Samir Golescu
m...@michaelsayers.com
I haven't seen anything from him in some time, and understand that he
was a pianist, and also in his later years. I am checking to see if
anyone here knows him to be presently unwell - or worse.
Best Wishes,
Michael Sayers
david...@aol.com
To my knowledge, Mr. Golescu is not "in his later years." He is a
graduate student at The University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana.
I'm not sure who his principal piano teacher has been, but I am
reasonably certain that he is well along the path toward completing a
D.M.A. in Piano Performance.
-david gable
david...@aol.com
Please don't cross post.
-david gable
Bob Harper
According to the U of I website, Samir gave a Graduate Recital on 10/26.
I'd be curious to know the program.
He's also listed as being among instructors 'ranked as excellent by
their students' in the College of Fine and Applied Arts at the University.
Bob Harper
A. Brain
news:d_-dnamxP_nUc_rY...@comcast.com...
> david...@aol.com wrote:
>> m...@michaelsayers.com wrote:
> According to the U of I website, Samir gave a Graduate Recital on
> 10/26. I'd be curious to know the program.
>
> He's also listed as being among instructors 'ranked as excellent by
> their students' in the College of Fine and Applied Arts at the
> University.
Well, of course rankings by students don't usually
count for much. But I thought Samir was in at
least somewhat "later years" based on his sometimes
being a little cranky. And something of a Bush fan
(if there are any left).
It's been a while since a certain "Philadelphia
lawyer" has appeared here.
--
A. Brain
Remove NOSPAM for email.
Henk van Tuijl
"A. Brain" <abr...@NOSPAMatt.net>
schreef in bericht
news:19T9h.353812$QZ1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Bob Harper" <bob.h...@comcast.net>
> wrote in message
> news:d_-dnamxP_nUc_rY...@comcast.com...
>> david...@aol.com wrote:
>>> m...@michaelsayers.com wrote:
>> According to the U of I website,
>> Samir gave a Graduate Recital on
>> 10/26. I'd be curious to know the
>> program.
>>
>> He's also listed as being among
>> instructors 'ranked as excellent by
>> their students' in the College of
>> Fine and Applied Arts at the
>> University.
>
> Well, of course rankings by students
> don't usually
> count for much. But I thought Samir
> was in at
> least somewhat "later years" based on
> his sometimes
> being a little cranky. And something
> of a Bush fan
> (if there are any left).
Unworthy of you!
Samir has a Mediterranean temperament
and a wonderful sense of humour. I don't
find it difficult to understand that he
didn't stop halfway in his escape from
communism.
Henk
Sacqueboutier
> And something of a Bush fan
> (if there are any left).
Just a note, holding to conservative principles doesn't
necessarily make one a Bush fan.
:-)
--
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.
Henk van Tuijl
"EM" <e-m-e-m...@gmail.com> schreef
in bericht
news:5bagm2t9job0pa2pp...@4ax.com...
> "Henk van Tuijl" <hvt...@xs4all.nl> -
> Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:53:23 +0100
> in rec.music.classical.recordings:
>
>> Samir has a Mediterranean temperament
>
> What is a 'Mediterranean temperament'
> anyway?
It is a fairly common expression,
referring to a lifestyle that has more
colours than grey.
Expressions like these shouldn't be
taken too literally (Tunisians are not
supposed to have a Mediterranean
temperament, the Portuguese are -
although most of them live on the
Atlantic coast).
E.M. Forster's "Where angels fear to
tread" illustrates the difference
between the Mediterranean and
non-Mediterranean temperament.
Of course, as all typologies, this one
has its serious limits.
Henk
Norman M. Schwartz
certainly gave a lot of his time to enliven the ng (and enlighten me).
> Bob Harper
Bob Harper
(snip)
>
> Samir has a Mediterranean temperament
> and a wonderful sense of humour. I don't
> find it difficult to understand that he
> didn't stop halfway in his escape from
> communism.
>
> Henk
>
>
Precisely. See Balint Vazsonyi, a great pianist whose defense of liberty
became his full time occupation after he escaped the Iron Curtain.
Bob Harper
tomdeacon
Please excuse me it I dissent from this opinion.
His "sense of humour", as you call it, is vicious, mean-spirited, and
base.
I do, however, wish that he had stopped halfway in his escape from
communism and decided to become Israeli. He would have been a wonderful
water-boy for the Mossad.
TD
tomdeacon
So we have noticed.
TD
Henk van Tuijl
"tomdeacon" <tomde...@mac.com>
schreef in bericht
news:1164469085.3...@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Indeed, Tom, we disagree!
Henk
O
<19T9h.353812$QZ1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, A. Brain
<abr...@NOSPAMatt.net> wrote:
> "Bob Harper" <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:d_-dnamxP_nUc_rY...@comcast.com...
> > david...@aol.com wrote:
> >> m...@michaelsayers.com wrote:
> > According to the U of I website, Samir gave a Graduate Recital on
> > 10/26. I'd be curious to know the program.
> >
> > He's also listed as being among instructors 'ranked as excellent by
> > their students' in the College of Fine and Applied Arts at the
> > University.
>
>
>
> Well, of course rankings by students don't usually
> count for much. But I thought Samir was in at
> least somewhat "later years" based on his sometimes
> being a little cranky. And something of a Bush fan
> (if there are any left).
I've heard Maestro Golescu in concert with chamber music and it was a
wonderful and very enjoyable performance. He had a wonderful way with
Brahms, great technique and lots of musicality.
-Owen
JohnGavin
But why speak of Samir in the past? Surely the internet is likely
available to him, so he might show up again soon. We exchanged
recordings of Rachmaninoff - I sent him Sveshnikov's Vespers and he
sent me Hatto's Transcriptions. He also kindly sent me a recording of
his playing, of which I particularly enjoyed a piece by Janacek, which
suited his style very nicely.
Samir's humor and commentary could be very pointed and funny at times.
My own feeling is that Samir is at heart a transplant from the 19th
century, not completely at home in the modern world, which places less
emphasis on the subjective, on the individual persona. Not quite fair
though, to say simply that he is a Bush supporter, his politics are
more nuanced than that - he certainly possesses a piercing intellect,
and I'd say, a rather analytical approach to music - a fierce romantic
at heart.
There were times when Samir, confronting someone, or chewing someone
out on a post, reminded me of an artiste - smoking a cigarette in one
of those Garbo-like long holders, dismissing the inferior artistic
taste and intellect of some poster (sometimes me) for simply declaring
a like or dislike of a performance, without an accompanying in-depth
analytical commentary of which I personally never had the patience or
desire to provide!
But it was all in good fun, and I always took it as such.
Bob Lombard
"JohnGavin" <dag...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1164479980.4...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> There were times when Samir, confronting someone, or chewing someone
> out on a post, reminded me of an artiste - smoking a cigarette in one
> of those Garbo-like long holders, dismissing the inferior artistic
> taste and intellect of some poster (sometimes me) for simply declaring
> a like or dislike of a performance, without an accompanying in-depth
> analytical commentary of which I personally never had the patience or
> desire to provide!
>
> But it was all in good fun, and I always took it as such.
>
so sure of the quality of his analysis. There are degrees of spissitude.
bl
david...@aol.com
JohnGavin wrote:
> My own feeling is that Samir is at heart a transplant from the 19th
> century, not completely at home in the modern world, which places less
> emphasis on the subjective, on the individual persona.
[snip]
> [he's] a fierce romantic
> at heart.
This is where I don't quite agree with you. He is not a "fierce
romantic" at heart: had he been in Paris in the 1830's, he would not
have been on the side of Berlioz, Chopin, Liszt, and Wagner. Samir's
enthusiasm for such figures is a deeply conservative taste for long
since canonized composers from an idealized past that he bundles
together in a package with very conservative political and religious
views. (I consider myself deeply conservative and the Western art
music tradition is my religion, but I wouldn't remotely characterize my
conservatism in the same way. And I am conservative: despite my
enthusiasm for such scandalous radicals in their 80's and 90's as
Pierre Boulez and Elliott Carter, composers in whom I wouldn't have the
slightest interest were they not composers of the sorts of contrapuntal
and developmental music that have been characteristic of the Western
tradition for centuries, I agree with Stravinsky that "99% of all avant
garde products are transparent puerilities.")
-david gable
John_H...@msn.com
Lena
> JohnGavin wrote:
>
> > My own feeling is that Samir is at heart a transplant from the 19th
> > century, not completely at home in the modern world, which places less
> > emphasis on the subjective, on the individual persona.
>
> [snip]
>
> > [he's] a fierce romantic
> > at heart.
>
> This is where I don't quite agree with you. He is not a "fierce
> romantic" at heart: had he been in Paris in the 1830's, he would not
> have been on the side of Berlioz, Chopin, Liszt, and Wagner. Samir's
> enthusiasm for such figures is a deeply conservative taste for long
> since canonized composers from an idealized past that he bundles
> together in a package with very conservative political and religious
> views.
Samir, a withered old man in his 20s and 30s (I think he aged some
while posting, due to stress caused by rmcr stupidity) is a uniquely
interesting person... And somehow, just out of principle, I think it
might be better to not do post mortems on people who are alive. :)
(I wouldn't presume to know how conservative anyone really is or how
their attitudes would drive their musical taste. I'd rather think that
Samir or anyone genuinely likes whatever composers they like. And I
don't see why political attitudes or differences should uniquely
determine one's feelings about a person - or that one shouldn't forgive
posting missteps, maybe.)
