Crewcuts, Jocks, etc...

0 views
Skip to first unread message

MAH...@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com

unread,
Feb 12, 1993, 12:14:37 PM2/12/93
to
In article <1993Feb12.1...@uvaarpa.Virginia.EDU>, Doug Griffiths
<do...@fnma.com> says:
>
>Well, I'd have to agree with Robert here. People's attitudes about appearances
>seem to have gotten way out of line with what the scene is supposed to be
>about. Especially at california shows, if your not a long haired freak,
>most of the hippie types won't even talk to you. My friends and I

Who cares? :-) Seriously. I'll go to a show, and wear what I want to wear
(ie what I feel most comfortable in). I don't really party, so maybe my
opinion is a little different than those who do. But I go to a show to see
the band, maybe I'll buy a t-shirt or some item a vendor is selling if I have
the extra scratch and what their selling is really cool. But what do I care
what others at the show think of the way I dress or cut my hair? I try to
please myself, and that does not mean trying to look like dead.head.model.A.
If some random dead.head at a show thinks I look as though I don't fit in with
the crowd, how does that hurt me? He won't say hi to me? Bummer. :-) :-) :-)

>Just MHO. Ten minutes till the Richfield call-in fiasco... Good luck...

Good Luck :-)
Joe Doheny

barbara rockwell

unread,
Feb 12, 1993, 7:02:05 PM2/12/93
to
>People's attitudes about appearances
>seem to have gotten way out of line with what the scene is supposed to be
>about. Especially at california shows, if your not a long haired freak,
>most of the hippie types won't even talk to you.

When we went to CA for the 91 new years run, we did not find that to be
the case at all. We are actually pretty reclusive and meeting people is
not something we try to do, or when presented with the opportunity, do
easily. But in any case, we are pretty tame looking, kind of old
looking, and don't wear uniforms of any type (and that means tie-die).
We could not believe the warmth and friendship exuded by west coasters,
and that includes all shapes and hair lengths and sizes.

>BUT, after
>seeing ~10 west coast shows and ~15 east coast shows last year, I can
>definately say that this attitude is mostly a west-coast one. East-coasters
>seem too glad that the dead are even there to really cop an attitude.


I think those of us on the East Coast can be awfully stuck up, perhaps
it's Yankee reserve. I've certainly seen the deader than thou attitude
here. A disclaimer: I am not a former west coaster. I am east coast
tried and true, and only ever went to California once.

Barb

Doug Griffiths

unread,
Feb 12, 1993, 10:18:32 AM2/12/93
to
Robert McMullen writes:

|I take special exception to the "crew-cut" and "jock" accusations, like
|they're bad, because (a) I grow my hair really long, then cut it all off
|[into crew cut], then grow it, cut it, et al, and (b) I have always
|been extremely athletic (have played semi-pro baseball and major-level
|amateur soccer). And I've been "on the bus" for over fourteen years.
|And, if someone spotted me, say last summer (last time I had a crew cut)
|at Shoreline and thought, "there's a redneck, crewcut, noneck beerswilling
|jock asshole", they'd have their head up their arse.

Well, I'd have to agree with Robert here. People's attitudes about appearances


seem to have gotten way out of line with what the scene is supposed to be
about. Especially at california shows, if your not a long haired freak,

most of the hippie types won't even talk to you. My friends and I
have gotten to the point that we don't even try to make friends with any
hippie types at shows anymore. We know enough people, and don't need that
"deader than thou" attitude that is truly prevelant everywhere. BUT, after

seeing ~10 west coast shows and ~15 east coast shows last year, I can
definately say that this attitude is mostly a west-coast one. East-coasters
seem too glad that the dead are even there to really cop an attitude.

Just MHO. Ten minutes till the Richfield call-in fiasco... Good luck...

Doug G

| Doug Griffiths | Internet: do...@fnma.com | 11396 Links Drive |
| Fannie Mae | uunet: uunet!almserv!s5udtg | Reston, VA. 22090 |
| Washington, DC | | USA |

rob...@athena.mit.edu

unread,
Feb 12, 1993, 9:38:08 PM2/12/93
to

Doug G ( a no good, short haired fascist ...no doubt)

Writes:


" after seeing ~10 west coast shows and ~15 east coast shows last year, I can
definately say that this attitude is mostly a west-coast one."

Having now found myself on the East COast after having lived previously for 26
years in the midwest I'm saddened to hear that the scene is more out of line on
the opposing coast. In my mind things remained as wonderful out there as they
were in 1984 when I met a priest (as in "bless me oh father for I have sinned
it has been 20 years since my last confession") and a business exec on the
floor of the first New Year's Show. (The exec was to have his 100th show the
next night!) Guess those two characters have been run out of town by now!

Give me a nice show at Alpine Valley!

I believe I will only wear my dyes at work and will beging renting Tuxes for
all the shows I attend.... hmmmmm though if the Dead will be playing 6 shows
a year in Boston for the next while it may be better to invest!

