day.
At some other occation I looked through some paper in Larry's appartment, and there I
accidentally read a post card I found: "I finally met you, Mr. Norman, it was a great
pleasure! Paul MacCartney". While Larry was in hospital with heart problems, one day Bono
phoned. U2 was going to have a concert in the city the next day and he was asking
if Larry had the opportunity to come to the show. He told me Larry's "Upon This Rock" was
a direct cause that U2 had survived a critical phase in their carreer. Unfortunately my
brother was not well enough to go."
Take it for what it's worth. I've just tried to translate the content of the interview
as accurate as possible. I haven't added a single thing.
Jorn
J. Streck
>I don't know if the Norman "haters" will consider this as documentation, but
>I'll give it a try anyway. In the Norwegian magazine "Treff" (2/95) there is
>an interview with Charly Norman, Larry's brother, who now is a member of the "Norwegian"
Point 1: I do not by any means consider myself a Norman "hater." I simply
look for what I consider to be the truth, or a reasonable facsimile
thereof; and in my opinion the truth can be documented.
Point 2: No, I don't consider Larry's brother a reliable, relatively
objective source. Sorry.
john streck
jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
RBlake6279
J. Streck
>the only person Jstreck finds reliable is himself.
Well, gather round children 'cause it's story time.
Once upon a time there was a soldier who did his duty and defended
his country during a big war called World War II. Now, this soldier didn't
have a really flashy job -- he worked in supply or something along those
lines -- but one day a big plane landed and so he climbed up in the
tailgunner's seat, fired off a few rounds, and had his picture taken.
When he got home after the war he ran for the United States Senate as
"Tailgunner Joe." He won.
Once he got in office, Joe decided that he needed to do something
important so he could be recognized. At the time a lot of people were
beginning to worry about the rise of communism so Joe got infront of the
television cameras, held up a sheet of paper, and said he had a list of
some 200 names of card-carrying communists at work in the State
Department. No one bothered to look at the list, 'cause Joe was, after
all, a Senator. He was reliable. Pretty soon Joe was at the head of a
movement, ruining reputations and destroying lives. What stopped him?
Someone -- the Army actually -- decided that Joe, Senator or no, might not
be reliable, and so they asked to see the list...
Now let's jump forward a few years, and introduce ourselves to a guy
named Mike. Now, Mike's a servant of the Lord, doing his best to reach
the lost with the message of Jesus Christ. Mike, moreover, knows all
about being lost, 'cause for a few years there Mike was a high priest in
the church of Satan. We know that 'cause Mike tells us it's true, and
Mike's a minister so he must be reliable. In between jokes Mike has been
telling us all about his experiences with drugs and paganism and lots of
other bad stuff; years lost in the service of the Devil. We shake our
heads and thank the Lord for his deliverance. Ah, but what's this: if you
compare what Mike says here with what Mike says there the two won't fit
together. How could he be serving as a high priest of Satan somewhere in
California -- I think it was California -- at the same time he claims he
was a medic in Vietnam? And look here: at the time Mike claims he had
hair down his back and fingernails out to here, there's a picture that
shows him in a powder blue tuxedo looking about as threatening as the
Pillsbury Doughboy. Michael, Michael -- we thought you were reliable...
And so we come to Brother Larry. Brother Larry -- or Larry's
brother, there's probably not much difference -- who claims his album
"Upon This Rock" had influence far and wide (nevermind the fact that in
it's initial release it sold something on the order of 3,000 copies);
Brother Larry who claims responsibility for the conversion of Bob Dylan
(never mind that Dylan had just come off a lengthy tour with a band that
included a number of Christian players); Brother Larry who claims that
Paul McCartney once said he was the greatest lyricist the world had ever
known (nevermind that McCartney was half of what many critics and fans
consider to be the greatest rock and roll songwriting team the world has
ever known). Now why would I want to question Larry's reliability?
And the moral of my stories: People are unreliable. Joe saw himself as
"Tailgunner Joe"; I would argue the historical evidence shows that to be a
fiction. Mike sees himself as a high priest in the church of Satan; I
would argue the historical evidence shows that to be a fiction. Larry
sees himself as the father of rock and roll; I would argue that the
historical evidence -- at least that which has been produced so far --
shows that to be a fiction.
No, Rob, I am not the only person I believe to be reliable. Indeed, I know
for a fact that I am wholly _unreliable_. I, like all people, am plagued
with a selective and faulty memory; I suffer from a point of view. Thus,
I seek evidence. I want letters, documents, photographs, objective testimony
from those with pertinent knowledge that will make up for the selective
memory and subjectivity -- my own and that of others. So far, in the case of
Larry Norman I've seen nothing of the sort. I've been given the PR on
Larry's liner notes and an interview with Larry's brother. Good heavens,
man, even the OJ defense team has done better than that.
Insult me if you like, Rob, but the fact of the matter is that Larry Norman
has produced nothing but his own word to support the claims he makes.
Given recent history, I'm going to demand something more.
john (I probably should have just said, "Fuck off, Rob") streck
jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Scholar and Fool
>the only person Jstreck finds reliable is himself.
hey, Rob, would *you* believe comments from people who say stuff
like the above? Sounds pretty opinionated, untruthful, and kinda
rude to me. Self-refrencing will get you nowhere.
Double H & Pjon Pjon
If he was thinking of earning big money he would never
started his carrier the way he did. He would sing with
different lyrics....... I don't find John as one who knows
very much about Larry. I really don't care what others have
to say about Larry. I think he is one of the greatest
singers and I don't care if people like John won't agree.
We are all different and we all like different music,
artists etc.
I want to thank Norman for all he has done with his music.
He has helped me a lot.
He went his own ways...... He didn't follow the rules of
the "christian industry" nor did he fit into the other
record companies because he wanted to sing about his
belife. And thank God for Larry ! We need him !
Ps. Why do you have problems with saying that Larry has
been a very influential artist ? Just look at how often he
is discussed in this newsgroup !
--
- Double H & Pjon Pjon
Jorn Heggset
[a lot of irrelevant stuff deleted]
>
> And so we come to Brother Larry. Brother Larry -- or Larry's
>brother, there's probably not much difference -- who claims his album
>"Upon This Rock" had influence far and wide (nevermind the fact that in
I don't know if Larry ever said that, but if he did it definitely would
be the truth!
>it's initial release it sold something on the order of 3,000 copies);
Documentation?
>Brother Larry who claims responsibility for the conversion of Bob Dylan
>(never mind that Dylan had just come off a lengthy tour with a band that
>included a number of Christian players); Brother Larry who claims that
>Paul McCartney once said he was the greatest lyricist the world had ever
DOCUMENTATION???
>Larry
>sees himself as the father of rock and roll; I would argue that the
No, with all respect I don't think he does. Maybe he sees himself as the
father of Jesus rock and who (besides John and his associates) would
be blind enough to question that?
>historical evidence -- at least that which has been produced so far --
>shows that to be a fiction.
Really??? What evidence?? You must be kidding.
>john (I probably should have just said, "Fuck off, Rob") streck
>jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Jorn Heggset
J. Streck
>You mean, Charly should have thought of all the sceptics on r.m.c and taped the
>phone call from Bono? And maybe we could ask him to scan the post card
>from Macca and send it to Internet? And maybe we could get Bono and Macca
>to give a statement on CNN (live)?
Yeah, that would work. Less ambitiously, a simple statement from someone
other than Norman or Norman's blood relatives might be a start.
john streck
jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
J. Streck
>>it's initial release it sold something on the order of 3,000 copies);
>Documentation?
Romanowski, W. (1990). Rock 'n' Religion: A Socio-Cultural Analysis of
the Contemporary Christian Music Industry. Ph.D. Dissertation, Bowling
Green State University, 1990. UMI# 9122799.
