Apologetix on Howard Stern
cb
A non-Christian friend of mine was listening to Howard Stern the other
morning and said that they were playing Apologetix. My friend said that it
was one of the funniest things he has ever heard. He especially liked the
"Livin' La Vida Loca" parody and the "Last Resort" parody.
He then went to the Apologetix web site and said that it crashed. He thinks
it was do to a "slash-dot effect" because of the Howard Stern exposure.
He also found "a ton" of songs to download and he can't stop laughing about
it.
Did anyone here hear the Howard Stern broadcast?
Chris
--
http://www.AandOMusic.com/
"The Good News and Good Music"
New, Used, and Rare Christian Music CDs
www.nickalexander.com
J. Jackson wrote about it a few months back, saying that Stern meant
it to slam them, but it backfired, giving them heightened publicity
and even respect from neighboring friends--who admitted that even tho
they didn't like their parodies, admitted that ApologetiX wouldn't
have been played if there wasn't any talent there.
I didn't like _Spoofernatural_, which is when this occurred. And I
thought they had one or two good songs on each album up to that point.
But as I wrote in a prior post, all is forgiven on their latest
(_Keep the Change_), where it seems that, for once, they are actually
aiming to BE FUNNY in addition to preaching the Gospel. And they
succeed.
Nick
Nick Alexander's LATEST ALBUM: "Eternal Life--the Party Album"
available NOW!!
Includes parodies of Lenny Kravitz, Barenaked Ladies, and "Electric
Avenue".
http://www.nickalexander.com
BrianDAS1
Yet another Christian who hasn't figured out people are laughing at them, not
with them.
And they are filed in the same class as the stripper for Christ.
Grace & Peace,
Brian Healy
www.BrianHealy.com
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/BrianDAS1/dasindex.html">Dead Artist Syndrome
</A>
cb
Chris
--
http://www.AandOMusic.com/
"The Good News and Good Music"
New, Used, and Rare Christian Music CDs
"BrianDAS1" <bria...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011129172003...@mb-dh.aol.com...
www.nickalexander.com
> Yet another Christian who hasn't figured out people are laughing at them, not
> with them.
No, they're very aware.
That's why they've improved their songwriting skills.
> And they are filed in the same class as the stripper for Christ.
Ummm.... excuse me? Please make sense.
Nick
Nick Alexander
The Catholic "Weird Al"
http://www.nickalexander.com
Brian Healy
>
>
>
> > And they are filed in the same class as the stripper for Christ.
>
> Ummm.... excuse me? Please make sense.
>
> Nick
> Nick Alexander
> The Catholic "Weird Al"
> http://www.nickalexander.com
Both base their acts on perversions for God, the stripper perverting her body, the Apoligtix's by
perverting other peoples artistic efforts.
From what I have read in their e-mails, they, the Apoligtix's see publicly being ridiculed and
humiliated by non-christians as spreading the gospel under the verse about "the word of God not
returning void", But that would assume they consider their lyrics to be the word of God, which they are
not, they are trite song lyrics, not scripture. They have convinced themselves they are a ministry when
at best the are simply tacky christian entertainment.
And like the stripper for Christ they are getting attention because of the freak show nature of what
they are doing as oppose to the quality or actual validity of what they are doing.
Aaron J
Do you really know what grace really is? If you haven't read "What's So Amazing About
Grace?" by Philip Yancey, go do that.......it'll give you a good idea of what grace really
looks like.
aaron
www.nickalexander.com
> "www.nickalexander.com" wrote:
> > > And they are filed in the same class as the stripper for Christ.
> >
> > Ummm.... excuse me? Please make sense.
> >
> Both base their acts on perversions for God, the stripper perverting her
>body, the Apoligtix's by perverting other peoples artistic efforts.
Ummm... you're over the line here. A stripper for Christ is an
oxymoron, because to do so would be to tempt people to sin while
calling them to repentance. If you think Christian rock is evil, the
analogy works--otherwise you may do yourself a favor and find another
analogy.
What ApologetiX has done is not _new_ in any sense of the word. They
are using popular songs to write clever (and, in _Keep the Change_'s
case, FUNNY) lyrics that also promote specific ideas. Tom Lehrer's
done the same. Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger have done the same.
Have they perverted their causes (Lehrer's case, the Periodic Table of
Elements, Guthrie's and Seeger's passion for human rights and the
environment) by using popular songs? In _Sing Out!_ magazine, there's
a running column of reader's parodies of current songs, that sing all
over the map--women's rights, cloning, environment, public school--are
those causes any less diminished (stripper-mode) by those songs? If
not, then why can't Christianity have a voice?
A lot of comedy is going to have a ring of truth in it, a unique
perspective that stands alone. Chris Rock is funny, but is also
harrowing true as he recounts the experiences of ghetto-life. Even
Stern gets on a soapbox to rant about what he believes. Why not
Christians?
Which is why I admire Steve Taylor, Daniel Amos, and (*sigh*) the far
superior effort of _Keep the Change_. All these years of ranting
about _ApologetiX_ has paid off. They made a concerted effort to be
funny, whereas before they didn't. And as much as I admire Steve
Taylor and Daniel Amos, none of them have been heard in the general
marketplace (save for Taylor's brief stint in Chagall Gueverra, Terry
Taylor's video game soundtracks, and Steve Taylor's production on
_Kiss Me_).
> From what I have read in their e-mails, they, the Apoligtix's see publicly
>being ridiculed and humiliated by non-christians as spreading the
gospel under
>the verse about "the word of God not returning void", But that would
assume
>they consider their lyrics to be the word of God, which they are not,
they are
>trite song lyrics, not scripture. They have convinced themselves they
are a
>ministry when at best the are simply tacky christian entertainment.
While their songs are not Scripture, they are Scripture-based. So are
stained-glass windows. So is a Nativity Scene. No matter how good or
bad the art is, the stories of Scripture are getting out. And I can
agree that bad art can obscure Scripture--but I don't think _Keep the
Change_ fits that mold.
Your agitation of their pre-_Keep the Change_ days are understood.
Yet even in their pre-Keep the Change days, no other group has
focussed so strongly on getting actual Bible Stories, since the days
of Don Francisco and Keith Green. That they didn't work as well as
they should have only proves how tricky it is to write a funny
story-song which we all know how it ends.
Now that's changed.