8^}

Still 6 weeks to Albany and I'm already going out of my mind.
I'm not sure I can stand it!
"I can hardly stand the wait, please Albany don't be late!"
kevin rob...@athena.mit.edu

Seth Schiesel

unread,
Feb 14, 1993, 4:28:22 PM2/14/93
to
My $.02 on this:
I'm black and I used to have dreadlocks past my shoulders. After around my
40th show (four years ago) I cut my hair so I can hardly pinch any between two
fingers. I've been to about 50 more shows since, split evenly on both
sides of the Mississippi and I can't say I've been treated more poorly.
Then again, if I've been getting dirty looks, I haven't been paying
attention to those people anyway!
-Seth
--
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
I Seth Schiesel Everybody's dancin' in a ring around the sun I
I schies...@yale.edu Nobody's finished, we ain't even begun I
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*

pelo...@acfcluster.nyu.edu

unread,
Feb 15, 1993, 10:43:05 AM2/15/93
to
Seth brings up a disturbing point here.
I have heard people make idiotic blanket
statements like "Black people don't like the
Dead." So much for inclusivity and being everywhere.
I have noticed in the New York area if you get mail-order
tickets, you tend to sit among cool people who've
come to see that Dead and happen to be doing it in
New York. If you go through Ticketbastard, you tend to
be among locals who came to get drunk and rowdy and happen
to be doing it with the Dead that night. I generally tell
people who ask that a Deadhead need only have two qualities
as far as I'm concerned.
1) There is no time that they aren't happy to hear the Dead
though many other kinds of music make them happy.
2) They believe in the freedom to do whatever you like to
be happy EXCEPT interfere with other people exercising that
right.
Too libertarian? Maybe, but it is tolerant.

David Pelovitz - pelo...@acfcluster.nyu.edu
"Noise, right. It's the sound. Hertz and megahertz.
We mash our skulls with a whole lot of watts. Electricity,
right. It's a natural force." - Don DeLillo

rg4...@albnyvms.bitnet

unread,
Feb 15, 1993, 5:12:54 PM2/15/93
to

In regards to your definition of a Deadhead...

BEAUTIFUL !
I'm sick of hearing people say that some people don't belong at shows.
I'll admit that I wish that some people had stayed home, but if people
are acting like assholes, I try to ignore them and just enjoy the
show, like the other 95% who came to enjoy it.
Anyway, just thought I 'd let you know that you were right on target
with your definition.

-Rich
"Nothing left to do but... :-) :-) :-)"

Kent Stewart

unread,
Feb 15, 1993, 8:29:00 PM2/15/93
to
>Seth brings up a disturbing point here.
>I have heard people make idiotic blanket
>statements like "Black people don't like the
>Dead." So much for inclusivity and being everywhere.

Well, I dunno. There's got to be a difference between bigotry
and simple observation of demographics. To say that "Black people
don't like the dead" is to assume that anyone who happens to be
black will dislike the dead, while to say that in nearly twenty
years of attending Dead shows in California I've only noticed a few
black deadheads is just an honest observation of the crowds I've
been in. That observation is not exclusive or judgemental, it's
just noticing that fewer of us who happen to be black have been
showing up at concerts over the years.

>I have noticed in the New York area if you get mail-order
>tickets, you tend to sit among cool people who've
>come to see that Dead and happen to be doing it in
>New York. If you go through Ticketbastard, you tend to
>be among locals who came to get drunk and rowdy and happen
>to be doing it with the Dead that night.

I'm not sure what your point is here. When you have two completely
separate agencies distributing tickets, you have to divide the tickets
into two blocks before distributing them. I know that for Shoreline
shows one agency does the odd rows and the other the evens. So if you
mailordered you will be in a row of people who mailordered. That's
not a sign of some evil bigotry or separatism, it's just part of the
logistics of putting on a show. Now there may well be some small
difference in the demographics of people who prefer to mailorder
and people who prefer to wait and try ticketmaster, but that's a self-
selected grouping. There's no conspiracy to allow the cool elite
to avoid sitting with the great unwashed, which seems to be what
you're implying(?).

>I generally tell
>people who ask that a Deadhead need only have two qualities
>as far as I'm concerned.
>
>1) There is no time that they aren't happy to hear the Dead
>though many other kinds of music make them happy.

But hey, you're excluding me! There are definitely times I just
don't want to hear dead music, just as there are times when dead
music is perfect for the moment. Do I have to turn in my Deadhead
card now? 8^)

>2) They believe in the freedom to do whatever you like to
>be happy EXCEPT interfere with other people exercising that
>right.

And though that second quality is the one which really defines folks
who always *feel* like "us" to my heart, it actually technically excludes
many thousands of people currently attending shows. There are many
folks on the scene who appear to believe in the freedom to do whatever
they please to be happy, and if it steps on someone else's rights and
freedoms it's just not their problem.

I admit that I have a problem with that. To me, inclusivity and feelings
of oneness or family depend upon the basic level of kindness and commitment
to co-existance that your quality #2 requires. When that's not there, I
definitely feel excluded. I also tend to get judgemental about it, because
the dream of peaceful co-existance remains perhaps my biggest attachment
in life. (And the buddha was right, IMHO. Attachment in the realm of
duality *does* lead to suffering.)

--bongo the dharma biggot...

