Outlaw Blues
really real
starts with Subterranean Homesick Blues, a real rock 'n' roll song with
Dylan beatnik lyrics. She Belongs to Me is a slow and folk-blues and
poetic. Maggie's Farm is brilliant, with its wild music and metaphors.
Love Minus Zero/No Limit is Dylan in his finest songwriting form. Then
comes Outlaw Blues.
Outlaw Blues instantly comes on like a shaggy dog story:
Ain't it hard to stumble
And land in some muddy lagoon?
Especially when it's nine below zero
And three o'clock in the afternoon.
The snappy line near the end of the song, "Don't ask me nothin' about
nothin'/I just might tell you the truth" doesn't really save Outlaw
Blues from being much more than comic filler.
Outlaw Blues had a more potential in the earlier version that is on the
Genuine Bootleg Series IV. This Outlaw Blues is slower, with a less
strained voice, and starts with a much deeper image:
"Ain't it hard to stumble
On the black side of the lagoon"
It doesn't have the verse about the dark sunglasses and telling the
truth. Instead, it has a darker verse:
"I paid 15 cents
I did not care if I was right or wrong
Then I saddled up a nightmare and I rode it all night long"
The earlier Outlaw Blues has that wonderful fresh sound that early
versions often have. I think it's my favorite thing on the whole box set.
Dylan got looser in the released version, changing the original Austrian
Mountain range to an Australian Mountain range. The change is nicely
surreal, but because of the performance in the original version, the
lyrics make more sense to me there.
badlands420
> The snappy line near the end of the song, "Don't ask me nothin' about
> nothin'/I just might tell you the truth" doesn't really save Outlaw Blues
> from being much more than comic filler.
Given my propensity for alienating people through overactive candor, that
line really hits home for me sometimes.
Also, why is the song comic filler just because you find no profundity in
the lyrics? That tune rocks. Just go with it and stop trying so hard not to
enjoy yourself.
badlands420
> Also, why is the song comic filler just because you find no profundity in
> the lyrics? That tune rocks. Just go with it and stop trying so hard not
> to enjoy yourself.
PS- Yes, poisoned rose, I realize I'm a knuckle-dragging meathead for
thinking something rocks. But go ahead and say it anyway; I know you can't
resist.
really real
Please don't invite the hysterical poisoned rose into this thread. One
flame war a day is quite enough for this newsgroup.
Outlaw Blues rocks, I guess, but I like the less rocking early version
better. Truth is, I'm into lyrics more than the music. And I don't think
Outlaw Blues rocks as much as Subterranean Homesick Blues and Maggie's Farm.
I wonder what Phil Ochs would have said if Bob had wanted to release
Outlaw Blues as a single?
Chica
A succinct explanation of why you can't dance.
really real
> Truth is, I'm into lyrics more than the music.
>
> A succinct explanation of why you can't dance.
>
>
Actually, I've found a relationship between lyrics and dancing, and I
don't just mean the way one mashes one's foot doing the mashed potatoes.
If the lyrics are right, they help to push on a dance song, and I don't
just mean the Land of a Thousand Dances.
Meanwhile, I am working hard at overcoming my dance disabilities. I'm
working with Dance Dance Revolution, and I'm also trying to chart some
of Richard Simmons' moves.
badlands420
> Outlaw Blues rocks, I guess, but I like the less rocking early version
> better. Truth is, I'm into lyrics more than the music.
And that's something I'll never understand about Dylan fanbois. Being
dismissive of his music and fixating only on his lyrical content is an
insult to his importance as an instrumentalist and songwriter. Would anyone
deny that Dylan is one of three most important rock musicians who ever
lived?
really real
>
> And that's something I'll never understand about Dylan fanbois. Being
> dismissive of his music and fixating only on his lyrical content is an
> insult to his importance as an instrumentalist and songwriter. Would anyone
> deny that Dylan is one of three most important rock musicians who ever
> lived?
>
>
I'm not dismissive of Dylan's music at all. I just wouldn't be a big fan
if he had only made instrumentals.