>>Brother Larry who claims responsibility for the conversion of Bob Dylan
>>(never mind that Dylan had just come off a lengthy tour with a band that
>>included a number of Christian players); Brother Larry who claims that
>>Paul McCartney once said he was the greatest lyricist the world had ever
>DOCUMENTATION???
Go back into the opening posts here on r.m.c. That's what started this
round of the ever-present Larry Norman flame fest. (I believe someone was
quoting from the liner notes on one of Norman's albums.)
>>Larry
>>sees himself as the father of rock and roll; I would argue that the
>No, with all respect I don't think he does. Maybe he sees himself as the
>father of Jesus rock and who (besides John and his associates) would
>be blind enough to question that?
Anyone not blinded by Norman-worship? Call it what you will -- Jesus Rock,
CCM, whatever -- but the fact of the matter is that this thing emerged
from a number of different forces at work in the culture of the time and
to attempt to pin the responsibility (blame?) on any single individual is
absurd.
Put away your Norman albums and do some reading. The history is there for
anyone who wants to take the time to construct it.
>>historical evidence -- at least that which has been produced so far --
>>shows that to be a fiction.
>Really??? What evidence?? You must be kidding.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Exactly my point.
john streck
jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Chris Kalmbacher
J. Streck <jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>rblak...@aol.com (RBlake6279) writes:
>
> And so we come to Brother Larry. Brother Larry -- or Larry's
>brother, there's probably not much difference -- who claims his album
>"Upon This Rock" had influence far and wide (nevermind the fact that in
>it's initial release it sold something on the order of 3,000 copies);
>Brother Larry who claims responsibility for the conversion of Bob Dylan
>(never mind that Dylan had just come off a lengthy tour with a band that
>included a number of Christian players); Brother Larry who claims that
>Paul McCartney once said he was the greatest lyricist the world had ever
>known (nevermind that McCartney was half of what many critics and fans
>consider to be the greatest rock and roll songwriting team the world has
>ever known). Now why would I want to question Larry's reliability?
>
>And the moral of my stories: People are unreliable. Joe saw himself as
>"Tailgunner Joe"; I would argue the historical evidence shows that to be a
>fiction. Mike sees himself as a high priest in the church of Satan; I
>would argue the historical evidence shows that to be a fiction. Larry
>sees himself as the father of rock and roll; I would argue that the
>historical evidence -- at least that which has been produced so far --
>shows that to be a fiction.
Whoa! The first two stories have been documented as false, if I
understand your logic. The last story, regarding Larry Norman has NOT
benn shown to be false. As far as I know, the support for Larry Norman's
claims is just not easily obtainable. Paul Mc is simply not available or
readily accessable to most of us on r.m.c. I do beilieve you have made a
logical error by attempting to compare these three situations. They have
no basis in reality as comparable things. By placing them in the same
camp, you have shown us that you have pre-judged Larry as a liar. If
there is evidence that Larry's claims are false, then please point them
out. Larry's claims may seem extravegant, but that alone does not make
them false.
>I seek evidence. I want letters, documents, photographs, objective testimony
>from those with pertinent knowledge that will make up for the selective
>memory and subjectivity -- my own and that of others. So far, in the case of
>Larry Norman I've seen nothing of the sort. I've been given the PR on
>Larry's liner notes and an interview with Larry's brother. Good heavens,
>man, even the OJ defense team has done better than that.
Ok...you want evidence. Why don't you seek evidence against these
claims. Take a little time, write some letters. If this is so obvious
to you that Larry is lying, then it should be easy for you to prove them
lies.
>Insult me if you like, Rob, but the fact of the matter is that Larry Norman
>has produced nothing but his own word to support the claims he makes.
>Given recent history, I'm going to demand something more.
Why? People make claims all the time about themselves. Why should we
decide they are lying as the standard? I have no problem with the
skeptic stance, as I am a skeptic, but holding out for truthful evidence
is not the same thing as assuming a lie. You are not a skeptic if you
are willing to assume that Larry is telling a lie as the standard
operating procedure of his activities. If you said, "I find this hard to
believe because it just seems like a lot for one person", and then asked
for evidence, that would potentially be a skeptic stance, but what I hear
is, "I am going to assume that Larry is a profound and nearly
psychopathic liar, and it runs in the family, although I have no direct
evidence he is a liar."
A skeptic might claim that he/she is holding out and will not make a
decision one way or another until more info is in on the subject; by
taking an anti-Larry-truthfulness line, you are not a skeptic.
>john (I probably should have just said, "Fuck off, Rob") streck
Nice John, real nice.
Think about it,
Chris
--
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Chris Kalmbacher Psychology/Neuroscience University of Delaware
Email: Chr...@strauss.udel.edu
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Bill Overpeck
>b...@garcia.efn.org (Bob Weigel) writes:
[...]
>> I have no reason to glorify Larry, and I don't think Larry
>>would approve. It looks to me like Larry set out to show people that
>>you could glorify God blatantly and STILL have relationships with the
>>world that might serve to bring them to salvation. Too bad nobody
>>much listened to that message. Or maybe they did, and just wanted
>>money more. I dunno. All I know is that I am to have nothing to do
>>with the deeds of idleness. Most of the music coming out definately
>>qualifies. I can't discern anything productive it is doing for the
>>kingdom of heaven. If there's something deeper going on that I can't
>>see, that's great. And if I'm to be involved somehow, God will show
>>me. But it's nice to know that I have a brother in Larry who is not
>>doing idle things. He has a well defined message and vision which
>>does come under the heading of "God glorifying". It's nice he took
>>that vision as a pioneer in a way that no one else had done up to
>>that time. That's why his name comes up. We think of his life, and
>>see a great work that God did through him and give glory TO GOD for
>>it. Larry's just a servant, like the song says. I'm just a servant.
>>But we see various things about the master through the deeds of the
>>servants. Praise God for those things he worked through Larry. -Bob
>
>You know, for someone who has no reason to glorify Larry Norman you
>sure do quite a lot of it.
Which part of the above seems to "glorify" Larry, to you? Seems
like it's more about glorifying God than Larry.
If you're referring to Bob's general willingness/tendency to speak
in Larry's defense, then good for Bob. Here's a Christian defending
the character of another Christian from the innuendo and suspicion
of yet more Christians. Hardly constitutes "glorifying". Seems
like the suspicious ones should take up their respective grievances
with the object of their distrust, though, rather than airing them
outside his presence (and in a public forum).
I'm not contesting the veracity of Larry's album line(a)r notes. I
really don't know how to do that; Paul hasn't called for months and
Led Zeppelin doesn't practice in our garage anymore. But if I had a
vote, I'd vote to give folks the benefit of the doubt, in general -
especially in the absence of any clear intent to deceive. I think
I'd rather risk naivete than rush to judgement.
Bill
Chris Kalmbacher
Michael N Nonemacher <schi...@CMU.EDU> wrote:
>have never read one of John's posts where I thought he was out of line.
>There are a few of John's posts (occasionally) that I don't agree with,
>but I have found his posts to be a refreshing taste of truth and
>objectivity, something I think r.m.c. doesn't see much of...
Oh yeah...lets all bow down to John.
Get a life, this is such a joke, I am doubting how much you have read
posts on this group.
I am not attcking Streck in general, as I sometimes find his posts
interesting, but, "a refreshing taste of truth and objectivity"? You
have made my day, as I am laughing hysterically right now.
I think John can defend himself. He has shown many times he is a good
arguer and debater (a definite compliment), but I also think it is
obvious he can attack aggressively and is often insulting, whether truth
is the issue or not.
The issue here is about John's ability to unbiasedly assess the claims
of Larry Norman. John has done an excellent job of "Devil's Advocate"
type thing, questioning LN's claims. However, that is all he has done.
I myself do not see a one-sided approach as "refreshing...objectivity".