Brian Healy
Dear Aaron,
Yes I do as a matter of fact, do you? I read and enjoyed that Yancey book years ago as well
as nearly all his other
books so what is your point ? Because I disagree with the way, a Christian band is marketing
themselves to make a profit
has nothing to do with grace. Maybe you should reread the book if you somehow came away
thinking your own
personal opinion automatically assumes the moral high ground and others who disagree with
you, or your opinion are
somehow lacking in grace. Debating and reviewing a consumer product or the creators of a
consumer product and
commenting on said products quality and it's marketing tactics in a Christian music newsgroup
is not an issue of grace,
human or devine.
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Brian Healy <Bria...@aol.com> wrote:
>From what I have read in their e-mails, they, the Apoligtix's see
>publicly being ridiculed and
>humiliated by non-christians as spreading the gospel under the verse
>about "the word of God not
>returning void",
I've said it before and I suppose I'll say it again: folks shouldn't
confuse "persecution for righteousness' sake" and "being laughed at."
Just because you're "persecuted," it doesn't automatically mean you're
"righteous," knowwhutimean?
JRjr
--
%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%% www.prism.gatech.edu/~vapspwi %%%%%%%%%%%
"Some will shake off the sloth of faithlessness
While others simply languish in their sleep
Me, I just fight to stay awake..." -- VOL, "Black Cloud O'er Me"
Bruce A. Brown
vap...@prism.gatech.edu wrote on 11/30/01 8:00 AM:
> In article <3C0715B0...@verizon.net>,
> Brian Healy <Bria...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> From what I have read in their e-mails, they, the Apoligtix's see
>> publicly being ridiculed and
>> humiliated by non-christians as spreading the gospel under the verse
>> about "the word of God not
>> returning void",
>
> I've said it before and I suppose I'll say it again: folks shouldn't
> confuse "persecution for righteousness' sake" and "being laughed at."
> Just because you're "persecuted," it doesn't automatically mean you're
> "righteous," knowwhutimean?
And, at the risk of stirring up more trouble, I must add another qute from
JRjr:
"I have no (_NO_) use for Apologetix, and despite having never heard
them, I'd still like to kick them in the nuts." -- Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Rick James
>
> What ApologetiX has done is not _new_ in any sense of the word.
Many of our "sacred" hymns started life as tavern songs. It made
sense to put praise and worship lyrics to songs that everyone already
knew. Now it's illegal unless you make it funny, too.
Rick
Brian Healy
Brian Healy <BrianHe...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<3C0715B0...@verizon.net>...
> "www.nickalexander.com" wrote:
> > > And they are filed in the same class as the stripper for Christ.
> >
> > Ummm.... excuse me? Please make sense.
> >
> Both base their acts on perversions for God, the stripper perverting her
>body, the Apoligtix's by perverting other peoples artistic efforts.
> Ummm... you're over the line here. A stripper for Christ is an
> oxymoron, because to do so would be to tempt people to sin while
> calling them to repentance. If you think Christian rock is evil, the
> analogy works--otherwise you may do yourself a favor and find another
> analogy.
I disagree and I'm sure the young lady who really does exist (Kelly was her name I believe) would
also, after all she shared scriptures in her strip shows to lead people to Christ and if the
Apologetx's lyrics don't "come back void" how can her sharing of real and actual scripture in spite
of her misguided world view not do the same?
It's not sharing Christ that's the problem, for both it is the method.
By the "word of God return void" standard she's just as valid as a ministry as they are. They (the
band) are lowering the bar, not me, I think both parties are self delusional.
As for the band in question I feel it is wrong and possibly sinful to damage other peoples property
or music or art works for your own personal profit or agenda and bragging about it as a "ministry"
and "parody"claiming it’s all for a religious cause while selling the cause as a de facto product.
Besides Howard Stern is playing them to mock them and the apparently desperate effort to evangelize
that they portray and for distorting / exploiting other artist works as they have without
considering the feeling of the original authors or their fans have for the works and perverting
those works for their own agenda as well as to point out the blatant hypocrisy of that lack of
concern and desperation coming from "christians".
>What ApologetiX has done is not _new_ in any sense of the word. They
> are using popular songs to write clever (and, in _Keep the Change_'s
> case, FUNNY) lyrics that also promote specific ideas. Tom Lehrer's
> done the same. Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger have done the same.
> Have they perverted their causes (Lehrer's case, the Periodic Table of
> Elements, Guthrie's and Seeger's passion for human rights and the
> environment) by using popular songs? In _Sing Out!_ magazine, there's
> a running column of reader's parodies of current songs, that sing all
> over the map--women's rights, cloning, environment, public school--are
> those causes any less diminished (stripper-mode) by those songs? If
> not, then why can't Christianity have a voice?
First you need to separate real message songs from parodies of others works of song writing this
is something you and the band seem to want to blur together. It's not the same issue.
Madison avenue has been perverting and distorting popular songs for years but they are honest enough
to call them commercials not claim they are parodies by their ministry, they also pay the authors of
the works they use as does Weird Al and Mark Russell and the majority of parody artist that sell
cd's of their works. I can't legally or morally turn Larry Norman's song "Why Don't You Look Into
Jesus" into a jingle for the California Cheese Board because of my firm belief in the goodness of
cheese and sing over the same Larry Norman music "Why Don't You Look in Cheeses they're good with
crackers" and claim falsely it's a royalty free "parody" song.
The Apologetixs are basing what they do on a core dishonesty because the band in question unlike
those above are not really doing parodies at all, as they claim but, total agenda driven propaganda
like commercials. They are closer to Goebels and Young & Rubicam than Weird Al, Spike Jones or any
of the artists mention above.
If I believe their claim as a ministry and their purpose is to convert people to christianity what
other conclusion is there for their efforts. None of those listed above are making that type of
claim for their songs or reason to exist and that is a very major difference.
The humor (if it exists at all) is not their primary goal. They claim preaching Jesus and
christianity is their stated claimed goal and what they themselves claim is a ministry. The primary
intent is not to entertain as a goal but, like a TV or Radio commercial sell you a product,
entertainment is a secondary byproduct of selling the product in this case Jesus or Christianity.
That agenda is what separates them from the others on your list as they are doing advertisements, by
turning other peoples songs into commercial jingles not in fact actual parodies where the primary
agenda is just get a laugh not a religious conversion or sell a product.
The very talented Tom Leher is not claiming he is a ministry nor is the brilliant original work
Masochism Tango being performed with the agenda to get people to convert to masochism nor is he
trying to lead anyone or cause a mass movement of people to start Poisoning Pigeons In the Park.