[from elsewhere]
> It's been a while since a certain "Philadelphia lawyer" has appeared here.
He's pretty alive, too. And probably absent from rmcr for roughly the
same reasons.
Lena
PS.
> (I consider myself deeply conservative and the Western art
> music tradition is my religion, but I wouldn't remotely characterize my
> conservatism in the same way. And I am conservative:
Why are people so ready to admit to their worst faults? :):)
Andy Evans
Ramon Khalona on the 48, translated by Samir Golescu
"Because my knowledge of Hispanic language is not that strong, I
confidently
used my $2000 "Translarobot" to do my translation below are the
results: "
Natalia González wrote:
"Who could please give me a piece of advice about getting a recording
of the two books of Bach's well tempered clavier in piano... Is Glenn
Gould the best one of all?" Translation from the Spanish reply by
Senor Ramon Khalona:
Desde luego que no Natalia.
- Your disdain is out of place, Natalia.
Para el primer libro te recomiendo Evgeny Koroliov (Tacet)
- First-class choped liver is Koroliov (and keep quiet when I'm
talking).
como la interpretacion mas profunda que he escuchado.
- His pretty interplay is a profusive, over-cooked mass-pleaser.
Para el sugundo libro me gusta mucho Friedrich Gulda,
- I am disgusted by the "macho" Friedrich Gulda,
en una interpretacion menos profunda pero no menos interesante.
- a tepid-pretty purveyance deprived of Peruvian male inner sanctity.
Desde luego que esto seria una mezcla de interpretaciones
- East Dresden is the place with serious distillations of mescaline,
y si te interesa tener ambos libros por el mismo pianista,
- but if M. Teresa's liberal goal is amber for the poor miasmic
pianists
mi primera recomendacion seria Sviatoslav Richter (RCA).
- I'll have to seriously warn you of the first-class serial killer
Richter.
Que los disfrutes
- If you don't like my advice, you can throw rotten vegetables in the
windows of my Carlsbad residence.
Ian Pace
<david...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1164486160.5...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> This is where I don't quite agree with you. He is not a "fierce
> romantic" at heart: had he been in Paris in the 1830's, he would not
> have been on the side of Berlioz, Chopin, Liszt, and Wagner. Samir's
> enthusiasm for such figures is a deeply conservative taste for long
> since canonized composers from an idealized past that he bundles
> together in a package with very conservative political and religious
> views. (I consider myself deeply conservative and the Western art
> music tradition is my religion, but I wouldn't remotely characterize my
> conservatism in the same way.
I agree with almost all of the above, but do wonder what the meaning of
'conservatism' really is in this sense? I count myself as a traditionalist
in many senses, but I believe much of tradition is radical rather than
conservative. Certainly that of Berlioz, Chopin, Liszt and Wagner (and
Beethoven and Schumann, and numerous others). But that may be what you are
saying as well. These figures are as radical to me as when they were alive
and creating new work, rather than being hallowed figures in a museum.
Whereas mass-market culture - that is genuinely conservative, as it is
totally subsumated to the interests of making a profit.
Ian
Bob Lombard
"Andy Evans" <performan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164500609.3...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I can't resist this occasion to remind rmcr readers of Samir's humour.
Ramon Khalona on the 48, translated by Samir Golescu
A great confection which I neglected to save first time around. That has
been remedied.
Thanks Andy.
bl
TareeDawg
news:3n5ah.59737$Ib.3...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
> <david...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1164486160.5...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> This is where I don't quite agree with you. He is not a "fierce
>> romantic" at heart: had he been in Paris in the 1830's, he would not
>> have been on the side of Berlioz, Chopin, Liszt, and Wagner. Samir's
>> enthusiasm for such figures is a deeply conservative taste for long
>> since canonized composers from an idealized past that he bundles
>> together in a package with very conservative political and religious
>> views. (I consider myself deeply conservative and the Western art
>> music tradition is my religion, but I wouldn't remotely characterize my
>> conservatism in the same way.
>
> I agree with almost all of the above, but do wonder what the meaning of
> 'conservatism' really is in this sense? I count myself as a traditionalist
> in many senses, but I believe much of tradition is radical rather than
Well put. I agree entirely. When I listen to music, I always try put myself
into a mental frame of reference more akin to the time of the composition.
Difficult to describe, I know, but I do. I simply cannot listen to music
without some hook, or reference, usually a temporal one, to the composer,
that supplements my listening.
In actual fact, I really believe Stravinsky was much more of a conservative
(perhaps more so), than Liszt or Chopin. And especially Berlioz. And I do
like Stravinsky enormously for his ultimately supreme craftmanship.
Which brings me nicely, and completely offtrack, to a release from Naxos
(originally on Conifer Classics) of Ginastera's Panambi, and Estancia, which
I collared yesterday and listened to last night. Superbly recorded in 1997,
and equally brilliantly played by the LSO directed by Giselle Ben-Dor, the
influence of Stravinsky and Chavez is rife on Ginastera with these two
works, especially Panumbi. But what orchestral showpieces!!! Superb.
Ray H
Taree, NSW
Ralph
> I can't resist this occasion to remind rmcr readers of Samir's humour.
>
He is indeed witty. Simon Roberts also has not posted here for a while.
That is his personal affair which I will not intrude upon. I just hope
it's not for any health reasons.
Ralph
Freddie F
What, like sanity?
Bob Lombard
"Freddie F" <quel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164507809.5...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
don't, so I am still around.
bl
Freddie F
Can you really say someone with 70-odd recordings of one work has a
life?
Frank Berger
"TareeDawg" <rayt...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:ji6ah.71860$rP1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
I own and have enjoyed these works on Everest with the LSO/Goosens from
1958.
Frank Berger
"Frank Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> wrote in message
news:12mi0l5...@news.supernews.com...
complete ballets.
George Murnu
so ago.
If some of you want to sample some of his work, he contributed with some of
the rehearsal of the American premiere of Enescu's Oedipe that was recently
released on the Albany label - although unfortunately Samir did not received
credit for his work on the CD booklet.
My opinion of the performance: it is a curageous and brave act keeping in
mind the limited resources that were available - some of the singers being
still students. Of course not a first choice for the work - Samir would be
first to admit that - but still, it comes together and is uncut.
Now if his performance of Enescu's first piano sonata were published, that
WOULD be a first choice, seriously!
Regards,
George
<m...@michaelsayers.com> wrote in message
news:1164426609.2...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
A. Brain
news:45680559$0$336$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Unworthy of you!
>
> Samir has a Mediterranean temperament and a wonderful sense of humour.
> I don't find it difficult to understand that he didn't stop halfway in
> his escape from communism.
"Communism" hardly existed in Romania
or any of the other so-called "communist"
nations. Despotisms, dictatorships, police
states, state-managed economies--the
same direction the U.S. is headed, or was
until recently, were more accurate descriptions.
Anyway, those who participate in heated
political discussions here are more or less
by definition "cranky". I just did not
picture Samir as twentysomething or
even thirtysomething.
What exactly would "stopping halfway"
in escaping totalitarianism mean?
Recognizing civil liberties and the right
to dissent? Putting a halt to government
intrusions on citizens' private thoughts and
communications? Shutting down secret
prisons and outlawing torture?
Those who have escaped authoritarian
or totalitarian regimes should not be
embracing the Bushies.
"They hate us for our freedom", Bush
used to say. Well, we've lost a lot
of that freedom thanks to these so-
called "conservatives". But the hate
is even more intense now thanks
to the disastrous Iraq adventure.
True Libertarians and opponents of
"big government" vote for the Democrats.
On the subject of press freedom
in the U.S., see below:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/press-freedom-us-drops-t_b_34844.html
--
A. Brain
Remove NOSPAM for email.
m...@michaelsayers.com
to drop him a line on my behalf. The email addresses I have for him
are outdated and nonfunctional.
The following might be of interest, as rediscoveries of "forgotten"
major pianists are rare.
There was a pianist named David Edward Smith, who seems to have slipped
beneath the pianophile radar. He was once billed as the "American
Horowitz", and I've read that he had some direct informal coaching from
Rachmaninoff, Paderewski and others.
There are some videos of him, and a few supporting documents, linked
through the three or four pages of
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=creativebna
Perhaps there is someone here who has heard him perform. The
recordings available seem to show a type of pianism clearly linked with
the "golden age" performers, and the earlier recordings offer some
definite technical ferocity.
Brendan R. Wehrung
> "Bob Harper" <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:d_-dnamxP_nUc_rY...@comcast.com...
>> david...@aol.com wrote:
>>> m...@michaelsayers.com wrote:
>> According to the U of I website, Samir gave a Graduate Recital on
>> 10/26. I'd be curious to know the program.
>>
>> He's also listed as being among instructors 'ranked as excellent by
>> their students' in the College of Fine and Applied Arts at the
>> University.
>
>
>
> count for much. But I thought Samir was in at
> least somewhat "later years" based on his sometimes
> being a little cranky.
By that criteria TD would be about 145.
Brendan
And something of a Bush fan
> (if there are any left).
>
> It's been a while since a certain "Philadelphia
> lawyer" has appeared here.
A. Brain
news:1164524721.9...@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> The following might be of interest, as rediscoveries of "forgotten"
> major pianists are rare.
>
> There was a pianist named David Edward Smith, who seems to have
> slipped
> beneath the pianophile radar. He was once billed as the "American
> Horowitz", and I've read that he had some direct informal coaching
> from
> Rachmaninoff, Paderewski and others.