If anything, John has been extremely anti-LN. If he was unbiased, the
only thing he could conclude is that LN's claims are not currently
supported by a third party (like the unbiased media, I suppose). That is
it. That claim does not make LN a liar. It might cause you to not put a
lot of weight on his claims when making a decision, but it should not
cause you to believe he is a liar.
At a recent Steve Taylor concert (C-Stone 95), Steve mentioned he had (or
someone in his office) called called a certain school mentioned in the
song color code, and that he had indeed ascertained that they still have
racist policies. Now, I myself did not hear him make the call, I was not
in the office when he called (or a secretary or whatever), bottom line is
I have no third party source which verefies Steve's claims. I myself
*CHOOSE* to believe Steve, that indeed a call was recently made.
John likewise has made a decision, he has *CHOSEN* to believe that LN is
a liar. He has not chosen to withhold judgement until the facts are in.
As far as I know, he himself has not made any affort to contact Larry or
Paul or Bob or anyone to attempt to find verification either for or
against Larry. He has not sought the truth - he has pre-judged, and he
is now attempting to logically argue that Larry is not truthful. If John
were honestly interested solely in truth, and if the truthfulness of the
situation were so important to John, I believe we would be seeing the
results of HIS research. Instead of doing some footwork himself, John
seems content to sit back, and poke at others, all the time claiming the
skeptic position. Well...you may find this "refreshing...objectivity",
but I call it idle, laziness, gossip.
I may just be an innocent dupe in Larry's grand scheme of world-
domination (or whatever it is he gains from his so-called lies), but
I believe I am acting both intelligently and Biblically in my decisions.
I allow that others may disagree with me, but you should be willing to
back up your arguements with your actions. I CHOOSE to believe Larry
without documentation. If you CHOOSE to disbelieve Larry, and you argue
I (and others) need documentation, then by your own logic, you have an
obligation to provide proof he has lied. Go ahead, I am anxiously
awaiting your results.
Just a little worked up,
Ed Rock
> the only person Jstreck finds reliable is himself.
So, Mr. Blake, who do you plan on attacking personally next?
Ed Rock | "Is it the winter of our discontent
aka Ed Crabtree | or just an early frost?"
ercr...@email.unc.edu | --Kevin Gilbert
Ed Rocks the Web http://ecsvax.uncecs.edu/~ecrab/
Ed Rock
> the only person Jstreck finds reliable is himself.
Mr. Blake, do you think you could document that?
Or is it hearsay?
Or a giant leap of (il)logic?
Ed Rock
> Anybody out there read
> the VOG interview with Larry?
Yep. The unedited one.
> That might also help with some perspective :-)
Yep. It did.
>
> Disclaimer: These views are probably clouded by by belief that we should
> honour God in all that we do and say.
Is the implication that the rest of us don't feel the same way?
I don't think I like that implication.
Ed Rock
> I don't know if the Norman "haters" will consider this as documentation, but
> I'll give it a try anyway.
I love it!
RMC is the only place where if you ask for independent documentation
you're called a hater.
In the style of Isao Bered, I'd like to say...
...hmmmm...what if Jesus had called Thomas a Jesus hater because he
wanted documentation....
hmmmmmm...
Jorn Heggset
>Point 1: I do not by any means consider myself a Norman "hater." I simply
>look for what I consider to be the truth, or a reasonable facsimile
>thereof; and in my opinion the truth can be documented.
You mean, Charly should have thought of all the sceptics on r.m.c and taped the
phone call from Bono? And maybe we could ask him to scan the post card
from Macca and send it to Internet? And maybe we could get Bono and Macca
to give a statement on CNN (live)?
>Point 2: No, I don't consider Larry's brother a reliable, relatively
>objective source. Sorry.
Surprise, surprise .......
>john streck
>jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Jorn Heggset
J. Streck
>Why then, should Larry lie ?
Why should anyone lie? I dare say there are many motivations.
>If he was thinking of earning big money he would never
>started his carrier the way he did. He would sing with
>different lyrics.......
People do things for reasons other than money. Moreover, I don't believe
I've ever challenged Norman's motivations, just his statements.
>I don't find John as one who knows
>very much about Larry.
Again, I've never positioned myself as an expert on Larry Norman. I've
simply stated that in my experience I've never, not once, seen Norman
produce evidence for the claims he makes.
>I really don't care what others have
>to say about Larry.
You seem to care enough to jump into this particular debate.
>I think he is one of the greatest
>singers and I don't care if people like John won't agree.
>We are all different and we all like different music,
>artists etc.
This isn't about music and differing evaluations of same. It's about
truth.
>I want to thank Norman for all he has done with his music.
>He has helped me a lot.
Good enough.
>He went his own ways...... He didn't follow the rules of
>the "christian industry" nor did he fit into the other
>record companies because he wanted to sing about his
>belife.
Well, that's one way to read it.
>And thank God for Larry ! We need him !
Some do, at least.
>Ps. Why do you have problems with saying that Larry has
>been a very influential artist ? Just look at how often he
>is discussed in this newsgroup !
I don't doubt at all that Norman's been influential, and I've never said
that I do. What I do challenge are notions like, "without Larry Norman
there would be no Christian music," "Larry Norman was responsible for the
conversion of Bob Dylan," and "without Larry Norman there would be no
U2." First, things are _never_ that straightforward, and second, to
continue beating this dead horse right into the ground, the only thing we
have to base such claims on are the statements of Norman himself. For me,
it's not enough.
john streck
jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Jeroen J-W Tiggelman
Gideon van Zyl <gide...@aztec.co.za> wrote:
I am too bored even to copy all the below comments, let alone type them over.
So I'll just tell you what tiny alterations to make.
>Hi Tim - how ya keeping?
^^^
Insert name of someone who you think is on the same cause as yours (in case
you are being propagandist), say "Dave" (not that I care about this thread).
>Just for interest, I've been watching the Dave postings carefully over the
^^^^
"Gideon"
>past few weeks. He seems to at every opportunity try to hind and point at
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>ant-Larry rumours spread specifically through CCM magazine. From the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
produce vague pro-Keith posts through insinuative remarks towards anyone
he thinks might possibly be say anything that could possibly be interpreted
as making Larry look less than God-like.
>context of these postings my subjective view concerning these posts are
>that one or all of the following are probably true:
>
>1. He actually believes all these to be true
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the posters in question are all trying to put Keith down
>2. His stance might be born from hero-worship (or suchlike) of Randy
^^^^^
> Stonehill.
^^^^^^^^^
Keith Green
> The things that went bad between Randy and Larry has sparked
^^^^^ ^^^^^
Keith; Roman Catholics
> a personal vendetta.
>3. He is simply an opinionated schlock who likes to draw attention to
> himself by attacking others
>
>I always knew I should have studied Pscychology ;)
>
>-Gideon-
^^^^^^
Jeroen
On second thoughts, I'd never write that except as parody, so retain "Gideon"
by way of trade mark.
--
--Jeroen------------------------------------------------------
Tigg...@StPC.WI.LeidenUniv.NL JTig...@WI.LeidenUniv.NL
Jeroen J-W Tiggelman
Gideon van Zyl <gide...@aztec.co.za> wrote:
I am done reformatting all your articles to less than 80 columns for you,
hence the bad line breaks.
>sa...@daystorm.com (Dave DiSabatino) wrote:
>>First, I'm not sure the onus is on me to document anything.
Good call.
>> I am not making
>>any claims. I think documentation is incumbent on Mr. Norman.
>Why would it be up to him to react to rumours?
What rumours are you speaking of??
>allegations in this case. You are obviously aware of the fact that Larry
>never reacts to this kind of thing anyway.
Does it follow that he is right in that???
> You seem to have quite a
>protracted history of
>not having a great liking for Larry.
Is this anything but a smear argument???