Jim Petersen

unread,
Feb 16, 1993, 1:50:42 AM2/16/93
to
In article <1993Feb16.0...@ptdcs2.intel.com> kste...@ptdcs2.intel.com (Kent Stewart) writes:
>
>>2) They believe in the freedom to do whatever you like to
>>be happy EXCEPT interfere with other people exercising that
>>right.
>
>And though that second quality is the one which really defines folks
>who always *feel* like "us" to my heart, it actually technically excludes
>many thousands of people currently attending shows. There are many
>folks on the scene who appear to believe in the freedom to do whatever
>they please to be happy, and if it steps on someone else's rights and
>freedoms it's just not their problem.

This is ALWAYS the case... We always come back to this here,
but when you say this you are doing the same thing. You are
stepping on the rights of the people who want to do the things
that YOU consider 'stepping on someone else's rights.' This may
seem like a pedantic point, but I think it is actually the heart
of the matter. Once you decide which actions of others are
'unacceptable' (in this case, actions of others which 'step on
someone else's rights'), you have started the wheel turning, and
it goes on and on.

Could you give an example of 'foks on the scene who appear to believe


in the freedom to do whatever they please to be happy, and if it steps

on someone else's rights and freedoms it's just not their problem'?
I want to be sure that I properly understand your viewpoint.

--
_____________________________________________________________________
...More than just ashes Jim Petersen
When your dreams come true pete...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

zachary romans

unread,
Feb 16, 1993, 2:52:31 AM2/16/93
to
In article <1993Feb16.0...@news.acns.nwu.edu> pete...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Petersen) writes:
>Could you give an example of 'foks on the scene who appear to believe
>in the freedom to do whatever they please to be happy, and if it steps
>on someone else's rights and freedoms it's just not their problem'?
I can, and I didn't even start this thread. At the CNY shows, on
Tuesday, specifically, my girlfriend and I got in line at 2:30. There were
perhaps 20 people in front of us at that time. Everybody had room to
breath and was as comfortable as possible sitting on the pavement. On the
Shakedown side of the col., the side of the line closest to I-880 was open
and you could park your car right there, next to the line. Needless to say,
by 4:30 there were probably about 200+ people infront of us. By the time
we got inside, I'd say we were probably about # 1000 or so. All the people
who filtered into the side of the line and took any free space they could
find, those are "the folks [fucks] on the scene who appear to believe in the

freedom to do whatever they please to be happy, and if it steps on someone
else's rights and freedoms it's just not their problem." Charles and Paolo
were there too, and they can vouch for my story, or shoot me down if i'm
exaggerating the numbers involved:-) And yes, some, I'm tempted to say most
but I won't, fit the 'crew-cut jock' stigma, IMHO.
BTW, anybody got any advice on who needs to be told that leaving the
side of the line open was a real dumb idea? Or is it always that way? That
was my first time at Oakland.
Zach
"i don't need to spell, i'm an enjineer"

Jim Petersen

unread,
Feb 16, 1993, 5:09:28 AM2/16/93
to
In article <1lq6fv...@flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU> rom...@dwalin.ECE.ORST.EDU (zachary romans) writes:
>In article <1993Feb16.0...@news.acns.nwu.edu> pete...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Petersen) writes:
>>Could you give an example of 'foks on the scene who appear to believe
>>in the freedom to do whatever they please to be happy, and if it steps
>>on someone else's rights and freedoms it's just not their problem'?
> I can, and I didn't even start this thread. At the CNY shows, on
.
. [truly depressing story about line cutting deleted]
.

>who filtered into the side of the line and took any free space they could
>find, those are "the folks [fucks] on the scene who appear to believe in the
>freedom to do whatever they please to be happy, and if it steps on someone
>else's rights and freedoms it's just not their problem." Charles and Paolo

Well, you do seem to have come up with a description of some people that
I would have a hard time defending... I suppose I could still say
'well you're stepping on their freedom to ignore the line,' but that
really DOES sound pedantic.


> BTW, anybody got any advice on who needs to be told that leaving the
>side of the line open was a real dumb idea? Or is it always that way? That
>was my first time at Oakland.

You know, I wonder about this. I was thinking a similar thought when
waiting out for tickets for Rosemont. The signs the record store had
put up announced that if a security guard was needed there would
be a $1 per order surcharge added (I don't know the legality of that,
but that's what the sign said). So, as everyone milled around in a
mass instead of getting in line according to lottery numbers, I
wondered why someone didn't take charge and get people into line.
After all, it would probably only take a little coaxing. But I
realized, of course, that if I was thinking that, *I* should be
doing it. Unfortunately, I'm a rather soft-spoken guy, and tend
to not really care THAT much about such things as lines anyway,
so I didn't do anything. But I think the answer to your question
is really that we should be policing ourselves, rather than
looking for security to guard the line. After all, we all bitch
about security when they get in OUR way, but then we want them to
keep everyone else in line for us. Wouldn't it be better if a
couple of heads just got up and kind of suggested that people
keep to the back of the line and be fair....