What made Dylan so important was the way he welded folk with rock. Thus,
he changed rock music forever.
But if someone asked me,out of the blue, who are the three most
important rock musicians, I would not think of Dylan. I would think of
the really musical musicians like Hendrix, whom of course, would never
have been who he was without Dylan.
Recently, I realized that I was enjoying some of the music in Oh Mercy,
despite not enjoying the lyrics. And I always kind of liked Wigwam.
PrivateCitizen_dudley
Grace Slick w/ the Great Society's "Outlaw Blues".
i won't dance, don't ask me.
from "The American President":
How do you do it?
Arthur Murray, six easy lessons
dudley
Bill Parr
We are deeply distressed to read that you evidently haven't listened
to Grace Slick w/ the Great Society recently. A real treat.
Lots of good stuff they did.
Bill Parr
badlands420
> I'm not dismissive of Dylan's music at all. I just wouldn't be a big fan
> if he had only made instrumentals.
Oh, of course not. But still, setting aside lyrical content, Dylan's voice
and manner of phrasing were as hugely influential as anything else. He
singlehandedly trumped the notion that one has to have a pretty voice to be
a credible singer, and demostrated that a bad voice and technically
incorrect delivery (by traditional standards) can be just as much of an
asset to the music.
> What made Dylan so important was the way he welded folk with rock. Thus,
> he changed rock music forever.
Right, and then he did the same thing with country. He not only made rock
music a credible art form, but he showed that there don't need to be any
barriers between rock and other genres.
> But if someone asked me,out of the blue, who are the three most important
> rock musicians, I would not think of Dylan. I would think of the really
> musical musicians like Hendrix, whom of course, would never have been who
> he was without Dylan.
I would exclude John Lennon for the same reason, because the course of his
songwriting was inextricably influenced by Dylan as well. My top three would
be something like Dylan (broke down the barrier between folk and rock),
Chuck Berry (opened up black music to white audiences), and Johnny Cash
(intitiated the blurring of the line between rock and country). Take any of
those three out of the equation and rock music never becomes what it became.
really real
>
> Oh, of course not. But still, setting aside lyrical content, Dylan's voice
> and manner of phrasing were as hugely influential as anything else. He
> singlehandedly trumped the notion that one has to have a pretty voice to be
> asset to the music.
I thought Howling Wolf did that.
badlands420
> I would. Even if you're ranking Johnny Ramone and Kurt Cobain as the
> other two.
I like how you follow me around humping my leg like a little puppy dog. It's
cute.
badlands420
> I thought Howling Wolf did that.
That's a fair point, and I'm a tremendous Wolf fan. But he was never heard
of or acknowledged by non-black audiences until the Rolling Stones started
covering his songs, and that was over a decade after he'd done his best
work.
really real
>
> That's a fair point, and I'm a tremendous Wolf fan. But he was never heard
> of or acknowledged by non-black audiences until the Rolling Stones started
> covering his songs, and that was over a decade after he'd done his best
> work.
>
>
Lotta white kids were loving his performance at Newport in that movie
Festival.
I agree, of course, Dylan had a huge influence on singers in the 60s and
beyond. But his big commercial breakthroughs involved him singing quite
sweetly.
really real
>
> I like how you follow me around humping my leg like a little puppy dog. It's
> cute.
Please let him have the last word when he jumps in here, so that we can
keep this thread on topic. I hate having to open flame war stuff just so
that I can tell if anything new has been posted.
Chica
"really real" <reall...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:qqIQj.93238$rd2.42290@pd7urf3no...
>
>> Truth is, I'm into lyrics more than the music.
>>
>> A succinct explanation of why you can't dance.
>
> Actually, I've found a relationship between lyrics and dancing, and I
> don't just mean the way one mashes one's foot doing the mashed potatoes.
And of course, I meant nothing other than the way one mashes one foot doing
the mashed potatoes. My limited intellect associates dance with absolutely
nothing but foot mashing to the mashed potatoes. Quite truthfully, the dance
part of mashed potatoes begins at the knee, and that's the dangerous part of
the so-called dance. It's a regular cartilege buster.