> Does the digging up of unsubstantiated
>rumours spread by certain members of the media (who have maintained a more
>than mildly virulent strain of anti-Norman talk since the late 80's) add to
>dialogue?
It's so vague I haven't a clue what you're referring to.
>>Second, let me quote Randy Stonehill in a 1988 interview in CCM. . . a man
>>who knows Larry better than most. . . "as a Christian, I can have nothing to
>>do with Larry Norman." I think you should give serious thought to the
>>severity of that statement.
>Try quoting the context for our less informed RMC readers please. I have a
>good idea of the circumstances, but a more comprehensive quote might help the
>readers to
Then why don't you supply that quote if you know so well? Why don't you tell
how these circumstances.. (etc.)??
>make a less biased observation of the circumstances surrounding this specific
>quote. There were some subjectivity envolved in that statement.
Does this mean that there exists subjectivity-free statements??
>>Third, as for Larry getting back to you on the Steve Scott incident. . .
>>don't hold your breath.
>Probably he won't get back for public comment - that's not Larry's style or
>conviction. I think it probably goes something like "God is my justification".
>Works for me too.
Right. "I am right because I am right." Perfect for personal sanity. Worthless
for debate.
> I also saw that in the Bible,
Hmmm.. a reference or quote? Especially in context.. I have a vague idea of the
circumstances there, but a more comprehensive quote might help.. (etc.)
>Disclaimer: These views are probably clouded by by belief that we should
>honour God in all that we do and say.
Another smear argument? Ah yeah.. (Right -- "it's not there", it's only
implied. What I am missing, though, is _any other_ sensible interpretation.)
--
--Jeroen------------------------------------------------------
Tigg...@StPC.WI.LeidenUniv.NL JTig...@WI.LeidenUniv.NL
Scholar and Fool
>Why? People make claims all the time about themselves. Why should we
>decide they are lying as the standard?
Me personally, I become more unwilling to believe someone as the claims
become more and more bizarre and/or grand, or as the number of claims
begin to stack up (ie, a whole tubload of slightly bizarre/grand claims
adds up to the same skepticism as one humongously bizarre/grand claim).
[stuff about what a skeptic is and isn't was deleted here]
>A skeptic might claim that he/she is holding out and will not make a
>decision one way or another until more info is in on the subject; by
>taking an anti-Larry-truthfulness line, you are not a skeptic.
I think a problem is the difference in definition of what a "skeptic" is
and isn't. You seem to believe that a skeptic is one who believes some-
thing, but questions it - ie, assumes truth until proven otherwise. I
see no inherent need for this view. A skeptic in Webster's is defined
as "1. an adherent or advocate of skepticism" where skepticism is defined
as "1. an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general
or toward a particular object 2. a. the doctrine that true knowledge or
knowledge in a particular area is uncertain, b. the method of suspended
judgement, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics."
And incredulity is defined as "the quality or state of being incredulous"
where incredulous is defined as "1. unwilling to admit or accept what is
offered as true: not credulous: skeptical." So, to me at least, it seems
that a "skeptic" doesn't have to mean that you believe it but have doubts.
I see a "skeptic" as being able to come from a position of unsure disbelief
or from unsure belief. I see no need for a "skeptic" to necessarily be one
or the other, unless you want to tie in some sort of religious or personal
moral beliefs that a person should "think positive until proven negative."
But even if you do that for yourself, that doesn't mean that skeptics will
act in that manner. You just won't be able to admit that the "other type"
are skeptics, because they won't match up to your idea of what one should be.
J. Streck
>Oh yeah...lets all bow down to John.
Oh, bowing isn't necessary, but donations of food and money are always
welcome.
>I am not attcking Streck in general, as I sometimes find his posts
>interesting, but, "a refreshing taste of truth and objectivity"? You
>have made my day, as I am laughing hysterically right now.
Nope, no attacks there. Glad I could be partially responsible for today's
good humor (which has manifested itself so clearly in your posts).
>I think John can defend himself. He has shown many times he is a good
>arguer and debater (a definite compliment), but I also think it is
>obvious he can attack aggressively and is often insulting, whether truth
>is the issue or not.
Truth -- in whatever shape or form -- is always the issue.
>The issue here is about John's ability to unbiasedly assess the claims
>of Larry Norman. John has done an excellent job of "Devil's Advocate"
Actually, I don't think that's the issue at all. I think the issue is,
what are we to accept as a standard of truth. Many have claimed that
Norman's status as a Christian and an influential artist is sufficient
grounds to judge his every statement as truthful. I have attempted to
argue for a somewhat more stringent standard -- i.e., documented evidence.
>type thing, questioning LN's claims. However, that is all he has done.
>I myself do not see a one-sided approach as "refreshing...objectivity".
Neither would I -- but then I don't believe I've been one-sided.
>If anything, John has been extremely anti-LN. If he was unbiased, the
>only thing he could conclude is that LN's claims are not currently
>supported by a third party (like the unbiased media, I suppose).
Again we've come to that "to doubt is to believe Norman a liar" argument.
I don't believe the one necessarily implies the other. Call it "Norman's
claims are not currently supported by a third party" or "there's no
evidence to support Norman's claims," to me it's one and the same -- and
the position I've (obviously without much luck) been arguing for.
>That is
>it. That claim does not make LN a liar. It might cause you to not put a
>lot of weight on his claims when making a decision, but it should not
>cause you to believe he is a liar.
You know, I'm starting to wish I'd saved all my posts 'cause I'm not sure
I've even once assigned the term "liar" to Norman.
>John likewise has made a decision, he has *CHOSEN* to believe that LN is
>a liar.
No, I've made the choice to demand evidence before I join the church of
Norman.
>He has not chosen to withhold judgement until the facts are in.
That, I think, cuts both ways.
>As far as I know, he himself has not made any affort to contact Larry or
>Paul or Bob or anyone to attempt to find verification either for or
>against Larry.
Guilty as charged.
>He has not sought the truth - he has pre-judged, and he
>is now attempting to logically argue that Larry is not truthful. If John
>were honestly interested solely in truth, and if the truthfulness of the
>situation were so important to John, I believe we would be seeing the
>results of HIS research.
Ah, so again the burden of proof falls on me. Odd, but I'll see what I can
do.
>Instead of doing some footwork himself, John
>seems content to sit back, and poke at others, all the time claiming the
>skeptic position. Well...you may find this "refreshing...objectivity",
>but I call it idle, laziness, gossip.
Now there you go not attacking me again. Debating on the Net is such fun.
>I may just be an innocent dupe in Larry's grand scheme of world-
>domination (or whatever it is he gains from his so-called lies), but
>I believe I am acting both intelligently and Biblically in my decisions.
Don't we all.
>I allow that others may disagree with me, but you should be willing to
>back up your arguements with your actions. I CHOOSE to believe Larry
>without documentation. If you CHOOSE to disbelieve Larry, and you argue
>I (and others) need documentation, then by your own logic, you have an
>obligation to provide proof he has lied. Go ahead, I am anxiously
>awaiting your results.
And skepticism would fit in there, where?
>Just a little worked up,
Aren't we all.
john streck
jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Mighty CheefDan![tm]
jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu (J. Streck) wrote:
>
>Well, given the long standing debate -- or persecution, if that's
>how you see it -- that's swirled around Norman for quite some years now,
>I hardly think it's rushing to judgment to doubt some of the things
>Norman says.
I'm just waiting for him to take credit for introducing Michael English to
Sandy Patty.
Jeffrey Parks
Bill Overpeck <w...@TEFS1.acd.com> wrote:
>I'm not contesting the veracity of Larry's album line(a)r notes. I
>really don't know how to do that; Paul hasn't called for months and
>Led Zeppelin doesn't practice in our garage anymore. But if I had a
>vote, I'd vote to give folks the benefit of the doubt, in general -
>especially in the absence of any clear intent to deceive. I think
>I'd rather risk naivete than rush to judgement.