Weird Al's intent in recording Amish Paradise is not to convert people to become amish. Nor is he
trying to get people to convert to morbid obesity with Eat it or Fat .
The Apoligitix's are not doing actual parodies , but jingles for Jesus and Christianity with the
utilitarian purpose of advertisements to convert and sell christianity as a primary focus of their
work, not entertain. Their stated reasons and the basic deception they are doing "parodies" is a
falsehood, while in fact they are simply turning other peoples work in to advertisements and
commercials for their religious agenda under the false guise of being a christian 'parody' band.
>A lot of comedy is going to have a ring of truth in it, a unique
> perspective that stands alone. Chris Rock is funny, but is also
> harrowing true as he recounts the experiences of ghetto-life. Even
> Stern gets on a soapbox to rant about what he believes. Why not
> Christians?
That's fine but but we are not talking about that type of comedy and Chris Rock is not using other
peoples well known music to do it. If the band in question were writing all their own stuff then
the comparison would be a fair one but, they are not, they are changing other peoples efforts to
their advertising agenda of selling Christ. No one is saying they can't say what they believe. It is
how they are saying it on the backs of other peoples works. Do you think it is ok to spray paint the
graffiti "Jesus Saves" on museum artwork by famous artist also? Again, it's the false claim they are
trying to parody a song when all they are really doing is changing the song to a product jingle to
sell their “Jesus agenda” as the product.
>Which is why I admire Steve Taylor, Daniel Amos, and (*sigh*) the far
>superior effort of _Keep the Change_. All these years of ranting
>about _ApologetiX_ has paid off. They made a concerted effort to be
>funny, whereas before they didn't. And as much as I admire Steve
>Taylor and Daniel Amos, none of them have been heard in the general
>marketplace (save for Taylor's brief stint in Chagall Gueverra, Terry
>Taylor's video game soundtracks, and Steve Taylor's production on
>_Kiss Me_).
But Steve and Terry are creating their own songs and are both already funny when they choose to be
not bastardizing others works to simply sell Jesus or the christian faith and that is again is a
major difference.
BTW unless you consider public ridicule and mocking of the christian faith because of these guys
propaganda efforts a good thing and a pay off you've lost me, because I can look at all the
publicity the stripper for Christ got, Playboy, Entertainment Tonight, Hard Copy, nightly news on
all the major networks and make the same claims of ministry value for her.
I don't for either of them.
> From what I have read in their e-mails, they, the Apoligtix's see publicly
>being ridiculed and humiliated by non-christians as spreading the
gospel under
>the verse about "the word of God not returning void", But that would
assume
>they consider their lyrics to be the word of God, which they are not,
they are
>trite song lyrics, not scripture. They have convinced themselves they
are a
>ministry when at best the are simply tacky christian entertainment.
>While their songs are not Scripture, they are Scripture-based. So are
>stained-glass windows. So is a Nativity Scene. No matter how good or
>bad the art is, the stories of Scripture are getting out. And I can
>agree that bad art can obscure Scripture--but I don't think _Keep the
.Change_ fits that mold.
But so are Jesus sex toys you can buy on the internet, should I condone them too?
Again we have Kelly the christian stripper amen! the word is getting out.
That's really not a good enough pay off for me. Rev. Jim Jones and Jimmy Swagart got the word out
with lot of bad theology mixed in also but to what end result?
>Your agitation of their pre-_Keep the Change_ days are understood.
>Yet even in their pre-Keep the Change days, no other group has
> focussed so strongly on getting actual Bible Stories, since the days
>of Don Francisco and Keith Green. That they didn't work as well as
>they should have only proves how tricky it is to write a funny
>story-song which we all know how it ends.
>Now that's changed.
You just link those three together and that really drags two of them down pretty far and I not sure
Keith and Don deserve it because they at least were original artist doing their own words and music
and that's a far cry from writing commercials and claiming them as parodies.
Is your last point because the band were not funny at first now proves it is hard to be funny?
Maybe it proves they were no good period and others are very good at being funny effortlessly. I
don't see the progress in the fact that they are making better commercials for the " Jesus product "
now while still claiming they are doing parodies.
As for other comments Martin Luther wasn’t claiming he was doing “parodies” when he changed tavern
song into hymns nor was he selling them as part of his ministry under that false pretense.
One last minor note I thought Weird Al was already the catholic Weird Al did he change to something
else?
www.nickalexander.com
> > Ummm... you're over the line here. A stripper for Christ is an
> > oxymoron, because to do so would be to tempt people to sin while
> > calling them to repentance. If you think Christian rock is evil, t
> he
> > analogy works--otherwise you may do yourself a favor and find anoth
> er
> > analogy.
>
> I disagree and I'm sure the young lady who really does exist (Kelly was h
> er name I believe) would
> also, after all she shared scriptures in her strip shows to lead people t
> o Christ and if the
> Apologetx's lyrics don't "come back void" how can her sharing of real and
> actual scripture in spite
> of her misguided world view not do the same?
Does ApologetiX's music cause you to sin? (Well, I don't mean the
anger that can very well ensue when you hear a bad parody). _NO_. In
all your talk of bastardizing, you've bastardized logic. I appreciate
analogies, but this one fails. If you compare ApologetiX to, say, the
inferior musicianship of, say, _Carman_, then we can move along.
> As for the band in question I feel it is wrong and possibly sinful to dam
> age other peoples property or music or art works for your own personal
> profit or agenda and bragging about it as a "ministry" and "parody"claiming
> it?s all for a religious cause while selling the cause as a de facto product.
And before _Keep the Change_, they did do that, and I agree. I
_agree_. But I must continually stress that their focus has gradually
changed... yes, they're still a ministry, yes, they're all about
saving souls, yes, they use the parodies without permission (as it is
legal if it's funny). But now, more than ever before, they are
actually being FUNNY. That's the one concern it all boils down to,
isn't it? Once it's funny, everything else falls into place.
If you're burnt by their albums in the past not living up to the hype,
I understand. I've written extensively in the past your same
misgivings, although not at the same level of intensity as you have.
But I'm encouraged by their progress in this area.
BTW, I'm unaware of Weird Al's denominational affiliation, but I
cleared my "Catholic Weird Al" with John the Bermuda Schwartz, and he
said that it's legal. I started work on my own projects before I even
heard of ApologetiX, and so we have very different approaches.