>
> There are some videos of him, and a few supporting documents, linked
> through the three or four pages of
> http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=creativebna
>
> Perhaps there is someone here who has heard him perform. The
> recordings available seem to show a type of pianism clearly linked
> with
> the "golden age" performers, and the earlier recordings offer some
> definite technical ferocity.
David E. Smith is or was the father of a friend of
mine from law school. I met him over twenty
years ago. He was teaching piano in Oregon,
visiting his son here. A very amusing and charming
guy.
I am not sure if he is still around.
His son is a successful lawyer in Nashville. I
have passed on the YouTube video to him. As
I recall, David R. Smith (the son) had a clipping
from the NYT about a Carnegie Hall recital
from the early '50s where his dad had been
called the "American Horowitz".
Brendan R. Wehrung
I was wrong, at least 178.
Brendan
Henk van Tuijl
"A. Brain" <abr...@NOSPAMatt.net>
schreef in bericht
> "Henk van Tuijl" <hvt...@xs4all.nl>
> wrote in message
> news:45680559$0$336$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
>> Unworthy of you!
>>
>> Samir has a Mediterranean temperament
>> and a wonderful sense of humour.
>> I don't find it difficult to
>> understand that he didn't stop
>> halfway in
>> his escape from communism.
>
> "Communism" hardly existed in Romania
> or any of the other so-called
> "communist"
> nations. Despotisms, dictatorships,
> police
> states, state-managed economies--the
> same direction the U.S. is headed, or
> was
> until recently, were more accurate
> descriptions.
Nevertheless, we used to call it
communism at our side of the Iron
Curtain.
> Anyway, those who participate in
> heated
> political discussions here are more or
> less
> by definition "cranky".
<g> It is utterly futile - but sometimes
great fun ...
> I just did not
> picture Samir as twentysomething or
> even thirtysomething.
I had the impression that he was a pupil
of (IIRC) Ian Hobson.
> What exactly would "stopping halfway"
> in escaping totalitarianism mean?
> Recognizing civil liberties and the
> right
> to dissent? Putting a halt to
> government
> intrusions on citizens' private
> thoughts and
> communications? Shutting down secret
> prisons and outlawing torture?
>
> Those who have escaped authoritarian
> or totalitarian regimes should not be
> embracing the Bushies.
> "They hate us for our freedom", Bush
> used to say. Well, we've lost a lot
> of that freedom thanks to these so-
> called "conservatives". But the hate
> is even more intense now thanks
> to the disastrous Iraq adventure.
Coming from a regime behind the Iron
Curtain, living under a Bushite regime
must be heaven. The US is and has
recently proven again to be a very
healthy democracy.
> True Libertarians and opponents of
> "big government" vote for the
> Democrats.
> On the subject of press freedom
> in the U.S., see below:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/press-freedom-us-drops-t_b_34844.html
One day the US will stop shooting itself
in the foot instead of fighting the war
against terrorism.
Henk
Phil Caron
of a thread.
- Phil Caron
"Norman M. Schwartz" <nm...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:Z9Z9h.2743$g25....@newsfe12.lga...
>
> "Bob Harper" <bob.h...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:d_-dnamxP_nUc_rY...@comcast.com...
>> david...@aol.com wrote:
>>> m...@michaelsayers.com wrote:
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen anything from him in some time, and understand that he
>>>> was a pianist, and also in his later years. I am checking to see if
>>>> anyone here knows him to be presently unwell - or worse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best Wishes,
>>>> Michael Sayers
>>>
>>> To my knowledge, Mr. Golescu is not "in his later years." He is a
>>> graduate student at The University of Illinois in Champaign-Urbana.
>>> I'm not sure who his principal piano teacher has been, but I am
>>> reasonably certain that he is well along the path toward completing a
>>> D.M.A. in Piano Performance.
>>>
>>> -david gable
>>>
>>
>> According to the U of I website, Samir gave a Graduate Recital on 10/26.
>> I'd be curious to know the program.
>>
>> He's also listed as being among instructors 'ranked as excellent by their
>> students' in the College of Fine and Applied Arts at the University.
>>
Phil Caron
>
> Can you really say someone with 70-odd recordings of one work has a
> life?
>
- Phil Caron
tomdeacon
Wrong.
247.
And a miracle of preservation at that.
TD
tomdeacon
Phil Caron wrote:
> I'm especially reminded how Samir hated to see his name in the subject line
> of a thread.
Strange.
Most egocentric artists adore seeing their name up in lights.
Perhaps he preferred not to be known for the outrageously revolting
political views he espoused in this newsgroup?
I don't blame him.
TD
Richard Schultz
: I'm especially reminded how Samir hated to see his name in the subject line
: of a thread.
In the olden days, it was considered rude to put someone's name in the
subject line of a thread. But then, in the olden days, it was considered
rude to top post.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"That's *genius*!"
"Really? I thought it was Rachmaninov."
Bob Harper
lie to what you have written. The whole Chicken Little bit re 'civil
liberties' is pretty silly, IMO.
Bob Harper
tomdeacon
Bob Harper wrote:
> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/press-freedom-us-drops-t_b_34844.html
> >
> Your freedom to post this without *any* fear of retribution gives the
> lie to what you have written.
If the only remaining freedom in the USA is to be allowed to point out
the freedoms which have been denied by this "freedom loving" president,
this surely speaks volumes about the current state of affairs in the
"land of the free and the brave".
TD
Norman M. Schwartz
"tomdeacon" <tomde...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1164562886.3...@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
IMO it's too free and unlike yourself I gotta live here.
> TD
>
Phil Caron
- Phil Caron
"Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:ekcbbc$gfs$1...@news.iucc.ac.il...
Bob Harper
Otherwise, Tom, your comment is simply silly: *ONLY* remaining freedom?
What a crock! I daresay we're even freer than Canadians, not to mention
most of the rest of the world.
Bob Harper
Bob Harper
'the land of the free and *the home of* the brave'.
Gerard
Maybe Iraq is freeer yet.
I think it's the only country with more murders per day.
Bob Harper
subject. Your comment, as usual, adds nothing which might help in
understanding that subject.
Bob Harper
Gerard
Most comments in this newsgroup don't even help in understanding (or whatever)
the subject of the newsgroup.
So don't whine about some more bullshit.
Fraud Hardman
Land of the free? With nearly 1% of the population incarcerated? For
black men in certain age groups the figure is over 10%. This is not the
land of the free, this is the land that never really accepted that
slavery had been abolished.
Bob Harper
(snip)
>
> Most comments in this newsgroup don't even help in understanding (or whatever)
> the subject of the newsgroup.
> So don't whine about some more bullshit.
>
>
Bob Harper
Fraud Hardman
Land of the free, huh? Got your balls in a vice.
Richard Schultz
: It's good to know I'm not considered rude.
That depends: top posting is a sign of either rudeness or cluelessness.
I would say that you could pick whichever one you like, but it appears
that you already have.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
sorabji...@lineone.net
Ian Pace wrote:
> I agree with almost all of the above, but do wonder what the meaning of
> 'conservatism' really is in this sense? I count myself as a traditionalist
> in many senses, but I believe much of tradition is radical rather than
> conservative. Certainly that of Berlioz, Chopin, Liszt and Wagner (and
> Beethoven and Schumann, and numerous others). But that may be what you are
> saying as well. These figures are as radical to me as when they were alive
> and creating new work, rather than being hallowed figures in a museum.
>
> Whereas mass-market culture - that is genuinely conservative, as it is
> totally subsumated to the interests of making a profit.
>
> Ian
Agreed wholeheartedly on both counts! I would only add that, in most
cases, there's absolutely nothing wrong with "making a profit",
provided that one does not try to pretend - or seek to lull anyone else
into believing - that one is producing anything of artistic value
thereby.
Gerard
Of course your reactions belong completely to the 95% bullshit in this
newsgroup.
david...@aol.com
sorabji...@lineone.net wrote:
> Agreed wholeheartedly on both counts! I would only add that, in most
> cases, there's absolutely nothing wrong with "making a profit",
> provided that one does not try to pretend - or seek to lull anyone else
> into believing - that one is producing anything of artistic value
> thereby.
Composers aren't entitled to make a living?
-david gable
sorabji...@lineone.net
david...@aol.com wrote:
Of course they are - and I have indeed argued often and long in efforts
to try to persuade the many so many people who evidently labour under
the extraordinary and wholly unfounded and illogical belief that, just
because most composers make very little money, they aren't entitled to
make any at all, really (this convenient "belief" is more often than
not paraded as an attempted excuse for people to go pilfering their
work because they think that they have some kind of divine right to do
so regardless of the composers' legal or moral rights or entitlements).
No - my point here was and is that, sadly, the more financial "profit"
a composer makes, the more probable it may be that the extent of that
profit is in inverse proportion to the artistic merit of his/her
profit-making product. There are inevitably exceptions to this, of
course, but it is nevertheless arguably true enough these days to
support and justify Ian Pace's frequent recourse to reference to the
"commodification" of music.
Since I am a composer myself, I am only too well aware of just how
difficult is is to derive a decent living from composition. Composers'
income from composition is usually made up from two overall sources -
(a) commissions and (b) royalties (with the possibility of money from
prizewinning works as an additional ocasional bonus). Commissions, once
they have arrived, usually have at least some degree of predictability
in that the financial arrangement is usually along the lines that the
composer is paid 50% of the total fee up front and the remainder upon
completion of the work; au contraire, royalty payments from the sale of
publications and from public performances, broadcasts and recordings
are, to varying degrees, something of a lottery and always paid well in
arrears of the event, sometimes even by several years.