Against my better judgment, I'm going to leap into this one. If for
no other reason than to give john a break (you can sit the next few
out if you so desire, john).
Let me state up front that I, too, have been profoundly changed
by Larry's music and that I consider OVTP and In Another Land to
be two of the more significant albums ever put out in Xn music.
But I also realize that's personal opinion and need not be accepted
by everyone for it to be valid for me. And, no, just because a majority
of people think it (or a majority of critics) doesn't require everyone
else to acquiesce. The beauty of music is its versatility and variety.
But regarding Larry's claims regarding his influence, connections, etc.,
that's a whole different ballgame. Yes, it's true that we usually accept
when someone states a fact that they're probably telling the truth.
And particularly when that person is a Christian. But that is only
true for claims which are within the bounds of the everyday or
probable.
But Larry's claims are far, far different. They are unusual and
somewhat far-fetched. I'm not saying that he's lying. But when such
claims are made, it is incumbent upon the claimant that they back
up their statements. It is not the responsibility of the skeptic to
refute such a claim, but the claimant.
Now I know the response to that. Larry doesn't have a tape
recorder with him all the time, blah, blah, blah. Well then, he should
keep his mouth shut. If you can't back up the fact that Paul
McCartney thinks you're fabulous, that Pete Townsend considers you
the inspiration for his masterpiece, that Bob Dylan credits you
for leading him to salvation, then don't say those things. If it's
so important to do so, then get them to say it again and on the
record this time. I mean if you really did lead Dylan to the Lord, I
can't believe he wouldn't mind saying it again. Or if Townsend
credits you with such influence, surely you could just call up
old Pete and ask him to do you a favor.
I realize I'm starting to veer into sarcasm, but it's hard to avoid.
I mean I can't believe Paul would like Larry's lyrics if he'd
actually heard them (I think partic. of "Reader's Digest").
But the skepticism that arises from many of us is due to the huge
number of tabloid-like claims Larry has made over the last two
decades and the paranoia which lies behind them. My un-favorite
example is one that happened at a concert I was promoting. Larry
was doing a fabulous set and then he stopped to talk about his
travels in Russia. Acc. to Larry, both he and Charly were poisoned
by the KGB on a number of occasions as well as had other hideous
things done in an attempt to kill them. And this was the reason he
was sick in the late 80's. Now I'm not saying that's not possible,
but this is just one of a huge number of similar conspiracy-type
claims Larry has made about his life, claims which conveniently excuse
him from gross and documented irresponsibility. I mean, Larry's
life, if true, deserves a mini-series. I rather think it belongs
in the Weekly World News.
All of that to say, I don't believe Larry Norman. Yes, I think he's
lying. The claims he has made about his life, connections, and music
are too outlandish and too convenient for me to believe them
unless he's got some rock-solid documentation. Since it's been
twenty years on some of these claims (and us rmc folk are hardly
the first people to question Larry), I'm not expecting that
anytime soon. I'd have a lot more respect for Larry (and his
supporters) if they'd just say, "Yeah, I realize the claims are
hard to swallow. I don't mind if you're skeptical. I just hope
you'll still be blessed by the music." If I saw that, instead
of the paranoid accusations of slander which are way too common,
I might be willing to let it go. Until then, the burden of proof
is not with me.
J Robert
J. Streck
>Whoa! The first two stories have been documented as false, if I
>understand your logic. The last story, regarding Larry Norman has NOT
>benn shown to be false.
True enough, but I'm simply using the first two examples to point out why
I demand evidence from Norman. I personally don't see that wanting
evidence is equivalent to assuming that Norman is a liar.
>logical error by attempting to compare these three situations. They have
>no basis in reality as comparable things. By placing them in the same
>camp, you have shown us that you have pre-judged Larry as a liar. If
I disagree.
>there is evidence that Larry's claims are false, then please point them
>out. Larry's claims may seem extravegant, but that alone does not make
>them false.
One thing I always wonder about in these discussions is why the burden of
proof never falls on Norman -- and, moroever, why anyone who claims that
it does is suddenly persecuting the man.
>Ok...you want evidence. Why don't you seek evidence against these
>claims. Take a little time, write some letters. If this is so obvious
>to you that Larry is lying, then it should be easy for you to prove them
>lies.
Except that proving a universal negative is far more difficult
(impossible, actually) than proving a positive. All Norman has to do to
back up his claim is show one of these cards or letters. There is no way
I can prove they don't exist.
>operating procedure of his activities. If you said, "I find this hard to
>believe because it just seems like a lot for one person", and then asked
>for evidence, that would potentially be a skeptic stance, but what I hear
>is, "I am going to assume that Larry is a profound and nearly
>psychopathic liar, and it runs in the family, although I have no direct
>evidence he is a liar."
That's quite a reading. If that's truly what you hear in my claims than
this telecommunications stuff truly is as abysmal as some people claim.
john streck
jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Gideon van Zyl
>On 14 Sep 1995, Gideon van Zyl wrote:
>
>> Anybody out there read
>> the VOG interview with Larry?
>
>Yep. The unedited one.
>
>> That might also help with some perspective :-)
>
>Yep. It did.
Hmm - good
>
>>
>> Disclaimer: These views are probably clouded by by belief that we should
>> honour God in all that we do and say.
>
>Is the implication that the rest of us don't feel the same way?
Greater leaps in logic has surely made? I think rarely though ;) Then
again, maybe I was just stating the absolute subjectivity of my point of
view to exhonerate myself from possible similar implications.
>
>I don't think I like that implication.
Hmm - maybe I just wasn't trying to imply anything about you, but myself.
-Gideon-
Matthew C. Laswell
> In article <jstreck....@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
> J. Streck <jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
Before I say anything else, it's probably worth mentioning that I'm not
a Larry Norman fan, nor am I a Larry Norman detractor. I've never really
listened to his music extensively (though I've heard my share) - it's
not from a musical period that interests me that much. When this thread
started, I had no opinion (in fact, pretty much no knowledge) of the
claims Larry has been making. However, the total unwillingness of anyone
to present any sort of objective evidence is starting to convince me
that something is up here. Moreover, the personal attacks leveled against
anyone who suggests that such evidence is warranted are telling.
So, despite my better judgement, I'm posting here. Not to condemn Larry,
John Streck, Randy Stonehill, Bob Weigel or anyone else, but to address
what's been going on.
> >I seek evidence. I want letters, documents, photographs, objective testimony
> >from those with pertinent knowledge that will make up for the selective
> >memory and subjectivity -- my own and that of others. So far, in the case of
> >Larry Norman I've seen nothing of the sort. I've been given the PR on
> >Larry's liner notes and an interview with Larry's brother. Good heavens,
> >man, even the OJ defense team has done better than that.
> Ok...you want evidence. Why don't you seek evidence against these
> claims. Take a little time, write some letters. If this is so obvious
> to you that Larry is lying, then it should be easy for you to prove them
> lies.
<donning asbestos suit>
Ummm, let me understand what you're asking here. You want John to prove
beyond the shadow of a doubt that Paul McCartney _never_ said the things
Larry claims about him? Proving that something has never happened implies
either (a) a verifiable theoretical model which proves that it _could_
not happen or (b) the ability to observe all phenomena related to the one
of interest. In other words, you are asking John to have heard (and, to
satisfy you, recorded) every word that Paul McCartney has ever said since
birth. This is patently impossible. The argument, ultimately, is just
a straw man that can be easily knocked down, distracting attention from
the real issues that are involved here.