I see nothing wrong with having an agenda, as long as you're equally
FUNNY. If you disagree, then you probably don't like Pete Seeger or
Mark Russell either. These guys are fueled by a desire for their
causes, and are very effective.
An evangelist, like an environmentalist or political commentator, has
an agenda. Does making the agenda the salvation of souls somehow
exclude them from the same effective uses of parody as that of the
latter groups as long as its... <pregnant pause> FUNNY?!?
Bottom line: _Keep the Change_ is funny. It's all-out hysterical.
They're no longer content with what they did before, singing
evangelistic messages without going for the funny bone, which, I
agree, is not only ineffective, but causes great angst amongst its
listeners.
If an evangelist were truly funny, like Keith Green was at times, like
Rich Mullins was at times, like a good preacher is. And even good CCM
artists cover a secular song, giving the secular song a new meaning as
it's introduced in the CCM arena (or not... The Waiting's covering of
"Keep Your Hands to Yourself" still demands explanation).
Point is, humor is a fantastic vehicle to drive a message home.
That's why I mention Chris Rock, who wouldn't be funny if it weren't
for that underlying serious perspective that he comes from.
ApologetiX is now trying to accomplish the same thing, using their
musical gifts and knowledge of parody. And for many, many albums they
simply weren't effective. They used parody without humor, and it was
atrocious. KtC is parody with humor, with message, and it's doubly
effective.
So... if you haven't heard KtC, you're not speaking with authority.
It's as if Will Smith spent all his time in a rap-duo and then science
fiction blockbusters, and suddenly steps up to the plate to a
potential best actor nomination in a boxing biopic. Heck, it's as if
Pauly Shore stepped up to be nominated for best Actor. _That's_ how
much an improvement it is.
scholar and fool
> BTW, I'm unaware of Weird Al's denominational affiliation, but I
> cleared my "Catholic Weird Al" with John the Bermuda Schwartz, and he
> said that it's legal. I started work on my own projects before I even
> heard of ApologetiX, and so we have very different approaches.
for some reason i thought he grew up in the churches of Christ, but
maybe it was just my delusional hope that there was someone i liked
that came from a similar background. :)
> So... if you haven't heard KtC, you're not speaking with authority.
> It's as if Will Smith spent all his time in a rap-duo and then science
> fiction blockbusters, and suddenly steps up to the plate to a
> potential best actor nomination in a boxing biopic. Heck, it's as if
> Pauly Shore stepped up to be nominated for best Actor. _That's_ how
> much an improvement it is.
actually, will smith played a very amazing role long ago in the
movie _six degrees of separation_. so _ali_ isn't the first time
he's done something noteworthy and not comedic.
i'll stay out of the rest of the conversation. i hope.
--
scholar and fool /// posing as junk...@leifeste.net
replace junkmail with terry to e-mail me.
Brian Healy
> Brian Healy <BrianHe...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3C084FA3...@verizon.net>...
> > > Ummm... you're over the line here. A stripper for Christ is an
> > > oxymoron, because to do so would be to tempt people to sin while
> > > calling them to repentance. If you think Christian rock is evil, t
> > he
> > > analogy works--otherwise you may do yourself a favor and find anoth
> > er
> > > analogy.
> >
> > I disagree and I'm sure the young lady who really does exist (Kelly was h
> > er name I believe) would
> > also, after all she shared scriptures in her strip shows to lead people t
> > o Christ and if the
> > Apologetx's lyrics don't "come back void" how can her sharing of real and
> > actual scripture in spite
> > of her misguided world view not do the same?
>
> Does ApologetiX's music cause you to sin? (Well, I don't mean the
> anger that can very well ensue when you hear a bad parody). _NO_. In
> all your talk of bastardizing, you've bastardized logic. I appreciate
> analogies, but this one fails. If you compare ApologetiX to, say, the
> inferior musicianship of, say, _Carman_, then we can move along.
No Nick your missing my point Both the stripper for christ and the band in question problem is the
method they are using
to "evangelize" it doesn't matter if they cause someone to sin, it matters that they are misguide
and causing far more public ridicule than evangelical benefits or outcome by there flawed approach.
I'd agree on your Carman comments as well but more on his overly black-white-good-bad cut and dry
theology he propagates.
>
>
> > As for the band in question I feel it is wrong and possibly sinful to dam
> > age other peoples property or music or art works for your own personal
> > profit or agenda and bragging about it as a "ministry" and "parody"claiming
> > it?s all for a religious cause while selling the cause as a de facto product.
>
> And before _Keep the Change_, they did do that, and I agree. I
> _agree_. But I must continually stress that their focus has gradually
> changed... yes, they're still a ministry, yes, they're all about
> saving souls, yes, they use the parodies without permission (as it is
> legal if it's funny). But now, more than ever before, they are
> actually being FUNNY. That's the one concern it all boils down to,
> isn't it? Once it's funny, everything else falls into place.
>
Actually being funny has nothing to do with the legal part it can be funny but if you are using it
to sell a product you have to pay the royalties.
But again that misses my point, there can be funny or non funny commercials, but they are still
commercials, be it for Jesus or pork and beans and they are in fact not real parodies. There is a
major difference between a commercial that has an implicit utilitarian purpose to convert or
motivate a sale or deliberate course of action as it's outcome beyond a few laughs and entertainment
by it's creator and the order of those priorities effects whether the song is a actual parody or
simply a commercial that sells it's product by attempting to use a parody type or style for
something particular with the expressed primary purpose of selling it's product with a pre planned,
preconceived desired outcome and agenda.
The very funny Stan Freeberg is master at both parody and commercials but, there is a clear, real
difference in his two different types of works such as St. George and The Dragon (a.k.a. Dragonnet)
and the hundreds of award winning radio and TV commercials. For examples of both and the differences
check out Rhino Records who have released Stan Freeberg box sets they are one of the few places both
type of his work are together because they are a designed as retrospective of his two different
types of work.
>
> If you're burnt by their albums in the past not living up to the hype,
> I understand. I've written extensively in the past your same
> misgivings, although not at the same level of intensity as you have.
> But I'm encouraged by their progress in this area.
No I am not burnt, I'm appalled by christians who are re-defining the term commercials to parody and
who are using that deception as bait and switch tactic like those regularly employed by shifty used
car salesman and the fact that because Jesus is preached it's OK to claim something is different
from what it truly is (a parody vs a commercial) and that false definition is used to justify that
core deception.