Depending upon the extent to which individual composers work in what
may be described as "commerical" fields (say film, television, etc.),
one could, if one chose, seek to assess individual works as instances
of the composer "composing for a living" or "happening to make a living
from composing" - i.e. consciously setting out to work for a living as
distinct from making some money anyway. The principal difference
between these two seems to be in the expectation.
Best,
Alistair
A. Brain
> A. Brain wrote:
>> On the subject of press freedom
>> in the U.S., see below:
>>
>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/press-freedom-us-drops-t_b_34844.html
>>
> Your freedom to post this without *any* fear of retribution gives the
> lie to what you have written. The whole Chicken Little bit re 'civil
> liberties' is pretty silly, IMO.
The one area where we seem to have expanded
civil liberties is in gun rights. I guess the NRA
would argue that individuals should have the
right to their own nuclear arsenals. I think
the high murder rate is largely related to legal
guns and illegal drugs. (Yes, I would like to
see all drugs legalized, regulated and taxed;
it's not like "our children" are not already on
all kinds of prescribed drugs, many of which
have harmful effects that recreational drugs
like marijuana do not.)
On the matter of freedom of speech and press,
perhaps Bob has not followed recent developments,
including the so-called "Justice Department"
investigating the possibility of prosecuting
journalists who exposed the Bush administration's
domestic spying program, which was itself illegal.
Then there's the Pentagon following anti-war
groups within the U.S.
And the warrantless wiretaps.
And the virtual repeal of Habeas Corpus.
Consider tuning out Faux News and try
watching Olbermann on MSNBC. He
is quite elegant and also erudite. He is
also very funny, especially when he trashes
Bill O'Reilley.
GWU's Constitutional Law professor
Jonathan Turley offers commentary here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asy3ASn6wsg
And Keith Olbermann here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa1moJQMnXU&mode=related&search=
More here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg4gdPW_I_A&mode=related&search=
--
A. Brain
Remove NOSPAM for email.
Andy Evans
It's true marijuana has been widely used without obviously serious
problems, but there is mounting research into some nasty effects on
mental conditions, plus there's some turbocharged stuff out there which
can be a lot worse than the stuff we puffed in the 60s.
John Harrington
> "Bob Harper" <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:_bmdne6ixaZTUPTY...@comcast.com...
>
> > A. Brain wrote:
> >> On the subject of press freedom
> >> in the U.S., see below:
>
>
> > Your freedom to post this without *any* fear of retribution gives the
> > lie to what you have written. The whole Chicken Little bit re 'civil
> > liberties' is pretty silly, IMO.
>
> The one area where we seem to have expanded
> civil liberties is in gun rights. I guess the NRA
> would argue that individuals should have the
> right to their own nuclear arsenals. I think
> the high murder rate is largely related to legal
> guns and illegal drugs. (Yes, I would like to
> see all drugs legalized, regulated and taxed;
> it's not like "our children" are not already on
> all kinds of prescribed drugs, many of which
> have harmful effects that recreational drugs
> like marijuana do not.)
So you want meth available at 7-11 like cigarettes? Do you give a shit
about the human misery that would ensue? 2.5M people worldwide are
killed by cigarettes alone per year. 20K are killed by all illicit
drugs and related crime combined. There's a reason for this, and it's
not because people prefer legal drugs.
Please think.
> On the matter of freedom of speech and press,
> perhaps Bob has not followed recent developments,
Or perhaps he's followed them and simply doesn't give a shit.
> including the so-called "Justice Department"
> investigating the possibility of prosecuting
> journalists who exposed the Bush administration's
> domestic spying program, which was itself illegal.
>
> Then there's the Pentagon following anti-war
> groups within the U.S.
>
> And the warrantless wiretaps.
>
> And the virtual repeal of Habeas Corpus.
>
> Consider tuning out Faux News and try
> watching Olbermann on MSNBC. He
> is quite elegant and also erudite. He is
> also very funny, especially when he trashes
> Bill O'Reilley.
>
> GWU's Constitutional Law professor
> Jonathan Turley offers commentary here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asy3ASn6wsg
>
> And Keith Olbermann here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa1moJQMnXU&mode=related&search=
>
> More here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg4gdPW_I_A&mode=related&search=
You forgot to mention Jose Padilla, an American citizen who was
imprisoned without trial or charge and who has only been saved by
extraordinary judicial intervention.
J
John Harrington
wrote:
I learned just yesterday that my sister's 20-something stepson, who was
once a good kid, who comes from a good home, and whose father is a
wealthy engineer, is now in prison for the third time and is hooked on
meth amphetamine. He started with marijuana and ridiculed his parents'
warnings that it was a "gateway drug".
J
dohg...@sympatico.ca
A. Brain wrote: "The one area where we seem to have expanded
civil liberties is in gun rights."
Indeed. Meanwhile, tens of millions of Americans have little or no
freedom of access to decent healthcare, nutrition, and education.
JG
Frank Berger
"Andy Evans" <performan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164638736.5...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Which doesn't imply it should be illegal.
Frank Berger
"John Harrington" <bear...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164640082.8...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
More likely the "gateway" event was hanging out with the wrong crowd. The
fact that nearly all users of "hard" drugs started with MJ in no way proves
causality. If there is evidence of causalilty, you, of all people, should
have provided it.
gerrie...@cox.net
> Then there's the Pentagon following anti-war
> groups within the U.S.
>
> And the warrantless wiretaps.
>
> And the virtual repeal of Habeas Corpus.
All these "holier-than-thou" accusations, remonstrations against
anti-terrorist safeguards have taken on a character of a cry-baby rant
(not the foregoing, particularly), especially since most of them (the
AT activities) have yet to prove they embody the evil for which they
are descried, and never is there a glimmer of acknowledgement among
the descriers that such activities have served (and are serving) the
good for which they were established.
P.S> Consider tuning out Faux News and try
> watching Olbermann on MSNBC. He
> is quite elegant and also erudite. He is
> also very funny, especially when he trashes
> Bill O'Reilley.
Olbermann "elegant" and "erudite""? Quite the opposite I would say.
This former Sportscaster is one of whom I have rarely watched or
listened , but when I have, he came across as a mean, bitter,
surface-thought-driven (meaning no deep contemplation/understanding),
often irrational hater of anything Bush or Republican-Conservative.
He can't hold a candle to anything in O'Reilly's rhetoric,
perceptivity, logic, AND class humor arsenal.
Gc
P.S. Samir Golescu is one of the best minds, writers, theoreticians,
pianists-performers that RMCR has ever had. Could his absence be the
reason why the place has become so dull? :-)
Bob Lombard
<gerrie...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1164652839....@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> A. Brain wrote:
>
>
> P.S> Consider tuning out Faux News and try
>> watching Olbermann on MSNBC. He
>> is quite elegant and also erudite. He is
>> also very funny, especially when he trashes
>> Bill O'Reilley.
>
>
> Olbermann "elegant" and "erudite""? Quite the opposite I would say.
> This former Sportscaster is one of whom I have rarely watched or
> listened , but when I have, he came across as a mean, bitter,
> surface-thought-driven (meaning no deep contemplation/understanding),
> often irrational hater of anything Bush or Republican-Conservative.
> He can't hold a candle to anything in O'Reilly's rhetoric,
> perceptivity, logic, AND class humor arsenal.
>
> Gc
The variance in opinion here may be related to a difference in blocked
receptors. I have been unable to determine whether the slant caused by
having the left eye and right ear closed is different from the slant
caused by having the right eye and left ear closed, but there is a
significant difference in either case from having both receptors on one
side closed. There is a definite veer then.
If you suspect that the above paragraph is nonsensical, you may be
reaching an understanding of the argument.
bl
bpnjensen
> Olbermann "elegant" and "erudite""? Quite the opposite I would say.
> This former Sportscaster is one of whom I have rarely watched or
> listened , but when I have, he came across as a mean, bitter,
> surface-thought-driven (meaning no deep contemplation/understanding),
> often irrational hater of anything Bush or Republican-Conservative.
> He can't hold a candle to anything in O'Reilly's rhetoric,
> perceptivity, logic, AND class humor arsenal.
Oh, you mean that irrational hater of anything Liberal or Democratic?
I've seen his knees jerk so many times he has permanent gaps where his
teeth are missing. He has attacked mainstream concepts viciously out
of a sense of total misunderstanding of the issues on many occasions -
the guy's a shallow-self-serving showman, like the rest of Murdoch's
lackeys. I've even seen him attack people who *agree* with him until
the doofus figures it out, after an extended grilling. Up against a
real thinker from either end of the political spectrum, O'Reilly would
fall flatter than a week-old glass of Dr. Pepper. And Olbermann has no
corner on the mean/bitter market - O'Reilly frequently acts like he
hates everyone (in that charming Irish sort of way).
At least Olbermann routinely uses factual information to make his
points, something O'Reilly can comprehend only occasionally. And yes,
it is pretty well acknowledged that Habeas Corpus has been trashed
under the Bush adminstration in the last few months, also thanks to
Congress. It is obvious to most anyone who uses a shred of objectivity
in their personal analyses, and connects the dots farther than
Guantanamo. It's unfortunate that we have laws being made by
politicians rather than real patriots.
As far as deep contemplation/understanding goes - potayto/potahto. If
you agree with someone, they are deep. If not, they are shallow.