"Oho!" you cry "that's exactly my point - John can't prove that Larry is
lying!" But what about the burden of proof, which lies at the core of what
John's saying? Larry has made some impressive claims, this much is not in
dispute, as far as I have seen on this newsgroup. The onus is clearly on
him and those who spread the claims (which, to my recollection, is how
this whole mess got started) to back up those claims. The old saying still
holds: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Here is where I have a problem with what's been going on - anyone (and it's not
just John - this whole thing has gone on before around here) who questions
these extraordinary claims is pilloried here, their integrity insulted,
their very salvation called into question. If the issue is as black and
white as all that, why can't anyone simply produce solid evidence? If
the truth is so obvious, why can't I see it? Why can't you show me?
If the evidence isn't there, how exactly did you become so convinced that
Larry's claims are true?
Certainly, there have been public disputes involving Larry in the past which
could cause a reasonable person to wonder where the truth lies. Surely
someone could answer honest questions with verifiable facts?
> >Insult me if you like, Rob, but the fact of the matter is that Larry Norman
> >has produced nothing but his own word to support the claims he makes.
> >Given recent history, I'm going to demand something more.
> Why? People make claims all the time about themselves. Why should we
> decide they are lying as the standard? I have no problem with the
> skeptic stance, as I am a skeptic, but holding out for truthful evidence
> is not the same thing as assuming a lie.
Perhaps. In fact, this is how I started out in this thread. On the other
hand, if anyone who wants evidence gets a public flogging, I start to
wonder why. When people who claim that there is evidence come forward and
I find that it's "his brother said" or "it's in Larry's liner notes" or
"everyone knows that" I start to think that there wasn't evidence to begin
with.
> You are not a skeptic if you
> are willing to assume that Larry is telling a lie as the standard
> operating procedure of his activities. If you said, "I find this hard to
> believe because it just seems like a lot for one person",
Fair enough. I find Larry's claims hard to believe because it just seems
like a lot for one person. Let's see some evidence.
> Think about it,
A good suggestion for everyone here.
- matt l.
mat...@comm.mot.com
Not the official opinion of Motorola, Inc.
William Standhardt
like to know more about them. At first, I thought maybe it was Bruce
Cockburn, because the voic and style of music was similar to one of his
albums I have. Can someone email with info about them? Discography,
style?
Thanks in advance,
Bill Standhardt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Bill Standhardt -- "We were looking for an endless summer -
- w...@indy.net -- We were looking for an endless summer, -
- Georgia Tech -- We paid the price by looking twice our age." -
- BS Computer Sci. -- - Daniel Amos from !Alarma! -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Evans
Who set r.m.c. up as judge over Larry Norman, or anyone else for that matter?
Let's look for the planks in our own eyes folks!
Tim
--
****************************************************************************
* * Dr. Tim Evans ** *
* Zzzzz/Phydeaux * Department of Chemistry ** *
* Tim....@qub.ac.uk * The Queen's University of Belfast ** ** *
* * N. Ireland **** AMIGA *
* * ** *
* "Love is a corpse, we sit and watch it harden, *
* We left it oh so long ago the garden........" *
****************************************************************************
RBlake6279
knows him. It is just foolish speculation and arguement. The truth of the
matter is he is one of the most influential christian rock artists.
Because of the persecution and struggles he went through we have christian
rock today. Of course we forget all of this, how the church denounced him
and claimed he was the devil because of the music he played. Instead of
asking if he is a liar we should be thankful cause we would still be
listening to Hymns without God having used LN.
ROb
RBl...@aol.com
"Some people say that God is dead, that He doesnt exist except inside your
head. I wonder how many are going to be surprised when they look straight
up and see him coming through the skies".....Larry Norman
Scholar and Fool
>Of course we forget all of this, how the church denounced him
>and claimed he was the devil because of the music he played.
Some friends of mine got their show stopped at a church because several
members of the church said they saw demons coming out of the speakers
during the show. I was there. I saw what went on. I know how stupid
the church and its members can be. I don't care whether the church
denounced Larry Norman and claimed he was the devil or not...it's nothing
particular to Larry Norman and it doesn't set him apart from any other
Christian musician. Yeah, he's one of the early ones, and yeah, I can
respect him for being one of the early ones. I can not honor him or his
music for this reason alone, however. I can not honor him and his music
and his actions simply because he was around early on, or for the impact
he has had with certain people. I like his music or I don't, irrelevent
of who he is, what he has done, and how many people he has affected. The
respect I have for him as a person is based on how he acts and reacts with
people, not his list of accomplishments and claims.
>Instead of
>asking if he is a liar we should be thankful cause we would still be
>listening to Hymns without God having used LN.
I think this is absurd.
Tony Bowden
> Instead of asking if he is a liar we should be thankful cause we
> would still be listening to Hymns without God having used LN.
Excuse me?
Larry Norman actually invented rock music now?
Somehow I think I'd still have listened to Talking Heads and the Manic Street
Preachers this morning even if Larry Norman had never existed.
Tony
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Bowden | Mail: t.bo...@qub.ac.uk or aj...@yfn.ysu.edu
Belfast | URL : http://boris.qub.ac.uk/tony/ for Matthew Fox, Manics,
N. Ireland | Radiohead, Sam Phillips, Jack T Chick, Innocence Mission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some people never see the light til it shines through bullet holes
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
walter gorlitz
(RBlake6279) wrote:
>Yes, who are we to judge wether he is lying or not? No one here actually
>knows him. It is just foolish speculation and arguement. The truth of the
>matter is he is one of the most influential christian rock artists.
Who shall hold a brother accoutable for his (un-Biblical) actions if not
those in the Body of Christ? If we merely turn our heads and then shake
them when he makes these unfounded statements are we loving him?
>Because of the persecution and struggles he went through we have christian
>rock today.
Not really. 1) It would have happend without him, zeitgeist and all.
2) The persecution and struggles he went through were as a result of his
STYLE of music, personal; attire (Jeans, not a suit) and personal hygene
((SP) LONG HAIR) not his personality (ie. does he lie or not?).
>Of course we forget all of this,
Actually, We don't All of the posters in the "Larry is a Liar" camp have
said that he was very influential in the forming and foundation of Jesus
music.
>how the church denounced him and claimed he was the devil because
>of the music he played. Instead of asking if he is a liar
>we should be thankful cause we would still be
>listening to Hymns without God having used LN.
No. We wouldn't. There plenty of people who were making Jesus music at the
time. That is well documented. Larry just had one or two songs that were a
bit more expressive of the movement thats all.
>ROb
>RBl...@aol.com
>"Some people say that God is dead, that He doesnt exist except inside your
>head. I wonder how many are going to be surprised when they look straight
>up and see him coming through the skies".....Larry Norman
BTW: The original question was in regards to Larry claiming that he was
influential in leading Keith Geern to Christ. The rollout to that was that
Melody only mentions Larry in passing in the book on Keith's life. This
once again called into question Larry's "stories" about all his
connections--maybe that bump on his head in 1979 really has affected his
memory--and brought up that old question of... Well we're on that thread
now.
--------------------------------------------------------------
| walter gorlitz | "The Christian life is about |
| Vancouver, BC, Canada | the beginning of hope, |
| walter_...@mindlink.bc.ca | not the end of struggle." |
| or CIS:70404,416 | Brent Bourgeois |
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Rock
> actually, I think the reference was to the fact that Christians would still
> be listening to hymns if it weren't for Larry. The statement is more that
> he invented/created/birthed Christian rock music and all varients thereof,
> not rock music in general.
>
> It's still absurd, though.
Yeah, why don't we see Kurt Kaiser or Ralph Carmichel or even Bill
Gaither as the father of Christian rock. Sure, they're easy listening
now, but back in the sixties...
The progression would have happened anyway. According to Paul Baker's
book *CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN MUSIC* the first Chrsitian rock song might
well have been "Crystal Blue Persuasion" by Tommy James and the
Shondells. What about Pacific gas & Electric's "Are You Ready?" Norman
Greenbaum's "Spirit In the Sky?" Or was Larry responsible for these too?
Scholar and Fool
>RBlake6279 (rblak...@aol.com) wrote:
>> Instead of asking if he is a liar we should be thankful cause we
[...]