>
>
> BTW, I'm unaware of Weird Al's denominational affiliation, but I
> cleared my "Catholic Weird Al" with John the Bermuda Schwartz, and he
> said that it's legal. I started work on my own projects before I even
> heard of ApologetiX, and so we have very different approaches.
John's a drummer and a good one at that, not a lawyer, and what he said is true unless Al asked you
to stop (and unless your really, really bad I can't see him doing that) I see nothing wrong with the
title or your using it.
My question was based on curiosity, not legality, nor was meant to be a negative or accusatory
(sorry if it came off that way). I was under the impression that Al was a Catholic also and if he
was would you ever consider using
"The Other Catholic Weird Al" 8)
>
>
> I see nothing wrong with having an agenda, as long as you're equally
> FUNNY. If you disagree, then you probably don't like Pete Seeger or
> Mark Russell either. These guys are fueled by a desire for their
> causes, and are very effective.
Pete Seeger's whole reason for his act is not to religiously convert people as a ministry. And
parody songs are but a small portion of a very full song writing and performing career not his core
sole claim for his artistic existence.
Mark Russell does satire as well as parody songs mostly based on public domain standards (much like
the afore mention Ton Lerher who will at times do likewise) and is not trying to guide his audience
to anything beyond laughter. He doesn't base his act on preaching one single note or political view
as an agenda to convert his audiences to become democrats, republicans or independents or any other
particular political party. His cause, to use your term, is to entertain and poke fun at our
political leaders no matter what those leaders political leanings maybe.
>
>
> An evangelist, like an environmentalist or political commentator, has
> an agenda. Does making the agenda the salvation of souls somehow
> exclude them from the same effective uses of parody as that of the
> latter groups as long as its... <pregnant pause> FUNNY?!?
If the aganda's outcome is the sole reason for the parody it is not a parody but,a commerical
>
>
> Bottom line: _Keep the Change_ is funny. It's all-out hysterical.
> They're no longer content with what they did before, singing
> evangelistic messages without going for the funny bone, which, I
> agree, is not only ineffective, but causes great angst amongst its
> listeners.
I'm glad they are getting better at writing commercials, but they are still commercials not in fact
parodies, no more that a infomercial is a real talk show.
>
>
> If an evangelist were truly funny, like Keith Green was at times, like
> Rich Mullins was at times, like a good preacher is. And even good CCM
> artists cover a secular song, giving the secular song a new meaning as
> it's introduced in the CCM arena (or not... The Waiting's covering of
> "Keep Your Hands to Yourself" still demands explanation).
Again both Keith Green and Rich Mullins wrote their own songs as does Randy Stonehill who also can
be very funny
but that comedy is not their sole artistic justification for what they do and they aren't claiming
to be a parody band riding on the creative efforts of others songs to sell their religious agenda.
>
>
> Point is, humor is a fantastic vehicle to drive a message home.
> That's why I mention Chris Rock, who wouldn't be funny if it weren't
> for that underlying serious perspective that he comes from.
Nah, Chris Rock would be funny if he were an eskimo. We are not talking about humor, we are talking
about commericals and propaganda being passed off as parodies. Funny commericals or propagand are
still commericals and propaganda humor or lack of it won't change that.
>
> ApologetiX is now trying to accomplish the same thing, using their
> musical gifts and knowledge of parody.
No, The claim they are an evangelical ministry and say they are doing parodies when they are simply
creating jingels for Jesus to sell a desired outcome of religous converseion and like a tv comerical
entertaiment is secondary to selling thier product. Would you make any of these statements in this
debate if we were talking about the boy band in the Jack in the Box commericals?
> And for many, many albums they
> simply weren't effective. They used parody without humor, and it was
> atrocious. KtC is parody with humor, with message, and it's doubly
> effective.
>
> So... if you haven't heard KtC, you're not speaking with authority.
> It's as if Will Smith spent all his time in a rap-duo and then science
> fiction blockbusters, and suddenly steps up to the plate to a
> potential best actor nomination in a boxing biopic. Heck, it's as if
> Pauly Shore stepped up to be nominated for best Actor. _That's_ how
> much an improvement it is.
Will Smith is doing an original acting performance in either case so I disagree with the use of him
as a comparison in this case.
Again, it's not the lack of or abundance of humor or quality of it that is the winnowing bar for the
difference between a parody or a commercial, propaganda or a jingle, it is the reason, desire and
motivation for doing the song or presentation in the first place. As well as how the Apologetix
falsely define what the do to something beyond what is the customary normal accepted definition for
those activities and actions.
Calling a mule a horse won't make it a horse. Nor will no amount of calling commercials, propaganda
or jingles "parodies" make them parodies, it only makes them commercials that are deceptively being
presented by people posing them as parodies. The fact these very people creating the deception are
christian is what I find rather egregious.
www.nickalexander.com
> > It's as if Will Smith spent all his time in a rap-duo and then science
> > fiction blockbusters, and suddenly steps up to the plate to a
> > potential best actor nomination in a boxing biopic. Heck, it's as if
> > Pauly Shore stepped up to be nominated for best Actor. _That's_ how
> > much an improvement it is.
>
> actually, will smith played a very amazing role long ago in the
> movie _six degrees of separation_. so _ali_ isn't the first time
> he's done something noteworthy and not comedic.
I remember him in SDoS. Loved that movie. Got the soundtrack. But I
think he was still growing as an actor, and thought much of his
oratory style as staid and unnatural then. Not a detriment to the
film, mind you, it actually added to it...
> i'll stay out of the rest of the conversation. i hope.
ok
Nick
www.nickalexander.com
I think there is a fine line between an effective parodist with an
agenda and a commercial selling a product which happens to be funny.
As for permissions, the Supreme Court has rendered it legal for the
former to create parodies without permission from the original
authors. The latter is not.
The problem with your association of the latter to ApologetiX is that
the 'product' they are selling is not something you can buy in stores,
say Nike Sneakers. They are preaching the Gospel. That's their
product. Pete Seeger's 'product' is to save the environment.
I appreciate the reference to Stan Freberg, for the little I've heard
from him he was very funny. But even Green Chri$tmas had an _agenda_.
The "Dragonnet" parody's goal is also very funny, and frivolous save
for one facet: it took the ancient story seriously, which in itself
had an agenda. A _lot_ of comedy is rooted by opinion. That's why I
keep bringing up Chris Rock... if he was an Eskimo he'd be talking
about comedic quips of living in an igloo, I suppose. Most comedians
have an agenda, and some flaunt their talents for comedy.