Bruce Jensen
Frank Berger
"bpnjensen" <bpnj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1164654392.8...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> gerrie...@cox.net wrote:
>
>> Olbermann "elegant" and "erudite""? Quite the opposite I would say.
>> This former Sportscaster is one of whom I have rarely watched or
>> listened , but when I have, he came across as a mean, bitter,
>> surface-thought-driven (meaning no deep contemplation/understanding),
>> often irrational hater of anything Bush or Republican-Conservative.
>> He can't hold a candle to anything in O'Reilly's rhetoric,
>> perceptivity, logic, AND class humor arsenal.
>
> Oh, you mean that irrational hater of anything Liberal or Democratic?
In other words, he disagrees with you.
> I've seen his knees jerk so many times he has permanent gaps where his
> teeth are missing.
In other words, he disagrees with you.
>He has attacked mainstream concepts
Those with which you agree.
>viciously out of a sense of total misunderstanding of the issues on many
>occasions
As you understand them.
> the guy's a shallow-self-serving showman, like the rest of Murdoch's
> lackeys.
Like most people in the media, of all political stripes.
> I've even seen him attack people who *agree* with him until
> the doofus figures it out, after an extended grilling.
He's an entertainer.
> Up against a real thinker from either end of the political spectrum,
O'Reilly would
> fall flatter than a week-old glass of Dr. Pepper.
He's not a genius, true. What thinker on the Right would you consider
"real?"
> And Olbermann has no
> corner on the mean/bitter market - O'Reilly frequently acts like he
> hates everyone (in that charming Irish sort of way).
>
He disagrees with ideas that you believe in, so you say he "hates."
"Charming Irish sort of way?" That doesn't seem politcally correct to me.
Just short of Michael Richard's tirade, in fact.
> At least Olbermann routinely uses factual information to make his
> points, something O'Reilly can comprehend only occasionally. And yes,
> it is pretty well acknowledged
By those who agree with you.
> that Habeas Corpus has been trashed
> under the Bush adminstration in the last few months, also thanks to
> Congress. It is obvious to most anyone who uses a shred of objectivity
> in their personal analyses
People lilke you.
> and connects the dots farther than
> Guantanamo. It's unfortunate that we have laws being made by
> politicians
Laws are always made by politicians.
>rather than real patriots.
People who agree with you.
>
> As far as deep contemplation/understanding goes - potayto/potahto. If
> you agree with someone, they are deep. If not, they are shallow.
>
You've proven this point in your own case. It doesn't apply uniformly.
Poldie
The `gateway drug` theory doesn't really make any sense. Would it
still be a gateway drug if it were legal (ie there's something about
the specific effects of marijuana which causes one to experiment with
other drugs), or does having to buy the drug illegally mean you mix
with characters who would have to experiment with other, more expensive
and dangerous drugs. No-one's ever died from using marijuana, and most
of the millions of people who use it every year don't end up addicted
to or harmed from other drugs, which would be the case if it were a
'gateway drug'. Of course, some people who use marijuana are going to
go on to use other drugs, but why pick on marijuana as the 'gateway'
and not alcohol, coffee, tobacco, milk, tennis etc? It doesn't make
any kind of sense.
JohnGavin
> david...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Samir, a withered old man in his 20s and 30s (I think he aged some
> while posting, due to stress caused by rmcr stupidity) .......>
>
> He's pretty alive, too. And probably absent from rmcr for roughly the
> same reasons.
>
> Lena
>
It seems that you're invoking the New Testament addage "Cast ye not
pearls amongst the swine". So can we take it that both Samir and Simon
suffered stress and premature aging from trying one too many times from
casting their pearls of musical wisdom on us unreceptive musically
crude swine? :)
Poldie
Yes, it's not an increase in research you need to be worried about, but
the results of research demonstrating a clear causal link between
consumption of cannabis (marijuana) and subsequent mental harm. It
would need to explain this harm in the context of the huge majority of
cannabis users not going on to any sort of mental harm, and why there's
not been a corresponding increase in mental health problems to marry
with the massive increase in usage over the last few decades.
Frank Berger
"Poldie" <Pol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164658810.4...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I would argue that even demonstration of harm isn't sufficient to justify
making it illegal, except for children. Lot's of things are harmful, but
legal.
bpnjensen
> "bpnjensen" <bpnj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1164654392.8...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > gerrie...@cox.net wrote:
> >
> >> Olbermann "elegant" and "erudite""? Quite the opposite I would say.
> >> This former Sportscaster is one of whom I have rarely watched or
> >> listened , but when I have, he came across as a mean, bitter,
> >> surface-thought-driven (meaning no deep contemplation/understanding),
> >> often irrational hater of anything Bush or Republican-Conservative.
> >> He can't hold a candle to anything in O'Reilly's rhetoric,
> >> perceptivity, logic, AND class humor arsenal.
> >
> > Oh, you mean that irrational hater of anything Liberal or Democratic?
>
> In other words, he disagrees with you.
No Frank, not always - and you have obviously misunderstood my own
politics badly enough to draw some very poor assumptions. For
example...
> > I've seen his knees jerk so many times he has permanent gaps where his
> > teeth are missing.
>
> In other words, he disagrees with you.
See above.
> >He has attacked mainstream concepts
>
> Those with which you agree.
No, Frank, not always - he just comes poorly prepared to almost every
program, with extremely limited knowledge and prior misunderstanding
about that which he is about to take on, and botches his own arguments.
> >viciously out of a sense of total misunderstanding of the issues on many
> >occasions
>
> As you understand them.
No, Frank, as *he* eventually comes to understand them. The guy is
poorly prepared and frequently has to learn his lessons on the air, and
thus eats crow quietly and vaguely.
> > the guy's a shallow-self-serving showman, like the rest of Murdoch's
> > lackeys.
>
> Like most people in the media, of all political stripes.
Yes, I'll buy that.
> > I've even seen him attack people who *agree* with him until
> > the doofus figures it out, after an extended grilling.
>
> He's an entertainer.
That's right, keep on making those excuses. If true, it's pretty
inconsistent of him, and one more reason to dismiss him, even when you
might agree with him.
> > Up against a real thinker from either end of the political spectrum,
> O'Reilly would
> > fall flatter than a week-old glass of Dr. Pepper.
>
> He's not a genius, true. What thinker on the Right would you consider
> "real?"
A William F. Buckley, for example. A Barry Goldwater, for example.
There are some others. Someone who, despite his politics, is willing
to weigh the arguments of all sides and perceive as accurately as
possible where the best balance may lay, or at least, barring some
divine revelation, recognizes a real problem. The ones who deserve
respect, whether you agree with them or not, because they look at the
big picture in four dimensions. There are a few, on both sides of the
aisle, but they often get drowned out by the rabble that seek their own
glorification instead of meaningful action on behalf of the people of
the U.S.
> > And Olbermann has no
> > corner on the mean/bitter market - O'Reilly frequently acts like he
> > hates everyone (in that charming Irish sort of way).
> >
> He disagrees with ideas that you believe in, so you say he "hates."
> "Charming Irish sort of way?" That doesn't seem politcally correct to me.
> Just short of Michael Richard's tirade, in fact.
I just had a feeling you might pick up on this - you took the bait
nicely, looking for what you perceive to be a weak spot in my armor.
Good for you. Politically Correct isn't always truly correct, and I
put very little stock in it...and I don't care if I rib the Irish a
little bit - my Irish friends and I rib each other all the time. Get
over it. O'Reilly just acts cranky.
> > At least Olbermann routinely uses factual information to make his
> > points, something O'Reilly can comprehend only occasionally. And yes,
> > it is pretty well acknowledged
>
> By those who agree with you.
Yes, in this case, which happen to be constitutional scholars...you
know, the type of people for which Bush in particular seems to have no
use. Some conservatives do, however, and actually think before they
act.
> > that Habeas Corpus has been trashed
> > under the Bush adminstration in the last few months, also thanks to
> > Congress. It is obvious to most anyone who uses a shred of objectivity
> > in their personal analyses
>
> People lilke you.
Yes (and I appreciate your admission that I have some objectivity ;-)
and to people who read the fine print.
> > and connects the dots farther than
> > Guantanamo. It's unfortunate that we have laws being made by
> > politicians
>
> Laws are always made by politicians.
You catch on fast.
> >rather than real patriots.
> People who agree with you.
Again, Frank, your own inaccurate assessment. No, people who care
about the rights that the U.S. was founded upon. I honestly believe
Bush doesn't give a flying flapjack about the rights of anyone who
doesn't live in a wealthy gated community and owns oil stock.
> > As far as deep contemplation/understanding goes - potayto/potahto. If
> > you agree with someone, they are deep. If not, they are shallow.
> You've proven this point in your own case. It doesn't apply uniformly.
And you have proven not only that you are quite willing to misinterpret
and misconstrue the comments of others to make a dubious point, but
also that you're interested in a glib comeback match, not a real
conversation. I have not handed you, or anyone else, my complete set
of political beliefs on a silver platter, and to portray these limited
comments as such is disingenuous at best, and otherwise wrong.
If you want to talk about O'Reilly and why I stopped bothering with his
ill-informed drabble, or why the newest remake of the Patriot Act comes
dangerously close to the edge, fine. If you just want to poke holes
without providing rationale about why you think I am incorrect, then
forget it, and go back and absorb the mindless antics of the people who
lend the epithet "Boob Tube" the most credence.