Unfortunately, picturing this scene, I also picture plenty of people
getting piqued at an apparent show of authority mongering, and
heckling and otherwise disconcerting the line tenders... and as
we all know the heckling attitude tends to quickly overwhelm the
voice of reason, especially in the parking lot, and especially if
there's beer being drunk. I myself might rebel at the sight of a
couple of dudes taking it upon themselves to 'police' the line.
It would be absolutely critical that whoever was doing this do
it from a position of humility, rather than hubris. If someone
got up and started going off on a power kick: 'I am the keeper
of the line... do as *I* say!' they would deserve to be mocked
into obscurity, and I would join in. In order to be effective,
the person would have to make suggestions, not commands, seek
cooperation, not domination.

So, if I know so much how come I'm not doing it? Well, I guess
I'm usually too busy out in the lot having fun. And, as I said,
I am not usually a highly projective person. But maybe I should
be doing it... What I hope would happen is that one or two
good examples would lead a couple of others to follow the lead,
and a general consensus could be built up among the people in
line that new people go to the rear of the line. With a united
front, one of peaceful insistance, maybe there could be actual
order and harmony in a Dead show line.

Or am I only dreaming? Comments?

rob...@athena.mit.edu

unread,
Feb 16, 1993, 12:54:02 PM2/16/93
to
Hey All!
I knew I should have waited to get through all of the recent postings
before sending in my comments on the Dead HEad definition of David Pelvitz.

|1) There is no time that they aren't happy to hear the Dead
|though many other kinds of music make them happy.

|2) They believe in the freedom to do whatever you like to
|be happy EXCEPT interfere with other people exercising that
|right.

Then Jim Petersen had to burst my rose colored bubble (mixed metaphors are the
last shread of poetry we have in our spoken language!) :

|You are stepping on the rights of the people who want to do the things
|that YOU consider 'stepping on someone else's rights.' This may
|seem like a pedantic point, but I think it is actually the heart
|of the matter. Once you decide which actions of others are
|'unacceptable' (in this case, actions of others which 'step on
|someone else's rights'), you have started the wheel turning, and
|it goes on and on.


An example of this occured to me at the Albany shows this summer. The
second night I was down in the eighth row with a good friend of mine. Anyway
during drums most folks sat down but I kept moving. I love drums and dancing
and tend to flail around (being as careful as possible to not smack into
anyone) until I'm ready to drop or until Mickey has started getting weird and
space is soon to begin. I consider it my right to be able to dance at any time
during a show. Well it seems that the guy who was behind us considered it his
right to be able to look at the stage at all times during a show and as he was
seated that meant he asked my friend to sit down. Which he did. I just glared
at him and danced my ass off.


Ahhhh just to digress who was the woman who said soemthing along the lines of
"if I can't dance I don't want to be part of your revolution." when and why
was it said...seems like a damn good line to me....if you don't want to have
fun in your new world screw it!
kevin rob...@athena.mit.edu

Kent Stewart

unread,
Feb 16, 1993, 5:01:53 PM2/16/93
to
>>There are many
>>folks on the scene who appear to believe in the freedom to do whatever

>>they please to be happy, and if it steps on someone else's rights and
>>freedoms it's just not their problem.
>
>This is ALWAYS the case... We always come back to this here,
>but when you say this you are doing the same thing. You are

>stepping on the rights of the people who want to do the things
>that YOU consider 'stepping on someone else's rights.'

Not really. The Golden Rule is a wonderful thing, because it surrenders
no rights one does not wish to retain for one's self. I don't like being
vomited on. Is it stepping on my rights to ask that I don't vomit on you?
You see, I'm not talking about trying to dictate the behaviour of others,
I'm talking about the basic level of *cooperation* needed to make a joint
endeavor work for everybody.

You asked for examples, and the one somebody else provided was fairly
simple and way common--showing up at the last minute and usurping the
space that other people have waited for hours and hours to reserve. That's
just low level selfishness and the impact is not huge; somebody that
put in the time and effort gets shitty seats and someone who didn't
gets the rail.

But there are hundreds of similar instances of low-level, low-impact
selfishness, and there are also escalations of selfishness which get
a lot more serious.

An example: Hundreds of people at Stadium gigs a couple years
back decided that they had the right to be on the floor to better pursue
their happiness. Assuming that there would be unlimited space on the
floor (which there is not) and easy access to it (which there wasn't)
the only impact would have been that people who payed to be on the floor
would find their space stuffed beyond design. That *is* unfair to them
but let's call it a low impact act of selfishness.

But the thing is that in order to get what they wanted--to be on the floor
as close as possible--THEY RAN OVER PEOPLE! They ran through the middle of
sections filled with people sitting down, jumping on hands and heads and
nearly missing children, etc. in their single minded pursuit of what they
wanted. People were physically injured by this. This is *not* low-impact
selfishness.

There are hundreds of examples of low-impact selfishness...reverse scalping,
line cutting, illegally camping in residential areas and shitting on people's
lawns rather than pay to use the campgrounds (where shit recepticals have
been provided), the girl outside the Warfield who watched her dog take a
big dump on the crowded sidewalk by the line and then left it there for
a hundred people to step in. The guy at Oakland who pissed on the wall
in the 200's section rather than go downstairs to the bathroom...

There are fortunately fewer examples of high impact selfishness...injuring
people by ones physical behaviour, spraying people with dosed water, ripping
people off, sexual harrassment, etc etc.