>Larry Norman actually invented rock music now?
>
>Somehow I think I'd still have listened to Talking Heads and the Manic Street
>Preachers this morning even if Larry Norman had never existed.
actually, I think the reference was to the fact that Christians would still
be listening to hymns if it weren't for Larry. The statement is more that
he invented/created/birthed Christian rock music and all varients thereof,
not rock music in general.
It's still absurd, though.
RBlake6279
lyrics:
I never sin............Im not a sinner I am going up to the Spirit in the
sky.
Listen to the song, and the lyrics first it is a Hindu song I recall.
Rob
walter gorlitz
<hollerud@> wrote:
>Why then, should Larry lie ?
It's habitual. He doesn't do it for any personal reason, just because he
can't stop.
walter gorlitz
<jorn.h...@efi.sintef.no> wrote:
Welcome to the debate. I don't know if Charlie (that's how he used to
spell his name) is or is not reliable, in this instance it's not
important.
Whether or not I believe that Bono called Larry up in the hospital does
not change the fact that Larry tends to lie about a lot of things. Even if
Upon This Rock helped Bono and the band through a tough time doesn't
change this either.
It could have happened that Bono called up Larry. It might be easy to
check. The date of Larry's heart attach is known. The U2 tour schedule in
the US is known. Do they match up? So what if they don't. It would not be
uncommon for a celeberity to call up another celebrity to wish them well.
COme up with some proof that Larry influenced Keith Green's conversion.
That was the original question.
walter gorlitz
<jorn.h...@efi.sintef.no> wrote:
>>Larry
>>sees himself as the father of rock and roll; I would argue that the
>
>No, with all respect I don't think he does. Maybe he sees himself
>as the father of Jesus rock
Sorry to interupt, but on the CAUSE video, Steve Camp (OK so he's
pro-Larry) interviewed Larry and introduced him as the Grandfather of
Christian rock music. To that Larry made an old grandfather face and they
both smiled. So Larry would consider himself to have forged out this
segment of Christian music, but does this change his personal habits? Can
anyone prove what Larry says is truth or a lie.
And now back to the meaningless chatter.
>and who (besides John and his associates) would
>be blind enough to question that?
I have to read 22 more of these...they better improve!
walter gorlitz
Kalmbacher) wrote:
>At a recent Steve Taylor concert (C-Stone 95), Steve mentioned he had (or
>someone in his office) called called a certain school mentioned in the
>song color code, and that he had indeed ascertained that they still have
>racist policies. Now, I myself did not hear him make the call, I was not
>in the office when he called (or a secretary or whatever), bottom line is
>I have no third party source which verefies Steve's claims. I myself
>*CHOOSE* to believe Steve, that indeed a call was recently made.
You choose to believe Steve as do most of us because we have no history of
Steve Taylor lying to the public, and no alligations to state that he is a
lier. On the contrary, we do have more than one alligation--from very
different sources--that seem to make Mr. Norman a bit of a lier. OK, the
word habitual has been used.
I would like to know if it's true or not. Not stories that so and so said
that Larry got a call from Mother Theresa saying how his song "Six O'Clock
News" helped her realise that she was wasting her time and should set up a
mission in Calcutta, I want to hear from Ma T herself. Anyone got her
e-mail address?
Ed Rock
> Michael N Nonemacher <schi...@CMU.EDU> wrote:
> >have never read one of John's posts where I thought he was out of line.
> >There are a few of John's posts (occasionally) that I don't agree with,
> >but I have found his posts to be a refreshing taste of truth and
> >objectivity, something I think r.m.c. doesn't see much of...
>
> Oh yeah...lets all bow down to John.
That's not what he's advocating. I have to agree with Michael, I may not
agree with every word that proceeds from John Streck's keyboard, but I
recognize him as a consistent voice of reason and wisdom in an
increasingly absurd newsgroup. In fact he always gives me something to
think about even when I disagree, which is becoming less and less of the
time.
> Get a life, this is such a joke, I am doubting how much you have read
> posts on this group.
I may be new compared to some here, but I've been pretty involved since
August of 1994 and can say that I have read nearly everything posted
since then. It is because I have read so much of what is posted here
that I can heartily say what I have said above. John Streck is a voice
of sanity on rmc--one of the few.
> I am not attcking Streck in general, as I sometimes find his posts
> interesting, but, "a refreshing taste of truth and objectivity"? You
> have made my day, as I am laughing hysterically right now.
I can't see why you would laugh at that. John is not interested in
toeing anyone's line. He calls 'em like he sees 'em and his sight seems
to be darn good. Truth is his motivation, and it shows.
> I think John can defend himself. He has shown many times he is a good
> arguer and debater (a definite compliment), but I also think it is
> obvious he can attack aggressively and is often insulting, whether truth
> is the issue or not.
This makes me wonder how closely you have read his posts. It also makes
me wonder if maybe he just hasn't seen things the way you do and is
therefor "wrong" or "attacking." I have never seen him attack
agressively. I have seen him take stands I didn't agree with. Sometimes
that'll even piss me off, but his stands are quite solid--and can be
backed up.
> The issue here is about John's ability to unbiasedly assess the claims
> of Larry Norman. John has done an excellent job of "Devil's Advocate"
> type thing, questioning LN's claims. However, that is all he has done.
> I myself do not see a one-sided approach as "refreshing...objectivity".
How many times does it need to be said that asking for independent
documentation is not playing the "Devil's Advocate?"
> If anything, John has been extremely anti-LN. If he was unbiased, the
> only thing he could conclude is that LN's claims are not currently
> supported by a third party (like the unbiased media, I suppose).
And that is exactly what he is saying. What you imply from his posts is
obviously incorrect.
> That is
> it. That claim does not make LN a liar.
He's never said that. If all these claims, as grandiose as they are, are
true, then surely there would be documentation.
> It might cause you to not put a
> lot of weight on his claims when making a decision, but it should not
> cause you to believe he is a liar.
>
> At a recent Steve Taylor concert (C-Stone 95), Steve mentioned he had (or
> someone in his office) called called a certain school mentioned in the
> song color code, and that he had indeed ascertained that they still have
> racist policies. Now, I myself did not hear him make the call, I was not
> in the office when he called (or a secretary or whatever), bottom line is
> I have no third party source which verefies Steve's claims. I myself
> *CHOOSE* to believe Steve, that indeed a call was recently made.
Steve's not bragging about this call on album jackets and he doesn't have
hoards of disciples quoting this instance as a proof that he is
the "greatest whatever of all time" or that he discovered electricity.
> John likewise has made a decision, he has *CHOSEN* to believe that LN is
> a liar. He has not chosen to withhold judgement until the facts are in.
You're putting words in his mouth.
> As far as I know, he himself has not made any affort to contact Larry or
> Paul or Bob or anyone to attempt to find verification either for or
> against Larry. He has not sought the truth - he has pre-judged,
Do you have any proof of that? Or have you simply prejudged him?
> and he
> is now attempting to logically argue that Larry is not truthful. If John
> were honestly interested solely in truth, and if the truthfulness of the
> situation were so important to John, I believe we would be seeing the
> results of HIS research. Instead of doing some footwork himself, John
> seems content to sit back, and poke at others, all the time claiming the
> skeptic position. Well...you may find this "refreshing...objectivity",
> but I call it idle, laziness, gossip.
You have interesting definitions.
> I may just be an innocent dupe in Larry's grand scheme of world-
> domination (or whatever it is he gains from his so-called lies), but
> I believe I am acting both intelligently and Biblically in my decisions.
> I allow that others may disagree with me, but you should be willing to
> back up your arguements with your actions. I CHOOSE to believe Larry
> without documentation. If you CHOOSE to disbelieve Larry, and you argue
> I (and others) need documentation, then by your own logic, you have an
> obligation to provide proof he has lied. Go ahead, I am anxiously
> awaiting your results.