But guess what? The idea of a relationship between lyrics and dancing is not
yours and yours alone. And believe it or not, I don't mean simply the Land
of a1,000, etc. Interpreting lyrics through dance is an intragal part of
movement--to me, anyway.
You and Richard have a fun time, now.
badlands420
> Please let him have the last word when he jumps in here, so that we can
> keep this thread on topic.
Fair enough. I think I'm just gonna KF the dude anyway.
badlands420
> Lotta white kids were loving his performance at Newport in that movie
> Festival.
What year was that? I know the performance to which you refer, but I'm
having a hard time remembering whether it was before or after he appeared
with the Stones on the Fandango TV show in 1965, which was really the point
at which he began to enter the consciousness of the white record-buying
public at large.
Speaking of Newport, I always find it fascinating to listen to first part of
the Muddy Waters Newport album from 1960, where you can tell how palpably
nervous he was about facing a mostly white audience for the first time.
Takes him a good three or four songs before he loosens up and starts playing
with his usual swagger. By the end of the set, though, he knows he's got all
those white kids right in the palm of his hand.
PrivateCitizen_dudley
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mr Parr, yr Excellency,
Sorry to let ya'll down. i'll take time out from my busy schedule
(drinking cheap roomTemperature beer & "researching" youtubes of
"Wreck of the Old 97") to undistress the situation.
Here's Great Society & Grace Slick "Somebody to Love" live 65 (audio
only to a still shot):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SB11giesKc
Here's Grace w/ some other outfit doing the same song live 4 yrs
later:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOjxtrpwR9I
Back to GS&GS "Sally Go 'Round the Roses" (audio / amateur slideshow):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFv3KPs4qPs
(go ahead... yes, probably better audited behind 300mcg of owsley...
the sooner the better) but goodness GraceUs.
Then there was 1970's loose amalgation of goddamn hippies (do i hear
Jerry?), the pre-"We Built This City" Jefferson Starship; i'd have to
dig deep into the back of the basement to one of two copies to see if
was originally the Paul Kantner Band, driven as it was by his SciFi
Vision.
I'll withStand the flack; i've broad shoulders.
Starship (audio only, album cover art) (and if you can score me a pane
of blotter...):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpUPEYp-t58
"i come & go like a planet we are wanderers are you any more?"
well?
dudley
___
well?
really real
>
> And of course, I meant nothing other than the way one mashes one foot doing
> the mashed potatoes. My limited intellect associates dance with absolutely
> nothing but foot mashing to the mashed potatoes. Quite truthfully, the dance
> part of mashed potatoes begins at the knee, and that's the dangerous part of
> the so-called dance. It's a regular cartilege buster.
Chica, you're ranting.
The Hysterical Bride
Wikipedia lists Outlaw Blues as being 3:05 in length, and Tangled Up
in Bob has it down for 3:06.
What gives?
Jumbo
> O
>
> Wikipedia lists Outlaw Blues as being 3:05 in length, and Tangled Up
> in Bob has it down for 3:06.
>
> What gives?
Dunno, but even stranger to me is the fact that when I put my official
copy of Knocked Out Loaded into itunes, it lists Under Your Spell as
being by Luther Vandross. Can anyone else confirm if this happens with
all copies?
badlands420
> Dunno, but even stranger to me is the fact that when I put my official
> copy of Knocked Out Loaded into itunes, it lists Under Your Spell as
> being by Luther Vandross. Can anyone else confirm if this happens with
> all copies?
That wouldn't be an iTunes thing, that would be an issue with the
information on the CD itself. If iTunes recognizes the name of the artist
and album, it assumes the track name/play order/composer information to be
correct and imports it as such. The only thing that comes from the iTunes
database is the album art, which I've found is often incorrect.
Jumbo
OK but I wasn't suggesting it was an "iTunes thing". Except how would
I have known about this without using iTunes?
badlands420
> OK but I wasn't suggesting it was an "iTunes thing". Except how would
> I have known about this without using iTunes?