We don't live in a vacuum, and our actions do impact others. Ignoring that
inconvenient impact on others in order to maximize our own personal pleasure
is a deliberate choice, although rationalization can make it easy to live with.
I believe that for many people in the dead scene, rationalization easily
transfers "don't do to others what you wouldn't want to have done to you"
into "do what you want to and everything will be cool", which is a lot
easier because it requires no responsibility for one's actions. It's true
that not all selfish acts are equal in their impact on others, but it still
appears to me that many people who profess to be living by a profound
spiritual principle have actually settled for something a lot easier at
the expense of those around them.

--In My Bongolated Opinion, of course.

David Johnston

unread,
Feb 16, 1993, 7:00:42 PM2/16/93
to

In a previous article, pete...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Petersen) says:

>In article <1993Feb16.0...@ptdcs2.intel.com> kste...@ptdcs2.intel.com (Kent Stewart) writes:
>>

>>>2) They believe in the freedom to do whatever you like to
>>>be happy EXCEPT interfere with other people exercising that
>>>right.
>>

>>And though that second quality is the one which really defines folks
>>who always *feel* like "us" to my heart, it actually technically excludes
>>many thousands of people currently attending shows. There are many
>>folks on the scene who appear to believe in the freedom to do whatever
>>they please to be happy, and if it steps on someone else's rights and
>>freedoms it's just not their problem.
>
>This is ALWAYS the case... We always come back to this here,
>but when you say this you are doing the same thing. You are
>stepping on the rights of the people who want to do the things
>that YOU consider 'stepping on someone else's rights.' This may
>seem like a pedantic point, but I think it is actually the heart
>of the matter. Once you decide which actions of others are
>'unacceptable' (in this case, actions of others which 'step on
>someone else's rights'), you have started the wheel turning, and
>it goes on and on.
>
>Could you give an example of 'foks on the scene who appear to believe
>in the freedom to do whatever they please to be happy, and if it steps
>on someone else's rights and freedoms it's just not their problem'?
>I want to be sure that I properly understand your viewpoint.

I think I have an example that illustrates this point. Rich
Stadium, 1990...1990? That CSN double bill... was that '90? anyway...
Dancin' on the floor, just behind the taper section. Not too much
congestion... there's room for everybody. Behind me was a...please hold
the flames, you know what I mean... typical-hardcore-deadhead-looking-guy.
Lots of guatemalan stuff, a dye, dreads, etc. And he's just thrashing
around like a madman. No doubt having lots of fun, but he keeps whacking
people in the head and stepping on people. Now with such energetic
dancing, this guy has cleared out far more space to dance than anyone
around him. If he'd just stood in the middle, he wouldn't have been a
problem for anyone. But he seemed to be getting off on dashing back and
forth in his space, constantly hitting people on the edges. He was
pissing a lot of people off. Eventually, I grabbed hold of him (not hard,
just to get his attention) and asked him nicely to be a little more
careful of the people around him. He just looked at me and said 'My motto
is don't tread on me.'. His motto didn't seem to include anything about
treading on others.
Now if this guy was so wasted on acid that he didn't know what he
was doing, that would explain (though not excuse) his behaviour, but he
wasn't.
What do you do about this kind of behaviour? I don't know.
Myself, I moved 50 or 60 feet further over and kept dancin. But the mood
had been broken, you know?

As for a definition of a deadhead, mine has always been: Someone
who has seen at least one show, has experienced the magic that seperates a
dead show from a typical rock concert experience, and considers themself a
deadhead. Am I excluding anyone who should be included? I don't think
so. Sorry to any dead fans who, for whatever reason, haven't been able to
make it to a show, but I don't think someone can understand what its all
about until they've experienced it.
I don't think one can equate 'deadheads' with 'good people', or
any other value judgement like that. Deadheads are a segment of society,
and like any other, this segment contains niceit brings out the best in
people. People are there to have a good time, they're in good moods,
and are generally friendlier, IMHO, than they might be at another time.
But lets face it; we're all humans, and nobody's a nice guy all the time.

My, I'm preachy today, aren't I? How did that happen?
--
/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\ /~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\
_/ Dave Johnston \_/ If you can't lie to yourself \_
~\ ab...@freenet.carleton.ca /~\ who can you lie to? /~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Christophe D Piccolo

unread,
Feb 16, 1993, 8:55:15 PM2/16/93
to
In article <1993Feb17....@freenet.carleton.ca> ab...@Freenet.carleton.ca (David Johnston) writes:
>
>Rich Stadium, 1990...1990? That CSN double bill... was that '90? anyway...
> Behind me was a...please hold
> typical-hardcore-deadhead-looking-guy.

> And he's just thrashing
>around like a madman. No doubt having lots of fun, but he keeps whacking
>people in the head and stepping on people.

Damn, a mosh pit, I had heard they were going on that tour but i couldn't
ditch my brother and girlfriend to look for one in pittsburgh...(cracks
that it was run by the police and occured the year prior will not
be acknowledged with so much as a chuckle...)