Bruce Jensen
dohg...@sympatico.ca
"Samir, a withered old man in his 20s and 30s (I think he aged some
while posting, due to stress caused by rmcr stupidity)"
"Withered," yes, but in a different sense: I rather thought he left
rmcr on account of the "withering" rebuttals of one Ian Pace. SM bit
off more than he could chew on more than one occasion, and very much
embarassed himself in the process.
JG
tomdeacon
gerrie...@cox.net wrote:
> P.S. Samir Golescu is one of the best minds, writers, theoreticians,
> pianists-performers that RMCR has ever had.
This opinion is sort of par for the course from OFM.
> Could his absence be the reason why the place has become so dull?
No.
It's YOUR absence which has made the place dull.
TD
sorabji...@lineone.net
bpnjensen wrote:
> gerrie...@cox.net wrote:
> it is pretty well acknowledged that Habeas Corpus has been trashed
> under the Bush adminstration in the last few months, also thanks to
> Congress. It is obvious to most anyone who uses a shred of objectivity
> in their personal analyses, and connects the dots farther than
> Guantanamo. It's unfortunate that we have laws being made by
> politicians rather than real patriots.
And you expect anything else? Why? Is this not how it was, is now and
ever shall be, world WITH end, Amen? I suspect that we "ain't seen
nothin' yet" (even if we have seen examples), except that those of us
who have bothered to notice have alredy seen rather more than enough to
know that this is precisely what we are going to get more and more of -
absolutely indefinitely. Bush may be the most widely publicised
exemplar, largely because he is supposedly in charge of one of the (to
date) richest and noisient nations on earth, but he is not alone in his
"ideas", nor in his determination to impose them, regardless of any
consequences on anyone else. That's how life has gone, goes and will
continue to go, ad infinitum e nauseam. Some of us with agendas
entierly unconnected with this way of "thinking" will continue to go
our respective ways, just making matters worse still, at least in part
because we simply don't fit in. Once again, so be it. One more for the
tinder-box.
Best,
Alistair
John Harrington
<snip>
> Yes, it's not an increase in research you need to be worried about, but
> the results of research demonstrating a clear causal link between
> consumption of cannabis (marijuana) and subsequent mental harm. It
> would need to explain this harm in the context of the huge majority of
> cannabis users not going on to any sort of mental harm, and why there's
> not been a corresponding increase in mental health problems to marry
> with the massive increase in usage over the last few decades.
This begs a lot of questions, e.g., how do you know there's not been a
corresponding increase in mental health problems over the last few
years?
Anecdotally (and please note I'm making no claims beyond the
anecdotal), those "stoners" I've known have all had an almost
immediately identifiable "slowness" about their speech and mannerisms
which suggests long term marijuana use does have a mental effect.
J
John Harrington
> John Harrington wrote:
> > On Nov 27, 6:45 am, "Andy Evans" <performanceandme...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > harmful effects that recreational drugs like marijuana do not>>
> > >
> > > It's true marijuana has been widely used without obviously serious
> > > problems, but there is mounting research into some nasty effects on
> > > mental conditions, plus there's some turbocharged stuff out there which
> > > can be a lot worse than the stuff we puffed in the 60s.
> >
> > I learned just yesterday that my sister's 20-something stepson, who was
> > once a good kid, who comes from a good home, and whose father is a
> > wealthy engineer, is now in prison for the third time and is hooked on
> > meth amphetamine. He started with marijuana and ridiculed his parents'
> > warnings that it was a "gateway drug".
>
> The `gateway drug` theory doesn't really make any sense. Would it
> still be a gateway drug if it were legal (ie there's something about
> the specific effects of marijuana which causes one to experiment with
> other drugs), or does having to buy the drug illegally mean you mix
> with characters who would have to experiment with other, more expensive
> and dangerous drugs.
Unless you're growing it yourself, smoking marijuana necessarily
requires interaction with criminal drug dealers (and, often, users),
criminal drug dealers (and users) who will more likely have access to
other illicit drugs than your average person walking the street.
> No-one's ever died from using marijuana, and most
> of the millions of people who use it every year don't end up addicted
> to or harmed from other drugs,
For one thing, I don't know that either of these statements is true,
but most people who smoke cigarettes don't end up with lung cancer,
either. That doesn't change the fact that tobacco is a carcinogen.
> which would be the case if it were a
> 'gateway drug'.
That doesn't follow. It could be a "gateway drug" in the sense that it
increases the liklihood of being exposed to harder drugs, not
necessarily that it does so in the majority of cases.
> Of course, some people who use marijuana are going to
> go on to use other drugs, but why pick on marijuana as the 'gateway'
> and not alcohol, coffee, tobacco, milk, tennis etc?
Because using alcohol, coffee, tobacco, etc. doesn't necessitate
exposure to criminals. Nor does it require any willingness to use
illicit substances.
> It doesn't make
> any kind of sense.
Well, it doesn't to you, evidently.
J
Frank Berger
> Frank Berger wrote:
>> "bpnjensen" <bpnj...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164654392.8...@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> > gerrie...@cox.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> Olbermann "elegant" and "erudite""? Quite the opposite I would say.
>> >> This former Sportscaster is one of whom I have rarely watched or
>> >> listened , but when I have, he came across as a mean, bitter,
>> >> surface-thought-driven (meaning no deep contemplation/understanding),
>> >> often irrational hater of anything Bush or Republican-Conservative.
>> >> He can't hold a candle to anything in O'Reilly's rhetoric,
>> >> perceptivity, logic, AND class humor arsenal.
>> >
>> > Oh, you mean that irrational hater of anything Liberal or Democratic?
>>
>> In other words, he disagrees with you.
>
> No Frank, not always - and you have obviously misunderstood my own
> politics badly enough to draw some very poor assumptions. For
> example...
You mean an "irrational hater of anything Liberal or Democratic" can have a
view you share? I have indeed misunderstood you, then.
>
>> > I've seen his knees jerk so many times he has permanent gaps where his
>> > teeth are missing.
>>
>> In other words, he disagrees with you.
>
> See above.
>
>> >He has attacked mainstream concepts
>>
>> Those with which you agree.
>
> No, Frank, not always - he just comes poorly prepared to almost every
> program, with extremely limited knowledge and prior misunderstanding
> about that which he is about to take on, and botches his own arguments.
>
>> >viciously out of a sense of total misunderstanding of the issues on many
>> >occasions
>>
>> As you understand them.
>
> No, Frank, as *he* eventually comes to understand them. The guy is
> poorly prepared and frequently has to learn his lessons on the air, and
> thus eats crow quietly and vaguely.
Sounds like he's fairly open minded and has respect for his guests.
>
>> > the guy's a shallow-self-serving showman, like the rest of Murdoch's
>> > lackeys.
>>
>> Like most people in the media, of all political stripes.
>
> Yes, I'll buy that.
>
>> > I've even seen him attack people who *agree* with him until
>> > the doofus figures it out, after an extended grilling.
>>
>> He's an entertainer.
>
> That's right, keep on making those excuses
I'm not making excuses. I have no need to. I disagree with O'Reilly about
lots of things.
> If true, it's pretty
> inconsistent of him, and one more reason to dismiss him, even when you
> might agree with him.
>
>> > Up against a real thinker from either end of the political spectrum,
>> O'Reilly would
>> > fall flatter than a week-old glass of Dr. Pepper.
>>
>> He's not a genius, true. What thinker on the Right would you consider
>> "real?"
>
> A William F. Buckley, for example. A Barry Goldwater, for example.
Nobody a little more "current?"
I'll look and see if I can find any constitutional scholars who don't
consider Habeas Corpus to be "trashed."
>...you
> know, the type of people for which Bush in particular seems to have no
> use. Some conservatives do, however, and actually think before they
> act.
>
>> > that Habeas Corpus has been trashed
>> > under the Bush adminstration in the last few months, also thanks to
>> > Congress. It is obvious to most anyone who uses a shred of objectivity
>> > in their personal analyses
>>
>> People lilke you.
>
> Yes (and I appreciate your admission that I have some objectivity ;-)
> and to people who read the fine print.
>
>> > and connects the dots farther than
>> > Guantanamo. It's unfortunate that we have laws being made by
>> > politicians
>>
>> Laws are always made by politicians.
>
> You catch on fast.
>
>> >rather than real patriots.
>
>> People who agree with you.
>
> Again, Frank, your own inaccurate assessment. No, people who care
> about the rights that the U.S. was founded upon. I honestly believe
> Bush doesn't give a flying flapjack about the rights of anyone who
> doesn't live in a wealthy gated community and owns oil stock.
You would be wrong.
>
>> > As far as deep contemplation/understanding goes - potayto/potahto. If
>> > you agree with someone, they are deep. If not, they are shallow.
>
>> You've proven this point in your own case. It doesn't apply uniformly.
>
> And you have proven not only that you are quite willing to misinterpret
> and misconstrue the comments of others to make a dubious point, but
> also that you're interested in a glib comeback match, not a real
> conversation.
> I have not handed you, or anyone else, my complete set
> of political beliefs on a silver platter, and to portray these limited
> comments as such is disingenuous at best, and otherwise wrong.
I didn't do that.
>
> If you want to talk about O'Reilly and why I stopped bothering with his
> ill-informed drabble, or why the newest remake of the Patriot Act comes
> dangerously close to the edge, fine. If you just want to poke holes
> without providing rationale about why you think I am incorrect, then
> forget it, and go back and absorb the mindless antics of the people who
> lend the epithet "Boob Tube" the most credence.
>
I responded the way I did because your tirade included not a jot of support
for your assertions, as well as the hyperbole which, after all, is just a
substitute for the rational argument you claim you want to have.