Perhaps you resent ApologetiX for using their parodies to sell albums.
But not one single song of theirs states "Buy our CD". And so they
are legal, as what Pete Seeger is doing is legal.
Maybe one day the Supreme Court will make it as clear as you're
writing it. But I think that will set a very dangerous precedent, as
then comedians would have to constantly re-evaluate themselves as to
whether they are proselytizing ('Selling') or being funny. Note: even
being cynical about faith (as some of Bob Rivers' stuff) can be
perceived as proselytizing agnosticism. Parodists like "2 Live Jews"
will have to pay. Radio stations who satirize thru parody will find
that not all subjects are legal.
Nick
Brian Healy
> Hi Brian...
>
> I think there is a fine line between an effective parodist with an
> agenda and a commercial selling a product which happens to be funny.
> As for permissions, the Supreme Court has rendered it legal for the
> former to create parodies without permission from the original
> authors. The latter is not.
The operative word there is effective and as parodies they are
ineffective because as even you pointed out they were not funny and in
most cases not even attempts at being funny.
As preachy commercials or propaganda they seem a little more effective
but also a little more trite.
>
>
> The problem with your association of the latter to ApologetiX is that
> the 'product' they are selling is not something you can buy in stores,
> say Nike Sneakers. They are preaching the Gospel. That's their
> product. Pete Seeger's 'product' is to save the environment.
No their product is not only the gospel of Christ the product they are
selling is their unique "ministry" or services of the Apologetix's and
their member as ministers by changing others songs into commercial
jingles to base that product / ministry / service on.
>
>
> I appreciate the reference to Stan Freberg, for the little I've heard
> from him he was very funny. But even Green Chri$tmas had an _agenda_.
> The "Dragonnet" parody's goal is also very funny, and frivolous save
> for one facet: it took the ancient story seriously, which in itself
> had an agenda. A _lot_ of comedy is rooted by opinion. That's why I
> keep bringing up Chris Rock... if he was an Eskimo he'd be talking
> about comedic quips of living in an igloo, I suppose. Most comedians
> have an agenda, and some flaunt their talents for comedy.
Again Seeger and Freeberg are not claiming their only reason to exists
and perform is a ministry.
Both these artist can and do perform material just because it is funny
and nothing beyond that fact matters.
the we are debating bands has position itself and stated it's primary
core reason to exist is to promote their "ministry" and the products
created by performing biblically base propaganda as commercials for that
ministry and it desired agenda to cause a religious conversion through
their lyrical changes to other people well know works and the unique
service of performing those same works. They are doing it to sell
themselves as a ministry product as well as the gospel and their CD's.
>
>
> Perhaps you resent ApologetiX for using their parodies to sell albums.
> But not one single song of theirs states "Buy our CD". And so they
> are legal, as what Pete Seeger is doing is legal.
For Pete Seeger the majority of his music is his own written by him, that
is a very big difference you seem to want to over look and does not make
him a valid comparison to the apoligetix who's music is 100% other
peoples works.
Seeger can exist without other artist works the band in question is out
of business with out others works.
I don't resent anything they do as this is not a personal issue for me, I
feel the apoligetix are not doing actual parodies and are skirting the
law using other peoples songs for the commercial purpose of selling
themselves as a ministry and selling their live performance services.
>
>
> Maybe one day the Supreme Court will make it as clear as you're
> writing it.
They already have made it clear if you are using other peoples music to
sell a product or service i.e. a ministry you have to pay for it.
If Youth For Christ International a well known ministry started a musical
group that made a record changing the words to someone else's well known
songs for the primary purpose of getting people to come to Christ and
attend Youth For Christ gatherings and partake of their particular
services they are and would be required and obligated to pay royalties to
the composers of the original song and could not under current law hide
behind a parody exclusion because they and their ministry and it's
services are a product and a free one at that.. The same would apply to
The Apologetix who are also claiming they are a ministry that wants to
sell themselves and their services to others as well as their cd's. Their
both selling their services as much as if you were trying to sell any
other service or ministry organization that also engages in the
performing arts.
This is why Weird Al does in fact pay royalties as do most major artist
who do parodies so the legal claim he or others are using the parodies to
sell their live performance services can't be used as a basis for legal
action by the original authors or their publishing agents who very well
can legally claim the original artist's songs are being used as
advertisement and a inducement for the purchase of the live services of
the parody artist.
> But I think that will set a very dangerous precedent, as
> then comedians would have to constantly re-evaluate themselves as to
> whether they are proselytizing ('Selling') or being funny. Note: even
> being cynical about faith (as some of Bob Rivers' stuff) can be
> perceived as proselytizing agnosticism. Parodists like "2 Live Jews"
> will have to pay. Radio stations who satirize thru parody will find
> that not all subjects are legal.
Then you should be as worry as I am about what the apologetix are doing
in their attempts to misuse and abuse the parody exclusion to sell their
ministry and it's services. Besides as Christians they should be thinking
in terms of morality not legality especially when their entire existence
is based on the labors of others. After all a workman is worth his hire
whatever the legal requirements are. And if they really want to minister
as they claim perhaps they should do so financially to the very people
who's work allows them to even have a "ministry" to begin with.
Brian Healy
>the we are debating bands has position itself and stated it's primary<
Opps! here folks is a great example of my dyslexia and poor typing skills in
action.
The line should read :
the band we are debating has position itself and stated it's primary.......
sorry bout that.
cb
"www.nickalexander.com" wrote
And even good CCM
> artists cover a secular song, giving the secular song a new meaning as
> it's introduced in the CCM arena (or not... The Waiting's covering of
> "Keep Your Hands to Yourself" still demands explanation).
>
denying temptation for the desire to "go about it" in the right way. :)
www.nickalexander.com
> "www.nickalexander.com" wrote:
>
> > Hi Brian...
> >
> > I think there is a fine line between an effective parodist with an
> > agenda and a commercial selling a product which happens to be funny.
> > As for permissions, the Supreme Court has rendered it legal for the
> > former to create parodies without permission from the original
> > authors. The latter is not.
>
> The operative word there is effective and as parodies they are
> ineffective because as even you pointed out they were not funny and in
> most cases not even attempts at being funny.
> As preachy commercials or propaganda they seem a little more effective
> but also a little more trite.
>
Please use the proper tense. As parodies they 'were' ineffective
because they were not attempts at being funny. (Of course we were
talking about the albums of a few years ago, not their work today).