Space to make News happy

Chris

Jim Petersen

unread,
Feb 17, 1993, 2:02:02 AM2/17/93
to
In article <1993Feb16....@ptdcs2.intel.com> kste...@ptdcs2.intel.com (Kent Stewart) writes:
>>>There are many
>>>folks on the scene who appear to believe in the freedom to do whatever
>>>they please to be happy, and if it steps on someone else's rights and
>>>freedoms it's just not their problem.
>>
>>This is ALWAYS the case... We always come back to this here,
>>but when you say this you are doing the same thing. You are
>>stepping on the rights of the people who want to do the things
>>that YOU consider 'stepping on someone else's rights.'
>
>Not really. The Golden Rule is a wonderful thing, because it surrenders
>no rights one does not wish to retain for one's self. I don't like being
>vomited on. Is it stepping on my rights to ask that I don't vomit on you?
>You see, I'm not talking about trying to dictate the behaviour of others,
>I'm talking about the basic level of *cooperation* needed to make a joint
>endeavor work for everybody.

All right... your choice of an example is going to make my position
seem slightly crazed, but I still believe I'm right in principle.

The answer is yes, you are stepping on my rights by asking me not
to vomit on you. Let's say that I get a great amount of satisfaction
out of spraying vomit into the air when I'm dancing. So, at Dead
shows I partake in this activity. Let's say further that I think
spraying vomit and being sprayed by vomit is a wonderful thing.
But YOU disagree. You don't want to be sprayed. And you therefore
think that you have the right to prevent me from doing what I want.
The trouble is, people have conflicting desires. So somebody's
desires are always going to be restricted. Somebody's rights are
always being trampled. The way we decide WHO'S rights will be
trampled is by societal consensus.

Your Golden Rule simply doesn't work in every case. How about the
example of the dose-sprayers? 'Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you'... well, let's say I would LOVE it if someone
surprised me by dosing me unawares. So, then why can't I do it
to others, according to the Golden Rule? Once again, conflicting
desires. Most of your examples of 'bad' behavior do seem also
to me unfortunate (at least). But I don't really see by what
'right' we can ultimately deny this behavior. Except insofar as
we're willing to admit that 'yes, I am taking away the rights
of this individual, because his desires are not compatible with
my own'. This is the key, to stop thinking we have some higher
ground because we are acting for what WE think is right, because,
after all, EVERYONE is acting for what they think is right.

>We don't live in a vacuum, and our actions do impact others. Ignoring that
>inconvenient impact on others in order to maximize our own personal pleasure
>is a deliberate choice, although rationalization can make it easy to live with.

This statement is absolutely correct. Just realize that it applies to
you as well. Your restrictions have an 'inconvenient impact on others
in order to maximize (your) own personal pleasure.' That is an exact
description of how your beliefs affect people who want to run over
people, or spray people with dosed water, or camp on someone's lawn.

I know my point might be a rather tiring one, and I would rather not
get caught up pursuing it too much further. But if you by chance
think I'm wrong is some major way by all means try to convince me!

DISCLAIMER: I do not like to vomit on people, and I would rather you
didn't vomit on me. I would never dose someone I didn't know without
their knowing, but if you want to dose me, just please make it some

Jim Petersen

unread,
Feb 17, 1993, 4:31:07 AM2/17/93
to
In article <40...@blue.cis.pitt.edu> cd...@cislabs.pitt.edu (Christophe D Piccolo) writes:
>
>Damn, a mosh pit, I had heard they were going on that tour but i couldn't
>ditch my brother and girlfriend to look for one in pittsburgh...(cracks
>that it was run by the police and occured the year prior will not
>be acknowledged with so much as a chuckle...)
>

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've felt more love in the
mosh pit at a Skinny Puppy show than at many of the Dead shows I've
done. Or, if not really 'love', at least unconditional acceptance
(is that love, or not?)

(I keep responding to things in this thread that have nothing to
do with crewcut jocks... time for a new thread title.)

wharfie

unread,
Feb 17, 1993, 11:21:51 AM2/17/93
to
In article <1993Feb17.0...@news.acns.nwu.edu> pete...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Petersen) writes:
>mosh pit at a Skinny Puppy show than at many of the Dead shows I've

What's a mosh pit, and who's skinny puupy?

Mike Wagner

unread,
Feb 17, 1993, 3:11:49 PM2/17/93
to
wr...@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:

: In article <1993Feb17.0...@news.acns.nwu.edu> pete...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Petersen) writes:
: >mosh pit at a Skinny Puppy show than at many of the Dead shows I've
:
: What's a mosh pit, and who's skinny puupy?

skinny puppy is a ?industrial? band. my roommate listens to them...

=======================================================================
\\ Mike Wagner \\ Ball State Graphics \\ mjwa...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu \\
\ GD x2 --> Grateful Dead \\ This must be heaven, cause here's \
\ "-> Graphic Design \\ where the rainbow ends.... \
=======================================================================

Thomas M. Connors

unread,
Feb 17, 1993, 4:30:57 PM2/17/93
to
In article <1993Feb17.0...@news.acns.nwu.edu> pete...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Petersen) writes:
>mosh pit at a Skinny Puppy show than at many of the Dead shows I've

>> What's a mosh pit, and who's skinny puupy?