If you imported the CD into Windows Media Player or any other music
platform, you'd see the same information.
really real
>
> If you imported the CD into Windows Media Player or any other music
> platform, you'd see the same information.
>
>
Aren't iTunes and Windows Media Player using Gracenotes for their
tracklist information? Someone just wrote it down wrong, or there was
some technological type-over snafu.
badlands420
> Aren't iTunes and Windows Media Player using Gracenotes for their
> tracklist information? Someone just wrote it down wrong, or there was some
> technological type-over snafu.
I just finished re-importing my CD library into iTunes (going Apple Lossless
instead of AAC), and it's astounding how much incorrect information winds up
embedded on CDs. Misspellings of artist/track names, incorrect running
orders, all kinds of shit.
really real
>
> I just finished re-importing my CD library into iTunes (going Apple Lossless
> instead of AAC), and it's astounding how much incorrect information winds up
> embedded on CDs. Misspellings of artist/track names, incorrect running
> orders, all kinds of shit.
>
>
But my question is technical.
Is iTunes reading what is embedded on your cd, or is it getting a
tracklist from Gracenote and telling you that's what's on your cd?
Many cds don't have embedded track list information.
badlands420
> But my question is technical.
>
> Is iTunes reading what is embedded on your cd, or is it getting a
> tracklist from Gracenote and telling you that's what's on your cd?
I get the same information in when I open up the CD as a folder in Windows
Explorer, so I have to assume it's the former.
I'm pretty sure iTunes only accesses Gracenote when it can't read the
embedded information and/or when you explicitly tell it to.
Jumbo
But IS there a Luther Vandross song called Under Your Spell, that's
what I need to know :) ?
badlands420
> But IS there a Luther Vandross song called Under Your Spell, that's
> what I need to know :) ?
According to a search on allmusic.com, there is not.
http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=17:1625249
really real
I rip songs using Roxio because Roxio can read the embedded information
I put on a cdr. iTunes can't, or won't.
Bill Kawalec
>
>>> Also, why is the song comic filler just because you find no profundity
>>> in
>>> the lyrics? That tune rocks. Just go with it and stop trying so hard not
>>> to enjoy yourself.
>>
>> PS- Yes, poisoned rose, I realize I'm a knuckle-dragging meathead for
>> thinking something rocks. But go ahead and say it anyway; I know you
>> can't resist.
>
> Please don't invite the hysterical poisoned rose into this thread. One
> flame war a day is quite enough for this newsgroup.
>
> Outlaw Blues rocks, I guess, but I like the less rocking early version
> better. Truth is, I'm into lyrics more than the music. And I don't think
> Outlaw Blues rocks as much as Subterranean Homesick Blues and Maggie's
> Farm.
>
> I wonder what Phil Ochs would have said if Bob had wanted to release
> Outlaw Blues as a single?
He would have said "really real doesn't know his ass from a hole in the
ground."
Bill Kawalec
>
>>
>> And of course, I meant nothing other than the way one mashes one foot
>> doing the mashed potatoes. My limited intellect associates dance with
>> absolutely nothing but foot mashing to the mashed potatoes. Quite
>> truthfully, the dance part of mashed potatoes begins at the knee, and
>> that's the dangerous part of the so-called dance. It's a regular
>> cartilege buster.
>
>
> Chica, you're ranting.
>
>
and no one would know a rant better than you
badlands420
> I rip songs using Roxio because Roxio can read the embedded information
> I put on a cdr. iTunes can't, or won't.
I've got Roxio on my new work computer. Haven't done anything with it yet,
but I've heard good things about it.
really real
>>
>> I wonder what Phil Ochs would have said if Bob had wanted to release
>> Outlaw Blues as a single?
>
>
> He would have said "really real doesn't know his ass from a hole in the
> ground."
>
Continents drift, Bill. Get used to it.
Bill Kawalec
prove it, sonny!
See, here's the part you're too ignorant to get; I'm not saying it's NOT
true (although, if you did take an objective look at a map, you'd realize
it's unlikely - seriously - look at how they adjusted the size of Africa to
make it ""work""), all I'm saying is it's THEORY, NOT scientific fact,
because you can neither SEE it, nor REPRODUCE it. But, I do realize that
you're too dense and closed-minded to grasp any of that.
really real
>>>
>>
>> Continents drift, Bill. Get used to it.
>
>
>
> prove it, sonny!
> See, here's the part you're too ignorant to get; I'm not saying it's NOT
> true (although, if you did take an objective look at a map, you'd realize
> it's unlikely - seriously - look at how they adjusted the size of Africa to
> make it ""work""), all I'm saying is it's THEORY, NOT scientific fact,
> because you can neither SEE it, nor REPRODUCE it. But, I do realize that
> you're too dense and closed-minded to grasp any of that.
>
Next, you're going to tell me that you exist.
I see you've tempered your crackpot stance a bit. Did all the ridicule
you got for not believing in continental drift theory actually make you
think a bit?
Jumbo
> "really real" <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
Theory is fact for rr if it fits "common sense". Till the next theory
comes along, that is :)
really real
>
> Theory is fact for rr if it fits "common sense". Till the next theory
> comes along, that is :)
Jumbo comes out on the other side of the Continental Drift debate!!
Okay, Bill, you've got an ally in your quackery. One person lives in a
fantasy, two live in reality.
Time for Bill and Jumbo to start recruiting the Continental Drift deniars.
Jumbo
Hey, really, I don't even know this continental drift debate. If you
want them to have drifted, they've drifted. It's fine by me. But ...
what you missed, intellectually, was that we were discussing the form
of your argument which, as usual, resembled a calzone thrown in the
bin a week ago.
really real
>
> Hey, really, I don't even know this continental drift debate. If you
> want them to have drifted, they've drifted. It's fine by me. But ...
> what you missed, intellectually, was that we were discussing the form
> of your argument which, as usual, resembled a calzone thrown in the
> bin a week ago.
The form of my argument was perfectly suited to the Continental Drift
debate. You criticized me for saying that the Continental Drift theory
is a true fact.
You said, "Theory is fact for rr if it fits "common sense". Till the
next theory comes along, that is"
In other words, you think that I'm confusing the facts of Continental
Drift theory with all those unproven theories.
Use your common sense man. If you criticize someone for standing up for
a belief in Continental Drift, then you make yourself sound like a quack
who doesn't believe in Continental Drift.
Jumbo
> > Hey, really, I don't even know this continental drift debate. If you
> > want them to have drifted, they've drifted. It's fine by me. But ...
> > what you missed, intellectually, was that we were discussing the form
> > of your argument which, as usual, resembled a calzone thrown in the
> > bin a week ago.
>
> The form of my argument was perfectly suited to the Continental Drift
> debate. You criticized me for saying that the Continental Drift theory
> is a true fact.
Look at your own sentence - the form of it: The x theory is a true
fact. If it's a "fact" why is it a theory? At the very least, you're
being nonsensical. A little common sense would teach you to express
yourself more clearly. Please note, I'm not making any assessment of
the validity of any particular theory. Do you understand that?
> You said, "Theory is fact for rr if it fits "common sense". Till the
> next theory comes along, that is"
>
> In other words, you think that I'm confusing the facts of Continental
> Drift theory with all those unproven theories.
See above for how ridiculous this is.
> Use your common sense man. If you criticize someone for standing up for
> a belief in Continental Drift, then you make yourself sound like a quack
> who doesn't believe in Continental Drift.
In your view, yes, because you don't understand English.
really real
>
> Look at your own sentence - the form of it: The x theory is a true
> fact. If it's a "fact" why is it a theory?
sorry, I thought you understood that the Continental Drift "theory" was
a fact. The reason it's called a theory is that no one saw it drift.
It's like the "theory" that the earth is spherical and not flat. You
can't really prove that the earth isn't a round flat plate.
Gravity is a theory too. And of course, evolution. You do believe in the
theory of evolution don't you?
There is no real proof that God did not create the world in 1955 and
give us all a lot of false memories and false proof of an older
universe. Thus, one could call the existence of the past before 1955 a a
theory. But what do you actually believe, about the past, about
evolution, about gravity and about continental drift?
Now is the time for all good men to state what they believe, and not
play with semantics.
Jumbo
> > Look at your own sentence - the form of it: The x theory is a true
> > fact. If it's a "fact" why is it a theory?
>
> sorry, I thought you understood that the Continental Drift "theory" was
> a fact. The reason it's called a theory is that no one saw it drift.
> It's like the "theory" that the earth is spherical and not flat. You
> can't really prove that the earth isn't a round flat plate.
>
> Gravity is a theory too.
I thought gravity was the name given to a force as an attribute of
mass. And the theory of gravity relates to the likely physical
consequences of that force on the universe as a whole. I took it you
were using theory to mean "a plausible or scientifically acceptable
general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
<wave theory of light> or "a) a hypothesis assumed for the sake of
argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c :
a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject
<theory of equations>
> And of course, evolution. You do believe in the
> theory of evolution don't you?
I believe that it's a theory, sure.
> There is no real proof that God did not create the world in 1955 and
> give us all a lot of false memories and false proof of an older
> universe. Thus, one could call the existence of the past before 1955 a a
> theory. But what do you actually believe, about the past, about
> evolution, about gravity and about continental drift?
>
> Now is the time for all good men to state what they believe, and not
> play with semantics.
When people accuse other people of "playing with semantics" it's
usually an indication they have no ammo. Given the way you tend to
comment disrespectully about people's value-systems and beliefs when
they differ from your own, why should I state what I believe on all
those things you mention? When you've learnt some tolerance for
difference, then it might be possible to enter into a discussion of
those things.
really real
>
>> And of course, evolution. You do believe in the
>> theory of evolution don't you?
>
> I believe that it's a theory, sure.
If you don't believe in evolution, I will try to show you some empathy
for being so misguided, but I suspect you do believe in evolution.
>
> When people accuse other people of "playing with semantics" it's
> usually an indication they have no ammo. Given the way you tend to
> comment disrespectully about people's value-systems and beliefs when
> they differ from your own, why should I state what I believe on all
> those things you mention?
The let's just stick with Continental Drift Theory, which was the topic
you attacked me for. Do you believe the continents drifted or don't you?
I don't have any respect for Bill's belief that the continents didn't
drift because I think it's tied to Bill's ridiculous right wing views
that he keeps bringing up. Notice that Bill just jumps in and attacks me
now and then. I suspect he hates Canadians.
We don't need to get into a big discussion of our beliefs, but I think
that unless you really believe the continents didn't drift, then your
attack on me for misusing the word "theory" was misplaced in this thread
really real
>
> Troll scorecard:
> Scientology
The Scientologist has entered the fray.
No worries, pr, according to Tom Cruise, Scientology is just a
religion of love
So, pr, did the continents drift, or is this just another of those
illusions that normal people believe in?
really real
>
> You're just bitter because I found out the real reason why you don't
> teach anymore. I'll never understand why you didn't simply transfer
> those photos to a CD *before* you took your computer in for repairs.
> Dumb!
Did you check out this concept with your E-meter before you posted it?
Jumbo
> >> And of course, evolution. You do believe in the
> >> theory of evolution don't you?
>
> > I believe that it's a theory, sure.
>
> If you don't believe in evolution, I will try to show you some empathy
> for being so misguided, but I suspect you do believe in evolution.
As I said, I believe evolution is a theory. It accounts well for some
things, not so well for others. (A lot of scientists would accept such
an evaluation, incidentally.) Therefore, how can I "believe in" it
outright? It's clearly not the whole picture, so why do I have to sign
up on the "with us or against us" scorecard?
OK, from here, you seem to extrapolate that I'm some kind of
creationist nut. OTOH, I see you as on a level with the creationist
nuts: both types fail to understand the Bible metaphorically, and
insist on literalness in a kind of weird neurotic over-linear fashion.
I think it's why you're so impelled to attack fundamentalists, a kind
of displaced self-mistrust.
> > When people accuse other people of "playing with semantics" it's
> > usually an indication they have no ammo. Given the way you tend to
> > comment disrespectully about people's value-systems and beliefs when
> > they differ from your own, why should I state what I believe on all
> > those things you mention?
>
> The let's just stick with Continental Drift Theory, which was the topic
> you attacked me for. Do you believe the continents drifted or don't you?
I admitted to you earlier, I know nothing about continental drift one
way or the other. If the evidence suggests they moved, it's fine by
me. What are you after?
> I don't have any respect for Bill's belief that the continents didn't
> drift because I think it's tied to Bill's ridiculous right wing views
> that he keeps bringing up.
OK, but can't you see you're the one following party lines when
discussing a supposedly intellectual point?
> We don't need to get into a big discussion of our beliefs, but I think
> that unless you really believe the continents didn't drift, then your
> attack on me for misusing the word "theory" was misplaced in this thread.
Not at all. I "attacked" you for using the word "theory" as synonymous
with "fact". It is irrelevant whether the theory in question is valid
or not.
really real
> I see you as on a level with the creationist
> nuts: both types fail to understand the Bible metaphorically, and
> insist on literalness in a kind of weird neurotic over-linear fashion.
> I think it's why you're so impelled to attack fundamentalists, a kind
> of displaced self-mistrust.
Not at all. I admire and agree with the people who take the Bible
metaphorically. Anyone who says that the divinity of Christ is just a
metaphor, like the Archbishop of Canterbury did, is a friend of mine.
really real
>> Did you check out this concept with your E-meter before you posted it?
>
If I were you, I'd be careful about going to those sites or even
bringing up this topic in newsgroups. Remember what happened to Pete
Townsend.
Jumbo
Then we agree.
really real
> The "I know you are, but what am I?" defense won't save you, you
> drooling pedophile.
Interesting you should bring this subject up, right out of the blue.
really real
>
> I've told you before that your knowingly false, sleazeball
> "Scientologist" accusations will be met with talk of you being a
> pedophile. These posts should be no surprise to you.
Why do you always attack me for being opposed to Scientology?
really real
>
>.Why don't you ask me why
> I attack your recurrent jabbing about the OTHER topics on your
> "scorecard"? I've rolled my eyes about all of them, at various times.
>
> Christianity
> Judaism
> meditation
Yes, I have a problem with organized religion. I think it is one of the
greatest evils on the planet.
> Continental Drift
People who don't believe that the Continental Drift Theory are
crackpots. Agree or disagree? I notice you are always afraid to state
what you think about issues.
> evil America
It's one side of America that people should take a look at. I'm not
saying it's not the whole picture.
> inferiority of mp3s
Are you saying mp3s sound as good as wave files?
C'mon, poisoned rose. Stop playing your infantile games. Tell us what
you really think about organized religion, American foreign policy,
Continental Drift Theory, and mp3s. These are the topics you keep
attacking me for. Explain yourself, please.
really real
>> Yes, I have a problem with organized religion. I think it is one of the
>> greatest evils on the planet.
>
> indicates that he/she belongs to a church. You're a class act, Don.
When did I ever do that, Eric? Why have you become such an fanatical liar?
>
> And thus, you also paint me as being "anti-Continental Drift" in your
> trademark idiotic fashion.
There is a person in rmd who doesn't believe in Continental Drift? Why
do you always jump in and support him when he is attacking me?
>>
>> Are you saying mp3s sound as good as wave files?
>
> I don't know why you are so astonishly stupid -- or simply disingenuous
> to the end -- that you can't fathom the idea of anyone being annoyed by
> your juvenile trolling, regardless of what subject you choose as a
> weapon.
Why do you attack me when I say that mp3s don't sound as good as wave
files? You seem to be awfully sensitive about this issue. Look at your
response to my simple question.
You're a very strange person, or at least the way you act in newsgroups
is very strange. Many people have noticed this.
really real
>
> Oh Don, Don, Don. Your disingenuousness gets so, so, so old.
>
Oh Eric Eric Eric Eric Eric Eric
you forgot to put any content in your last post.