Frank Berger
Since, by definition, I think, "stoners" are pretty much stoned all the
time, it might be hard to separate long-term from short-term effects without
doing a controlled study.
Poldie
John Harrington wrote:
> Poldie wrote:
> <snip>
> > Yes, it's not an increase in research you need to be worried about, but
> > the results of research demonstrating a clear causal link between
> > consumption of cannabis (marijuana) and subsequent mental harm. It
> > would need to explain this harm in the context of the huge majority of
> > cannabis users not going on to any sort of mental harm, and why there's
> > not been a corresponding increase in mental health problems to marry
> > with the massive increase in usage over the last few decades.
>
> This begs a lot of questions, e.g., how do you know there's not been a
> corresponding increase in mental health problems over the last few
> years?
Last time I checked there wasn't a greater rise than you'd expect from
population growth. And when a link is claimed, it's usually in the
context of how many people who have mental health problems have
previously used cannabis. If cannabis is being used more often, then
you'd expect to find it in a sufferer's background, without it being
proof of a causal link. Are they testing for food grown with
pesticides, lead in paint, exposure to mobile phones, air pollution,
stress, poor taste in music etc? People with mental health problems
are notorious for self-medication with cannabis. Really, it's for
those who claim to detect the link to demonstrate it. Certainly I've
never seen any credible evidence. Cannabis is one of the most
experimented with substances - you'd think if it were harmful something
would have been found by now, right? The odd death, or physical
addiction? One, ever, anywhere?
> Anecdotally (and please note I'm making no claims beyond the
> anecdotal), those "stoners" I've known have all had an almost
> immediately identifiable "slowness" about their speech and mannerisms
> which suggests long term marijuana use does have a mental effect.
Perhaps they're just idiots? (Although they're not that clueless that
they've opted for crystal meth or whatever.) I know plenty of people
who have or do use cannabis, and they're programmers, PHD students,
website designers, musicians, teachers, nurses etc. Perhaps they're
all going to go crazy, adopt slurred speech or become meth users in the
next few weeks. I'd better watch out, eh?
Poldie
Do you think there'd be as many deaths over drug-related turf wars,
accidental overdoses due to people taking drugs of uncertain strength,
people using drugs contaminated with toxic chemicals, people
robbing/killing to get money/property to pay for drugs which are only
as expensive as they are because of the inconvenience caused to
suppliers by nature of their illegality? People will use drugs
whether they're legal or not, so either way you're going to have some
people doing stupid things like drive/operate machinery whilst
impaired, overdose, get (someone) pregnant or write really terrible
music. By making it illegal, you're just encouraging all of the above
(and more - corrupt police, criminalising the poor and/or people who
just want to relax after work with a relatively harmless joint,
mushrooms etc and not dangerous drugs like alcohol and tobacco).
Really, think about it.
Poldie
In most countries it is illegal, yes. This is an argument for
legalisation - you wouldn't have to do that. You could buy it in a
shop as you would beer or cigarettes. That would remove that
possibility of it being a gateway drug (I'm in the UK, and even the
government here no longer describe it as such).
> > No-one's ever died from using marijuana, and most
> > of the millions of people who use it every year don't end up addicted
> > to or harmed from other drugs,
>
> For one thing, I don't know that either of these statements is true,
> but most people who smoke cigarettes don't end up with lung cancer,
> either. That doesn't change the fact that tobacco is a carcinogen.
I'd love to hear of any examples that disprove my assertions, should
you come across any. You don't have to smoke cannabis, and if you do
you don't have to smoke it with tobacco, if that's what you're driving
at.
> > which would be the case if it were a
> > 'gateway drug'.
>
> That doesn't follow. It could be a "gateway drug" in the sense that it
> increases the liklihood of being exposed to harder drugs, not
> necessarily that it does so in the majority of cases.
An argument for legalisation. If it's illegal you might find that
likelihood increased, certainly. If it's legal then I'm not sure how
it would. If it doesn't have that effect in the majority of cases then
isn't that proof that it's not a gateway drug - that it's something
else making people try harder drugs. (Also, some people just *want* to
use harder drugs. Imagine that!)
> > Of course, some people who use marijuana are going to
> > go on to use other drugs, but why pick on marijuana as the 'gateway'
> > and not alcohol, coffee, tobacco, milk, tennis etc?
>
> Because using alcohol, coffee, tobacco, etc. doesn't necessitate
> exposure to criminals. Nor does it require any willingness to use
> illicit substances.
There's nothing inherently illegal about cannabis! It's a law - one
that can be changed and one with which most people in the UK don't
agree with anyway:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/08/14/ndrugs14.xml
There's no stigma about breaking the law in regard to drugs - no reason
to believe usage would increase if legalised, as such a belief requires
the bizarre idea that there are loads of people who would use drugs but
don't because a) prohibition is working so well they can't get any
(prices of all drugs are at a record low), and/or b) they find the idea
of breaking drugs laws immoral.
John Harrington
No, I think there'd be more deaths. A single legal drug, tobacco,
kills millions while all illicit drugs combined kill 10s of thousands.
> People will use drugs
> whether they're legal or not,
True, but, naturally, more people use legal drugs than illegal.
> so either way you're going to have some
> people doing stupid things like drive/operate machinery whilst
> impaired, overdose, get (someone) pregnant or write really terrible
> music. By making it illegal, you're just encouraging all of the above
> (and more - corrupt police, criminalising the poor and/or people who
> just want to relax after work with a relatively harmless joint,
> mushrooms etc and not dangerous drugs like alcohol and tobacco).
By making it legal, you increase the number of users. This is why the
use of legal drugs dwarfs the use of illicit drugs 100s of times.
J
John Harrington
> John Harrington wrote:
> > Poldie wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Yes, it's not an increase in research you need to be worried about, but
> > > the results of research demonstrating a clear causal link between
> > > consumption of cannabis (marijuana) and subsequent mental harm. It
> > > would need to explain this harm in the context of the huge majority of
> > > cannabis users not going on to any sort of mental harm, and why there's
> > > not been a corresponding increase in mental health problems to marry
> > > with the massive increase in usage over the last few decades.
> >
> > This begs a lot of questions, e.g., how do you know there's not been a
> > corresponding increase in mental health problems over the last few
> > years?
>
> Last time I checked there wasn't a greater rise than you'd expect from
> population growth.
When did you check and what was your source?
> And when a link is claimed, it's usually in the
> context of how many people who have mental health problems have
> previously used cannabis. If cannabis is being used more often, then
> you'd expect to find it in a sufferer's background, without it being
> proof of a causal link. Are they testing for food grown with
> pesticides, lead in paint, exposure to mobile phones, air pollution,
> stress, poor taste in music etc? People with mental health problems
> are notorious for self-medication with cannabis. Really, it's for
> those who claim to detect the link to demonstrate it. Certainly I've
> never seen any credible evidence. Cannabis is one of the most
> experimented with substances - you'd think if it were harmful something
> would have been found by now, right? The odd death, or physical
> addiction? One, ever, anywhere?
How do you dismiss animal studies that suggest cannibis use increases
susceptibility to heroin addiction by 1.5%? Since you're claiming to
have done some serious thought about this issue, I assume you're aware
of these studies and have a good argument against them.
> > Anecdotally (and please note I'm making no claims beyond the
> > anecdotal), those "stoners" I've known have all had an almost
> > immediately identifiable "slowness" about their speech and mannerisms
> > which suggests long term marijuana use does have a mental effect.
>
> Perhaps they're just idiots?
Undoubtedly.
> (Although they're not that clueless that
> they've opted for crystal meth or whatever.) I know plenty of people
> who have or do use cannabis, and they're programmers, PHD students,
> website designers, musicians, teachers, nurses etc. Perhaps they're
> all going to go crazy, adopt slurred speech or become meth users in the
> next few weeks. I'd better watch out, eh?
Not that I'm getting any feeling from you that you have any concern
about the effects your half-baked ideas might have on human misery, you
might as well watch out, simply out of cold and dispassionate
curiosity, if not concern for your acquaintances:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug
J
gerrie...@cox.net
> >> > Up against a real thinker from either end of the political spectrum,
> >> O'Reilly would
> >> > fall flatter than a week-old glass of Dr. Pepper.
He's not what might be called an 'high-end analyst' nor does he pretend
to be such.
However, there's nothing 'missing' in his thinking ability, although he
concentrates mostly on quick/short commentary due to the format of his
show.
> >> He's not a genius, true. What thinker on the Right would you consider
> >> "real?"
> >
> > A William F. Buckley, for example. A Barry Goldwater, for example.
> Nobody a little more "current?"
Victor Davis Hanson, George Will, John Fund, and Christopher Hitchens,
for starters (although none would probably place themselves
particularly in a "Rigid Right" camp.).
Gc
Gc
JohnGavin
gerrie...@cox.net wrote:
>
> Olbermann "elegant" and "erudite""? Quite the opposite I would say.
> This former Sportscaster is one of whom I have rarely watched or
> listened , but when I have, he came across as a mean, bitter,
> surface-thought-driven (meaning no deep contemplation/understanding),
> often irrational hater of anything Bush or Republican-Conservative.
> He can't hold a candle to anything in O'Reilly's rhetoric,
> perceptivity, logic, AND class humor arsenal.
Olbermann is mean and bitter, while O'Reilly has class humor??? Are
you completely nuts, or have you been smoking some of the weed being
discussed on this thread??? Your right-wing leanings seem to have
skewed your cerebral hemispheres!!!