We are talking in circles.
'Bye.
Nick
Nick Alexander
Brian Healy
>
>
> Please use the proper tense. As parodies they 'were' ineffective
> because they were not attempts at being funny. (Of course we were
> talking about the albums of a few years ago, not their work today).
>
> We are talking in circles.
>
> 'Bye.
I'm happy at least even you now acknowledge under your own theory that the Apologetix 'parody"
claims for their earlier works is fraudulent.
And by claiming those works were "parodies" or they are still "parodies" now and still selling them
as "parodies' in stores and on their web site is deceptive. Now only if they would admit it and at
least pay those artist their royalties instead of arrogantly bilking them from moneys the original
writers deserve. Not to do so is a far greater indicator and example of their ministries actual
spiritual state, desires, ethics and motivations.
I disagree of course with Nick on their products current status, they are still not funny.
Bye bye Nick best of luck
For others reading the thread is here is one other point and example to ponder.
The apologetix covered U2 and claimed they have created a "parody" of one of their songs.
How can the apologetix claim and justify why they don't have to pay U2 royalties who's authors are
already primarily Christians doing songs with Christian subject matter in the lyrics and when the
original song
is already doing and stating biblical themes, which is what the apologetix claim is their and the
ministries basic
reason to "parody" the song to begin with? It's not parody to try and make a song more Christian.
How can what they did be considered a "parody" of the song as opposed to a simple lyrical rewrite
requiring a royalty to the music's author?
I don't and the courts don't see "a different theology" listed or covered under the law of "parody"
fair use.
It's sort of like changing the lyrics of "Awesome God" to "Really, Really, Really Awesome God" and
calling it a fair use parody.
And for the couple of ranting angry apologetix fans who wrote me: Because they have yet to be sued
is no proof they are within or complying with the law. People while driving speed every day and not
getting a ticket isn't proof it's legal or moral to speed.
In spite of the fair use exclusion, most recording parody artist do in fact willingly pay royalties
to the "parodied" songs original author or their assigned agents. Because without those authors
effort the parody artist can't exist.
It is to the Apologetix shame they as Christian feel compelled to ignore that historic example for
their own personal greed. Perhaps instead of linking themselves as they have to Weird Al on their
web site they should follow his example and pay royalties. As Christian they should feel and desire
to take the moral high ground.
Morally and ethically as a Christian I personally would pay the royalties which would for all the
songs authors be a total of about a buck a record tops, I would do this at the very least and if for
no other reason (and I can think of many others) then to avoid the original authors wrath or anger
and soothe any ill feeling should they dislike or disagree my parody efforts of their work and out
of respect for their writing efforts. This band might be surprised how this simple act of good will
could come back to benefit them as most acts of generosity and love seem to do.
Grace & Peace,
Brian Healy
>
>
Jason Steiner
>
> Yet another Christian who hasn't figured out people are laughing at them, not
> with them.
I think they're aware, they're just under the delusion that "There is no
such thing as bad publicity."
jason
--
Alles, was deine Hand zu tun findet, das tue in deiner Kraft!
Denn es gibt weder Tun noch Berechnung, noch Kenntnis, noch
Weisheit im Scheol, in den du gehst.
Prediger 9:10
Jason Steiner
> Brian Healy <BrianHe...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > The operative word there is effective and as parodies they are
> > ineffective because as even you pointed out they were not funny
> > and in most cases not even attempts at being funny. As preachy
> > commercials or propaganda they seem a little more effective but
> > also a little more trite.
>
> Please use the proper tense. As parodies they 'were' ineffective
> because they were not attempts at being funny. (Of course we were
> talking about the albums of a few years ago, not their work today).
And they still aren't funny. At least, not intentionally. Note use of
the proper tense.
Brian Healy
> BrianDAS1 <bria...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yet another Christian who hasn't figured out people are laughing at them, not
> > with them.
>
> I think they're aware, they're just under the delusion that "There is no
> such thing as bad publicity."
>
> jason
>
> --
Or bad parody either......
David Bruce Murray
Brian Healy wrote in message <3C0B95CC...@verizon.net>...
>And for the couple of ranting angry apologetix fans who wrote me: Because
they have yet to be sued
>is no proof they are within or complying with the law. People while driving
speed every day and not
>getting a ticket isn't proof it's legal or moral to speed.
I've always maintained that they will eventually get sued, but only if they
get popular and have enough money in the bank to actually be worth suing.
>In spite of the fair use exclusion, most recording parody artist do in fact
willingly pay royalties
>to the "parodied" songs original author or their assigned agents. Because
without those authors
>effort the parody artist can't exist.
The "Pretty Woman" Supreme Court decision they like to trot out always
amuses me. That "parody" wasn't really a parody in the typical sense. It was
more like a cameo. They took a couple of elements from the original work,
sure, but then took it an entirely different direction. It wasn't a note for
note reproduction with different lyrics like most parodies.
>Morally and ethically as a Christian I personally would pay the royalties
which would for all the
>songs authors be a total of about a buck a record tops, I would do this at
the very least and if for
>no other reason (and I can think of many others) then to avoid the original
authors wrath or anger
>and soothe any ill feeling should they dislike or disagree my parody
efforts of their work and out
>of respect for their writing efforts.
The problem with paying the money is that IF lyrics are changed and it's not
a "fair use" situation, the copyright owner's permission is required. Such
was the case when DC Talk recorded "Spirit In The Sky." Ditto for Amy Grant
when she covered "Big Yellow Taxi." ApologetiX can't really offer to pay
unless they also ask for permission to do what they are doing.
I ran into this a few years ago when my quartet would perform "The Great
Pretender" using the lyrics to "Are You Washed In The Blood." It was sort of
our version of the Glad "Hymn Thing" where we'd use hymn lyrics to different
styles of music. We had generic 50's rock and bluegrass versions as well. It
was pretty funny, and crowds seemed to enjoy it. We wanted to record it, but
the owners of "The Great Pretender" denied us the right to change the
lyrics. If we had gone ahead and recorded it, then offered to pay, they
would have instead insisted that we take it off the market.
So see, to avoid the proper method of going about this, ApologetiX takes the
approach of, "We don't even owe this money in the first place. If you
disagree, sue us." And of course, they aren't big enough to be worth suing.
They aren't Napster sized, if you get my drift.