That may be the way you see things, but I, and certainly others, tend to
believe that if you make a grand claim, you'd best be willing to document
it. I blindly follow no one.
Chip Howard
: In the style of Isao Bered, I'd like to say...
: ...hmmmm...what if Jesus had called Thomas a Jesus hater because he
: wanted documentation....
: hmmmmmm...
I LOVE IT!!! ROFTLMFAO!
The sad part (or perhaps good part) is... when I saw the ...hmmmm... I
immediately though it was from Isao.
rmc- where a great trait is always rewarded with imitation.
-Chip
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Any and all typo's that may occur in my
posts are a direct result of S A T A N
attacking me through my computer and
should be treated as such.
-Chip cho...@salus.med.uvm.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chip Howard
: chr...@chopin.udel.edu (Chris Kalmbacher) writes:
: >Just a little worked up,
: Aren't we all.
I know that I should respond to something about this issue... however
this strikes me as the perfect signature line so I hereby ask permission
to use it (though I am sure that I thought of it first so the credit
should go to me anyway! For that matter... since I've been interested in
Christian music for such a long time... I think I'll take the credit for
that as well. Hey... I am a Christian... so you all believe me right?
Speaking of the word Christian... did you all know that I came up with
that as well? And I also brought Larry Norman to the Lord (by
encouraging him to play music by buying his music) so really I guess that
you could say that I also brought Bob Dylan to the Lord and I brought
*blah blah blah*))
This commentary brought to you by an IBM computer and the Internet...
both inspired by Chip (the creation man) Howard.
Tim Evans
>rblak...@aol.com (RBlake6279) writes:
>
>>the only person Jstreck finds reliable is himself.
>
>Well, gather round children 'cause it's story time.
>
>Brother Larry who claims responsibility for the conversion of Bob Dylan
>(never mind that Dylan had just come off a lengthy tour with a band that
>included a number of Christian players);
Never known Larry to make that claim. Only that Bob get saved at the
biblestudy.
I think it's God who is responsible for salvation.
>Brother Larry who claims that
>Paul McCartney once said he was the greatest lyricist the world had ever
>known (nevermind that McCartney was half of what many critics and fans
>consider to be the greatest rock and roll songwriting team the world has
>ever known). Now why would I want to question Larry's reliability?
I think that the only thing Phydeaux ever wrote about this was that Paul once
said that Larry could have been a successful/influential songwriter in the 70's
if he hadn't chosen to sing about God.
>Larry
>sees himself as the father of rock and roll; I would argue that the
>historical evidence -- at least that which has been produced so far --
>shows that to be a fiction.
>
Saying this just shows how little you know about Larry Norman. He never claimed
this and certianly doesn't think it. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>No, Rob, I am not the only person I believe to be reliable. Indeed, I know
>for a fact that I am wholly _unreliable_. I, like all people, am plagued
>with a selective and faulty memory; I suffer from a point of view. Thus,
>I seek evidence. I want letters, documents, photographs, objective testimony
>from those with pertinent knowledge that will make up for the selective
>memory and subjectivity -- my own and that of others. So far, in the case of
>Larry Norman I've seen nothing of the sort. I've been given the PR on
>Larry's liner notes and an interview with Larry's brother. Good heavens,
>man, even the OJ defense team has done better than that.
>
Since when was Larry put on trial? And since when did you see yourself as Chief
Justice?
>Insult me if you like, Rob, but the fact of the matter is that Larry Norman
>has produced nothing but his own word to support the claims he makes.
>Given recent history, I'm going to demand something more.
>
You "demand"? Just who do you think you are?
>john (I probably should have just said, "Fuck off, Rob") streck
>jst...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
>
I think the above says enough about you, John!
Tony Bowden
> As Tony Bowden <p949...@qub.ac.uk> so eloquently put it:
> >RBlake6279 (rblak...@aol.com) wrote:
> >> Instead of asking if he is a liar we should be thankful cause we
> >> would still be listening to Hymns without God having used LN.
> >Larry Norman actually invented rock music now?
> >Somehow I think I'd still have listened to Talking Heads and the Manic Street
> >Preachers this morning even if Larry Norman had never existed.
> actually, I think the reference was to the fact that Christians would still
> be listening to hymns if it weren't for Larry. The statement is more that
> he invented/created/birthed Christian rock music and all varients thereof,
> not rock music in general.
Yeah - I know ...
To me that implies either:
1) Christian only listen to 'Christian Music' - which used to by Hymns until
Larry Norman
or
2) As most Christians listen to other forms of music too, that all there was
was hymns until Larry Norman came along.
One is _slighly_ more believable except for the fact that most christians
don't just listen to 'Christian Music'. Two is the line I took :)
> It's still absurd, though.
No arguments there :)
Tony
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Bowden | Mail: t.bo...@qub.ac.uk or aj...@yfn.ysu.edu
Belfast | URL : http://boris.qub.ac.uk/tony/ for Matthew Fox, Manics,
N. Ireland | Radiohead, Sam Phillips, Jack T Chick, Innocence Mission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image
when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do." --Anne Lamott
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Bowden
> It would seem that if he was as bad as you state than at some point
> in the last 17 or 18 years that this has been going on someone would
> have stepped up and said or done something that would have blown
> this wide open. My example would be the Warnke situation.
And how long did it take for the Warnke situation to be blown open?
Tony
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Bowden | Mail: t.bo...@qub.ac.uk or aj...@yfn.ysu.edu
Belfast | URL : http://boris.qub.ac.uk/tony/ for Matthew Fox, Manics,
N. Ireland | Radiohead, Sam Phillips, Jack T Chick, Innocence Mission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Acrostic algebra reveals the ashy residue on which the NIV & NASV rest"
(NASV - NIV) - AV = X => ( ASI + NV ) - AV = X => SIN
(New Age Bible Versions, G A Riplinger, 1993)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLE
> WILLE (Wi...@cris.com) wrote:
> It would seem that if he was as bad as you state than at some point
> in the last 17 or 18 years that this has been going on someone would
> have stepped up and said or done something that would have blown
> this wide open. My example would be the Warnke situation.
P9> And how long did it take for the Warnke situation to be blown open?
It seems like it was about 10 years from the book to when JPUSA
started checking it out but I really couldn't say for sure. Even
so Warnke was just one guy pulling a snow job about himself where
the Norman thing has quite a few different people involved in it
one way or the other.
I just find it strange that no one (media) has looked into all
his claims or at least some of them at some point in time
considering the names involved.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR]
Randy Robb
(Stuff deleted)
>The progression would have happened anyway. According to Paul Baker's
>book *CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN MUSIC* the first Chrsitian rock song might
>well have been "Crystal Blue Persuasion" by Tommy James and the
>Shondells.
I haven't read that book, but a Larry Norman song
called "Riding High" done by People! was released as a B side for a Capital
single in '67. This was 2 years before Crystal Blue Persuation. I consider
the beginning of Christian rock (although not done by Christians) to be Simon
and Garfunkel ("Wednesday Morning 3:00am" - '64, "The Sounds of Silence" -
'66) and The Byrds "Turn! Turn! Turn!", - '65
>What about Pacific gas & Electric's "Are You Ready?" Norman
>Greenbaum's "Spirit In the Sky?" Or was Larry responsible for these too?
> Ed Rock | "Is it the winter of our discontent
> aka Ed Crabtree | or just an early frost?"
> ercr...@email.unc.edu | --Kevin Gilbert
>
-- Randy
> Ed Rocks the Web http://ecsvax.uncecs.edu/~ecrab/
"We are living in a stochastic house...." -- Philemon
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Randy Robb
Blurred Vision - Alternative/Folk Rock
WWW: http://philemon.asc.msu.edu/bvhp1.html
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\