Oh this one is easy.

First of all, a mosh pit is where shut out Albany wanna-be's go to,
and Skinny Puppy is the endearing term used to refer to jerry,
since he has lost so much weight from a vegatarian diet and living
deep under the water while scuba diving.

I hope I have helped your day ;-)

Duane Day

unread,
Feb 17, 1993, 6:27:45 PM2/17/93
to
>In article <1993Feb16....@ptdcs2.intel.com> kste...@ptdcs2.intel.com (Kent Stewart) writes:
>>Not really. The Golden Rule is a wonderful thing, because it surrenders
>>no rights one does not wish to retain for one's self. I don't like being
>>vomited on. Is it stepping on my rights to ask that I don't vomit on you?
>>You see, I'm not talking about trying to dictate the behaviour of others,
>>I'm talking about the basic level of *cooperation* needed to make a joint
>>endeavor work for everybody.

>All right... your choice of an example is going to make my position
>seem slightly crazed, but I still believe I'm right in principle.

>The answer is yes, you are stepping on my rights by asking me not
>to vomit on you.

It appears to be your position, Jim, that one has a right to vomit
on others (or at least that one has a right to not be *asked* not
to do so.)

This is exactly the kind of conclusion that one reaches with this
line of reasoning. In fact, using the same "logic" one can claim
the right to kill another...

>Let's say that I get a great amount of satisfaction
>out of spraying vomit into the air when I'm dancing.

"Let's say that I get a great amount of satisfaction from killing people."

>So, at Dead
>shows I partake in this activity. Let's say further that I think
>spraying vomit and being sprayed by vomit is a wonderful thing.

"Let's say further that I think killing and being killed is a wonderful
thing."

>But YOU disagree. You don't want to be sprayed. And you therefore
>think that you have the right to prevent me from doing what I want.

"You therefore think that you have the right to prevent me from
killing you." Well, pardon me, Jim, but - yes, I do think I have
that right. In either case.

>The trouble is, people have conflicting desires. So somebody's
>desires are always going to be restricted.

So far, so good...

>Somebody's rights are
>always being trampled.

Right there is the jump from logic to nonsense. Does one have the *right*
to act upon every desire or impulse? Do scalpers have the *right* to
profit from the scarcity of tickets? Does an angry husband have the
*right* to beat up his wife? What if it's at a Dead show? ("Aww, c'mon,
man, it's a **Dead show**! He was just doing his thing! Don't be such
a control freak, man! Don't be such a fascist!")

Excuse me, but IMHO it's just the big cop-out - an excuse offered up as
justification by someone who is unwilling to acknowledge the discomfort
he or she is causing others. Hence you get people who seriously argue
in support of the idea of a "right" to vomit on others, a "right" to
trample others en route to a desired vantage point, a "right" to carry
on loud, boisterous conversations throughout a musical performance, no
matter how sublime or contemplative the musical moment. And just ask
one of these people for a little common courtesy, a little basic
consideration, and you get this "Don't tread on me" nonsense, with
the accusation that you're "stepping on their rights" by asking
them to make any concessions whatsoever to their neighbors.

Todd Brown

unread,
Feb 17, 1993, 7:21:53 PM2/17/93
to
In article <37...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mjwa...@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Mike Wagner) writes:
>wr...@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) writes:
>: In article <1993Feb17.0...@news.acns.nwu.edu> pete...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Petersen) writes:
>: >mosh pit at a Skinny Puppy show than at many of the Dead shows I've
>:
>: What's a mosh pit, and who's skinny puupy?
>
>skinny puppy is a ?industrial? band. my roommate listens to them...

Is this similar to "Industrial Disease":-) :-) ;-)

Industrial Band???????
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>TODD|-ODD-|:-) | Nothing Left To Do But <
>br...@sunspot.sunspot.noao.edu /|\ :-) :-) :-) <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/ | \<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


E. Nay

unread,
Feb 17, 1993, 7:31:41 PM2/17/93
to

In a previous article, wr...@unisql.UUCP (wharfie) says:

>>mosh pit at a Skinny Puppy show than at many of the Dead shows I've
>

> What's a mosh pit, and who's skinny puupy?

I don't know whose , but somebody oughta feed that poor thing.
--
It left a smoking crater of my mind I'd like to blown away

Beth Dyer

unread,
Feb 17, 1993, 10:15:22 PM2/17/93
to

In article <1993Feb17....@freenet.carleton.ca> ab...@Freenet.carleton.ca (David Johnston) writes:

[discussion deleted]

> As for a definition of a deadhead, mine has always been: Someone
>who has seen at least one show, has experienced the magic that seperates a
>dead show from a typical rock concert experience, and considers themself a
>deadhead. Am I excluding anyone who should be included? I don't think
>so. Sorry to any dead fans who, for whatever reason, haven't been able to
>make it to a show, but I don't think someone can understand what its all
>about until they've experienced it.

This is the best definition I've seen. Thanks, Dave! Some of my
favorite people in the world catch a show whenever it's convenient (which
for some of them is only once every couple of years), yet they carry the
spirit, the twinkle in the eye, etc., that everyone who "gets it" manifests
as they "get it".