>
Poldie
> How do you dismiss animal studies that suggest cannibis use increases
> susceptibility to heroin addiction by 1.5%? Since you're claiming to
> have done some serious thought about this issue, I assume you're aware
> of these studies and have a good argument against them.
Yes, I'd point to Holland, where cannabis is sold openly. The average
age of heroin addicts is rising, suggesting a decline in the number of
new heroin addicts.
I'd also point out the dangers of drawing conclusions from animal tests
without other evidence.
> > (Although they're not that clueless that
> > they've opted for crystal meth or whatever.) I know plenty of people
> > who have or do use cannabis, and they're programmers, PHD students,
> > website designers, musicians, teachers, nurses etc. Perhaps they're
> > all going to go crazy, adopt slurred speech or become meth users in the
> > next few weeks. I'd better watch out, eh?
>
> Not that I'm getting any feeling from you that you have any concern
> about the effects your half-baked ideas might have on human misery, you
> might as well watch out, simply out of cold and dispassionate
> curiosity, if not concern for your acquaintances:
I'm not sure that I agree with you that allowing adults to make their
own decisions is a half baked idea. We're not talking about children
here, or idiots, but people who've decided that they want to take them.
The current situation, with people dying, addicted or imprisoned, is
what happens because drugs are illegal. I believe the problem would be
massively reduced if they were not.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drug
I'm not sure what you think this article proves. All I get out of that
page is that some people believe that people who use one drug often use
another one. Certainly it provides no reason to believe that cannabis
is any more of a gateway drug than alcohol or cigarettes, although it
confirms that cannabis, by nature of it's illegal state, requires users
to contact dealers who may also have an interest in supplying other
drugs.
Bob Lombard
<dohg...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1164659282.8...@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
bl
Frank Berger
<gerrie...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1164672971.7...@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Somehow, I don't think Mr. Jensen will agree with these choices.
Frank Berger
"JohnGavin" <dag...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1164675964.1...@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Or vice versa. Think about it.
Frank Berger
Let's not overlook the possibility that there is another factor, or factors,
possibly psychological, possibly physical, that determine an "addictive
personality" - one that is liable to be easily addicted to any or all of
these substances. This would create spurious correlations from which the
ignorant or the politically motivated mght argue, baselessly, causality.
Not also, that when pressed by your cogent arguments, Harrington,
predictably, turns abusive.
gerrie...@cox.net
Whereas I do recall (since my 'visit' here today is the first in many
months) Mr. Pace writing some well-based and fairly scholarly posts on
several subjects (music mostly), I have no memory of Samir ever being
"withered" by Pace or anyone on RMCR. His in-depth thinking and
erudition in *all* areas (but especially music and world affairs) had
few if any peers here (and I suppose also wherever he is now).
Gc
gerrie...@cox.net
It is always so amusing (to put it nicely) to read the near-total
disdain that most here exhibit when they 'dare' to use the word "right"
even in a partially political context, and to witness their complete
breakdown of sanity (or rational thought) when using it with "wing" to
'sloganize' deep-seated hatred for beliefs and ideologies antithetical
to their own.
Or, could it be fear (of its non-political definition(s)? Which is
it?
Gc
John Harrington
> John Harrington wrote:
> > How do you dismiss animal studies that suggest cannibis use increases
> > susceptibility to heroin addiction by 1.5%? Since you're claiming to
> > have done some serious thought about this issue, I assume you're aware
Cannabis is regulated in Holland. Large scale production is
criminalized.
> The average
> age of heroin addicts is rising, suggesting a decline in the number of
> new heroin addicts.
Heroin is illegal in the Netherlands.
> I'd also point out the dangers of drawing conclusions from animal tests
> without other evidence.
But there is other evidence, human evidence, showing that those who use
pot turn to hard drugs at a much higher rate than those who don't.
> > > (Although they're not that clueless that
> > > they've opted for crystal meth or whatever.) I know plenty of people
> > > who have or do use cannabis, and they're programmers, PHD students,
> > > website designers, musicians, teachers, nurses etc. Perhaps they're
> > > all going to go crazy, adopt slurred speech or become meth users in the
> > > next few weeks. I'd better watch out, eh?
>
> > Not that I'm getting any feeling from you that you have any concern
> > about the effects your half-baked ideas might have on human misery, you
> > might as well watch out, simply out of cold and dispassionate
> > curiosity, if not concern for your acquaintances:I'm not sure that I agree with you that allowing adults to make their
> own decisions is a half baked idea. We're not talking about children
> here, or idiots,
What makes you say that? Children and idiots take legal drugs now.
What makes you think they wouldn't if heroin were legalized?
> but people who've decided that they want to take them.
Do you know what, e.g., meth addiction is like? It's not simply a
matter of "deciding".
> The current situation, with people dying, addicted or imprisoned, is
> what happens because drugs are illegal. I believe the problem would be
> massively reduced if they were not.
Based on what? Legal drugs kill millions. Ilicit drugs kill
thousands. Why do you think that is?
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drugI'm not sure what you think this article proves. All I get out of that
> page is that some people believe that people who use one drug often use
> another one.
So the studies cited mean nothing next to your personal opinion??
> Certainly it provides no reason to believe that cannabis
> is any more of a gateway drug than alcohol or cigarettes, although it
> confirms that cannabis, by nature of it's illegal state, requires users
> to contact dealers who may also have an interest in supplying other
> drugs.
So you approve the illegal status of hard drugs?
J
John Harrington
Poldie
John Harrington wrote:
> On Nov 27, 5:12 pm, "Poldie" <Pol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > John Harrington wrote:
> > > How do you dismiss animal studies that suggest cannibis use increases
> > > susceptibility to heroin addiction by 1.5%? Since you're claiming to
> > > have done some serious thought about this issue, I assume you're aware
> > > of these studies and have a good argument against them.Yes, I'd point to Holland, where cannabis is sold openly.
>
> Cannabis is regulated in Holland. Large scale production is
> criminalized.
Irrelevant. Legal drugs are regulated in the UK, US etc. Cannabis is
sold, and smoked, openly in Holland - there is no need to mix with
criminals to buy it, and the `coffee shops` that provide it have
nothing to gain by mixing it with harmful substances. The owners take a
dim view of anyone trying to sell other, harmful drugs in their stores.
If the police spotting someone smoking a joint in the street they'd do
absolutely nothing to prevent it. In the context of a discussion about
drugs and the law, cannabis is effectively legal there.
>
> > The average
> > age of heroin addicts is rising, suggesting a decline in the number of
> > new heroin addicts.
>
> Heroin is illegal in the Netherlands.
Cheese is available for sale in the Netherlands.
> > I'd also point out the dangers of drawing conclusions from animal tests
> > without other evidence.
>
> But there is other evidence, human evidence, showing that those who use
> pot turn to hard drugs at a much higher rate than those who don't.
No there's not - not if by that you mean everyone who uses cannabis
does so. Some people who use cannabis turn to hard drugs, certainly.
> > > Not that I'm getting any feeling from you that you have any concern
> > > about the effects your half-baked ideas might have on human misery, you
> > > might as well watch out, simply out of cold and dispassionate
> > > curiosity, if not concern for your acquaintances:I'm not sure that I agree with you that allowing adults to make their
> > own decisions is a half baked idea. We're not talking about children
> > here, or idiots,
>
> What makes you say that? Children and idiots take legal drugs now.
> What makes you think they wouldn't if heroin were legalized?
Heroin is addictive but not harmful (unless mixed with harmful
chemicals to increase the profit for those selling it). They are
taking them now, perhaps they'll take them if legal. What's the
difference? Apart from all the crime etc, that is? I mean, I've been
robbed at knifepoint before. Perhaps the person doing it needed the
money for drugs. How many people would he have had to rob to get money
for drugs if he could have got them for free at a
clinic/hospital/police station etc? He'd perhaps still be taking
drugs now, but he'd not need to threaten anyone again. That's a win,
in my book.
> > but people who've decided that they want to take them.
>
> Do you know what, e.g., meth addiction is like? It's not simply a
> matter of "deciding".
The results of meth use are a consequence of addiction, not the cause
of it. If I decided to take meth it would be a level headed weighing
up of the pros and cons. Sure, once I'm addicted my choice would
become muddied, but that's not true at the point I start.
> > The current situation, with people dying, addicted or imprisoned, is
> > what happens because drugs are illegal. I believe the problem would be
> > massively reduced if they were not.
>
> Based on what? Legal drugs kill millions. Ilicit drugs kill
> thousands. Why do you think that is?
Because legal drugs are more dangerous than illegal ones. Someone
could use heroin, lsd, cannabis etc daily for years, but not suffer any
harm because they are not toxic. This isn't true of people who smoke
tobacco or drink a lot of alcohol.
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_drugI'm not sure what you think this article proves. All I get out of that
> > page is that some people believe that people who use one drug often use
> > another one.
>
> So the studies cited mean nothing next to your personal opinion??
That's right - you can't use them to demonstrate that there is a
gateway drug - at least, not one that doesn't also apply to alcohol and
tobacco.
> > Certainly it provides no reason to believe that cannabis
> > is any more of a gateway drug than alcohol or cigarettes, although it
> > confirms that cannabis, by nature of it's illegal state, requires users
> > to contact dealers who may also have an interest in supplying other
> > drugs.
>
> So you approve the illegal status of hard drugs?
No. If available legally, and cleanly they'd cause a tiny fraction of
the problem they cause today because of their illegal status.