Another was to look at this is IF it's truly "fair use" (which I agree with
you that ApologetiX' material is NOT), the money is not owed. Why pay money
you don't owe? There's nothing moral or ethical about that. (Maybe biblical,
in the sense of "turning the other cheek"). A newspaper columnist doesn't
pay the people he writes about. A photographer snapping shots in a public
place does not pay the people who appear in the shots. These are examples of
"fair use."
Also, if the copyright owners do accept payment, they are in effect putting
their blessing on the parody. If you accept payment to pose for a
photograph, you can't really grumble if the photographer does a crummy job,
so he either has to pay you a LOT or be someone you trust to do a good job.
Mech fees are set by a board when it comes to music, so it's more a matter
of trust. Writers love to be parodied by Weird Al, because they trust his
work, so they also welcome what he pays them in royalties. I'm not so sure
they welcome ApologetiX' attempts at parody. They might rather pay
ApologetiX to stay away from their songs.
David Bruce Murray / dbmu...@rfci.net
---Making Hay While The Sun Shines---
Brian Healy
>
>
>
>
>
> Another was to look at this is IF it's truly "fair use" (which I agree with
> you that ApologetiX' material is NOT), the money is not owed. Why pay money
> you don't owe? There's nothing moral or ethical about that. (Maybe biblical,
> in the sense of "turning the other cheek").
Hi David,
I link my morals, biblical and ethicals as much as possible in my old age 8)
If I may be speculative a bit. (I'm not totally committed to some of this but,
will toss it out for consideration).
One problem I see and hear is I'm not sure anyone really thinks fair use is as
valid as it is now stated by the non payer types and until another case comes
along dealing with the full issue, instead of sections of the law, the people
who are making real money will and seem to make concerted efforts pay the
royalty money to avoid taking chances of getting sued or worse having the whole
issue revisited by the courts.
I believe the reason most successful parody artist do in fact still pay is they
are not near as firm in their belief of "parody' fair use as those far less
successful artist who claim they don't have to pay, not because they really
believe it, but, they have nothing to be sued for that would justify the
plaintiffs legal costs. It's almost like someone taunting and poking at you
saying , no, you make me stop. You can ignore them or you could clock them in
the head but, even if you are vindicated it still was and will be more trouble
than it's worth for you to have to go to court..
I personally think I'd put it in the being a good example pile, and of going
the extra mile that we as Christian's should feel some compulsion to do. No one
is required to be polite, but, if most people think you are it's a nice example
to others. My other reason is in the "ounce of prevention" category as it also
would remove the possible implication that the songs use would not fall under
the payment for a commercial enterprise, let alone film, or video use, just in
case someone should take a run at you claiming that their music is being use as
an advertisement to engage the live performance services of the parody artist.
I recall that was a real concern Scotti Bros. had over Weird Al's stuff.
I think because of his visibility and success now for both Scotti Bros. and
Weird Al it was a brilliant move to legally immunize himself from lawsuits from
the very start and doing so till this day. I don't know who these guys no pay
folks are listening to that makes taking the risk appear worth it, but paying
the royalties is a pretty good insurance policy no matter what the future
holds.
JohnJThomp
haven't been sued by a Harry Fox type agency. If they sell the CDs that include
Honky Tonk Woman changed to some Christian bunk, then they are either A) Liable
to pay royalties to the copyright holder and publisher of Honky Tonk Woman AND
get permission to change the lyrics - which they would NEVER get, or B) They
are plagiarizing the music and melody ala My Sweet Lord / He's So Fine
(intentional or not mind you.) Either way, wow. I can't believe they've been
skirting it this long. Weird Al made a science of this stuff, and ALWAYS had
permission ahead of time (except from Prince, and supposedly Coolio after the
fact) and paid full royalties... not only on recordings, but for performances
through ASCAP / BMI and radio...
DJ's have been able to skirt this because they don't sell the stuff. Once they
decide to do so, ala that guy Rush Limbaugh plays all the time, they have to
get permission...
I wish Elvis could hear "In A Yugo."
Bad news... they would not only be liable for all the mechanicals and
publishing at statutory rates, they could be liable for significant punitive
damages...
JJT
Brian Healy
>
Well Stated John.
David Bruce Murray
Brian Healy wrote in message <3C0C7556...@verizon.net>...
>David Bruce Murray wrote:
>
>> Another was to look at this is IF it's truly "fair use" (which I agree
with
>> you that ApologetiX' material is NOT), the money is not owed. Why pay
money
>> you don't owe? There's nothing moral or ethical about that. (Maybe
biblical,
>> in the sense of "turning the other cheek").
>
>Hi David,
>
>I link my morals, biblical and ethicals as much as possible in my old age
8)
>
>If I may be speculative a bit.
<snip>
My statement was speculative as well, hence the "IF."
For example, IF it were still legal for anyone to follow behind harvesters
in a wheat field and pick up what they missed, as was a custom in Bible
days, it would be wrong to suggest that those people pay without first
changing the law. At some point in time, someone did. My point is that the
law changes from time to time. IF it's legally "fair use," they shouldn't be
expected to pay. Personally, I don't think what ApologetiX is doing is
protected by fair use law, so I'm in full agreement with you that they
should be getting permission (which wouldn't happen often and would reduce
their output levels) and they should be paying royalities for what they sell
and have played on the air.
David Bruce Murray / dbmu...@rfci.net
Articles: www.rfci.net/dbmurray and www.musicforce.com
Transcriptions: www.musicscribe.com
Classical Piano: www.mp3.com/virtualvirtuoso
Southern Sounds Quartet: www.mp3.com/ssq
Andrew
term comes from the hoards of people that click through to an unprepared
website whenever an interesting (obscure) news story is posted to
slashdot.org. Just though you'd like to know :)
-Andrew
cb wrote:
[snip]
> He then went to the Apologetix web site and said that it crashed. He thinks
> it was do to a "slash-dot effect" because of the Howard Stern exposure.
[snip]
Cheef
<20011129172003...@mb-dh.aol.com>:
>And they are filed in the same class as the stripper for Christ.
So, did you watch "Real People" when you were a kid too?
---
CHEEF.COM - Your CHEEF source for nudist info
North American clubs, beaches, and other locations
Events listings and comments feature for clubs
http://cheef.com includes Christian & singles info
Brian Healy
That might have been it or the blurb that was in Playboy around 1976 /
77 or 78, I just know she made the long PR lap and would have showed up
to a phone booth at a Sunoco station if she though a couple of cameras
would show up too.
To minister of course........