Beth

Jim Petersen

unread,
Feb 18, 1993, 12:03:35 AM2/18/93
to
In article <1luhlh...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> du...@thismoment.Corp.Sun.COM (Duane Day) writes:
>
>Excuse me, but IMHO it's just the big cop-out - an excuse offered up as
>justification by someone who is unwilling to acknowledge the discomfort
>he or she is causing others. Hence you get people who seriously argue

Precisely. So now you are offering up your own excuse as justification
for the discomfort you are causing to those who want to act in ways
that you deem unacceptable.

Look, all I am saying is that unfortunately there are no simple answers.
When you make rules regarding acceptable behavior, some people are
excluded. What gives you the right to do this? Simply, strength in
numbers. If most of society agrees with you (as is the case for
vomiting, and killing) then all is well. If very little of society
agrees with you, then you get committed/arrested. And when it's
split fairly evenly, you end up with societal discord, as is the
case for abortion.

RAMBLE ON ROSE

unread,
Feb 18, 1993, 5:34:40 AM2/18/93
to
In article <TMC.93Fe...@deadhead.mitre.org>,

t...@deadhead.mitre.org (Thomas M. Connors) writes:
>In article <1993Feb17.0...@news.acns.nwu.edu> pete...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jim Petersen) writes:
>>mosh pit at a Skinny Puppy show than at many of the Dead shows I've
>
>>> What's a mosh pit, and who's skinny puupy?
>
>Oh this one is easy.
>
>First of all, a mosh pit is where shut out Albany wanna-be's go to,
>and Skinny Puppy is the endearing term used to refer to jerry,
>since he has lost so much weight from a vegatarian diet and living
>deep under the water while scuba diving.
>
>I hope I have helped your day ;-)

Well, I don't know what a mosh pit is but even someone as old as me
knows that Skinny Puppy is a group.

Alma

Bill Moore

unread,
Feb 18, 1993, 12:35:35 PM2/18/93
to

hey, could you guys stop using the word "vomit"?
It really grosses me out.

:-)

Bill

Duane Day

unread,
Feb 18, 1993, 2:24:35 PM2/18/93
to

>>Excuse me, but IMHO it's just the big cop-out - an excuse offered up as
>>justification by someone who is unwilling to acknowledge the discomfort
>>he or she is causing others. Hence you get people who seriously argue

>Precisely. So now you are offering up your own excuse as justification
>for the discomfort you are causing to those who want to act in ways
>that you deem unacceptable.

Bullshit. I'm not offering up any "excuse". I'm stating a fact: you
wind up with people who seriously argue in favor of "a right to vomit on
others".

Does my not wanting you to kill me or vomit on me cause you discomfort?
Well, after some honest self-examination on the subject, I can say that
I don't feel guilty about that and I don't feel compelled to offer any
excuses for asking for those particular restrictions on your behavior.

>Look, all I am saying is that unfortunately there are no simple answers.

In many cases, there are extremely simple answers.

Do you have a right to hunt me down from across the country and kill me?
No, you don't - no matter how delicious the impulse to do so might be to
you. Pretty simple.

Yes, Jim, there are grey areas. There are also areas that if not
actually "black" or "white" are sufficiently "dark grey" or "light
grey" to be treated as "black" or "white".

>When you make rules regarding acceptable behavior, some people are
>excluded.

That's also wrong. Some *behaviors* are eliminated. "Hey, you, I know
you had an impulse to blow chunks on somebody. Get off the planet NOW!"
We're not talking thought police here, Jim. Do you see no distinction
between impulse and deed? If you do see the distinction, then please
don't cloud the issue by treating the two as if they were the same
thing. I'm not taking away your right to desire to vomit on someone
by asking you not to follow through on that desire.

>What gives you the right to do this? Simply, strength in
>numbers.

Wrong again. Sorry, but "strength in numbers" has some pretty
dismal ethical failures on its resume', from the Salem Witch Trials
to the Third Reich to sodomy laws and prohibition.

>If most of society agrees with you (as is the case for
>vomiting, and killing) then all is well.

Well, not necessarily, unless everyone is willing to respect the
wishes of "most of society". If you get one individual who insists
upon exercising his perceived "right to vomit upon others", you get
innocent bystanders covered with spew. Those innocent bystanders are
unlikely to agree at that moment in time that "all is well".

What's the ultimate answer? I don't know. Being honest with oneself
seems to be a great start. If you throw up on someone, be honest with
yourself about the hardship you've caused the other person. If you're
honest with yourself about that, you're a lot less likely to waste a
lot of time trying to convince the other person that you had a right
to puke on them; you're probably going to be doing what you can to
help that person get cleaned up and to make the unpleasant situation
you've caused a little less unpleasant. If you are unable to be honest
with yourself about having caused hardship to another, you're much more
likely to start rationalizing about that person having tried to step
on your rights.

JOHNSTON,JERRY WAYNE

unread,
Feb 18, 1993, 7:16:15 PM2/18/93
to

DEEP DOWN TRAUMA HOUNDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
JOHNSTON,JERRY WAYNE
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt1054a
Internet: gt1...@prism.gatech.edu

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages