Errors-To: owner-tmbg-digest@tmbg.org Reply-To: tmbg-digest@tmbg.org Sender: owner-tmbg-digest@tmbg.org Precedence: bulk From: owner-tmbg-digest@tmbg.org To: tmbg-digest@tmbg.org Subject: tmbg-list Digest #16-34 tmbg-list Digest, Volume 16, Number 34 Friday, 9 April 1999 Today's Topics: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Re: TMBG: Why Can't We Be Friends? Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? RE: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Re: TMBG: Maybe time for a new subject? Was: Maybe another Futurama blah Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? TMBG: Anyone going to the Rochester show? Re: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin's law RE: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin's law Re: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin's law Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Re: TMBG: Why Can't We Be Friends? Re: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin's law Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Re: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin's law Re: TMBG: video comp/ tour dates! Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Fact and Belief (Was: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref?) Re: TMBG: futurama wars? don't read this, please. Re: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin's law TMBG: My feeling is... Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? non-TMBG: I can just barely hear you Re: non-TMBG: I can just barely hear you Re: TMBG: Lock Haven PA show Re: non-TMBG: I can just barely hear you Re: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin's law RE: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin's law Re: non-TMBG: I can just barely hear you Re: TMBG: Anyone going to the Rochester show? Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? TMBG: New Louisville show info Re: Fact and Belief (Was: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref?) Administrivia: If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing send mail to tmbg-digest-request@tmbg.org for instructions on how to be automatically removed. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The views expressed herein are those of the individual authors. --------------------------------------------------------------------- tmbg-list is digested with Digest 3.5b (John Relph ). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message-ID: <19990407172247.81189.qmail@hotmail.com> From: "Todd Wetherbee" Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 10:22:46 PDT >how does that violate the first amendment? I never said laws should be >passed to restrict what people can say on the TMBG mailing list. I don't know why not. It's a damn good idea. Congress is always wasting its time with solving widespread social problems and the like. It's ridiculous. They need to concentrate on regulating the TMBG mailing list. In fact, for all you constituents of Indiana, I'd like to use this vehicle to announce my candidacy for the U.S. Senator spot currently held by Dick Lugar on the Anal-Retentive Fascist Party ticket. The focus of my election plank will be singular: bring the TMBG Mailing List to justice! - an issue on which Lugar is strangely silent. Yes, while Lugar turns his eyes towards dead issues such as agricultural reform and foreign policy towards Cuba, I will be working for you, the American people, to control the societal menace that is the TMBG Mailing List. If elected, I will impose strenuous regulations on List Members. Under my plan, bad grammar, ambiguous language, and inappropriate subject lines will be curbed through the appointment of a list magistrate that would preside over the list, regulating members with force and expedience. The magistrate and his or her staff would be given free reign to take whatever measures are needed to bring the list to an orderly and benign existence. This infectuous and diseased organization must be stopped before it begins to threaten National Security itself. In fact, we may already be too late. Confidential sources have informed my staff that my opponent, the well-respected Sen. Lugar, may actually be a member of the list himself! Other important national figures have been implicated as well, including Jesse Helms, Jesse Jackson, Jesse Owens, and even Mike Leffel! If this dangerous organization were allowed to sink its poisoned claws into our nation's leaders, our nation would be ruled by such questionable ideals as vagueness, silliness, and bizarre and perverted middle names. THE MENACE MUST BE STOPPED!! I will also lower taxes. Thank you. Todd Wetherbee Anal-Retentive Fascist Party A vote for Todd is a vote for having things stuck up your butt. _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 13:00:24 -0500 From: Bob Scott Message-ID: <370B9D38.CA3E31FA@tmbg.org> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Lawrence P Solomon wrote: > Excerpts from internet.music.tmbg: 7-Apr-99 Re: TMBG: Maybe another > Fut.. by Bob Scott@tmbg.org > > Are you trying to tell me that your use of caps doesn't symbolize some kind > > of certainty? I at no point said that you were certain about any TMBG > > references you posted, as I can't recall any you actually referred to in > > this whole thread. If they might be references, let the people post them. > > Others who haven't found these references might like to know. It's not that > > much skin off your nose... > > I am certain that I don't know for sure whether they're references or not. I am certain that anything you were originally trying to point out is now a moot point. You're simply repeating the same thing in each response you make. > > > that's a little more blatant a reference, though. although, I still > > > think they should never post these things as facts unless they know. > > > That is *probably* a TMBG reference, but it could just be a coincidence. > > > The point is we don't know for sure. It's a matter of how you phrase > > > it. If you say "It's a TMBG reference!" then you're claiming to know > > > for sure. > > > Say goodbye to the first amendment! > > how does that violate the first amendment? I never said laws should be > passed to restrict what people can say on the TMBG mailing list. I said > that people should never post things as facts unless they're sure > they're facts. Otherwise they're just opinions. That's my point. > Again, it appears to have been missed. > > Besides, Leo can, technically, decide what does and doesn't go on the > list. The First Amendment doesn't apply to this list anyway. That's like saying that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to each citizen of our country. And I was actually speaking of your blatant disregard for the Church of Ignorance. bobscott@tmbg.org AKA Bob "The Wonder Dog" Scott ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 13:11:51 -0500 From: Bob Scott Message-ID: <370B9FE7.E9F19D9F@tmbg.org> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Lawrence P Solomon wrote: > Excerpts from internet.music.tmbg: 7-Apr-99 Re: TMBG: Maybe another > Fut.. by Bob Scott@tmbg.org > > We all understand what you're saying, though it doesn't stand up to > > scrutiny. You say basically that unless one is certain of something they > > shouldn't post. But the > > bzzzzt. wrong again. I didn't say they shouldn't post. I said they > shouldn't post it *as fact*. People can post all they want, but they > shouldn't be confusing facts with opinions. Otherwise, all those "Are > the Johns gay?" threads from years ago would come out (no pun intended) > as someone saying "The Johns are gay!" and someone else saying "Are you > sure about that? They're both married, you know..." and so on... Once again, I'll say this as clearly as I can, and as many others have clearly informed you, if you've even been reading OUR responses to the messages you seem to think no one understands that you've posted: If someone's knowledge doesn't cover everything known to mankind as a whole, there are obviously going to be times when they believe something to be factual when there might be more information to be gathered. This does not show ignorance, just that people aren't infallible. > > only way to be certain about a TMBG reference in Futurama (fully, 100% > > certain) would be to speak to Matt Groening. I don't think most of us on > > the list have this ability. But perhaps one of us does have this magical > > power. > > he's doing an online chat some time this week... > By the time I got there last night (12:30 PM Central, somewhere in the time it was supposed to start), the room where it was to be occurring was empty. > > So here's a hypothetical situation. I post a reference I believe to be to > > TMBG on the Simpsons. I post it to the list. After days of fighting off > > hate mail, I find that someone on the list is going to have the opportunity > > to ask Groening a question. I tell them that asking about any TMBG > > references in his cartoons/comic strips would simply be as ideal and > > wondrous as the cake and tea of the Elysian Fields (it's hypothetical). > > Something is gained from the annoying and destructive post which said "I > > just saw Homer say 'Ooh! Check out the beauty of THIS felt tip pen!" (which > > would be a Mono Puff reference, but close enough) > > NO! You are missing my point. I'm not saying "don't post at all." I'm > saying don't post as fact unless you know it's a fact. Keep in mind > that there's a huge difference between saying "This is true" and "I > think this is true." But often, saying, "This is true." equates "I think this is true." People just save time and space because of the uncertainty of things. Scientists take laws and theories to be true unless they can disprove them. So perhaps instead of bickering about posts which have done nothing to you, maybe you should contact Groening (if you have to for the world to be in balance, as it would seem) and demand to know the truth of the matter. But then, what if he lies? bobscott@tmbg.org AKA Bob "Liverpool trio" Scott ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 13:16:38 -0500 From: Bob Scott Message-ID: <370BA106.BD6BED7C@tmbg.org> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Lawrence P Solomon wrote: > Excerpts from internet.music.tmbg: 7-Apr-99 Re: TMBG: Maybe another > Fut.. by Bob Scott@tmbg.org > > I agree that it's bad to state one's opinions as facts. Since you seem to > > be the only one with such symptoms, perhaps you could let your > > holier-than-the-list attitude quell so that people can get back to their > > meager, uninteresting lives. > > see. it's totally clear now. you're not really getting what I'm > saying. I don't care whether or not you agree with me, but at least > understand my point. I'm not trying to be the list policeman or > anything stupid like that. I'm just pointing out (or trying to) that > not everything is necessarily a TMBG reference. Oh! So you've repeated what several people have said before! Wow! How amazing! Perhaps if you would pay attention to the posts of others when they don't directly address you, you might know that what you claim to have been saying (which, in fact, I don't think you were saying most of the time) has been said by me and several others both on the TMBG list and on the TMBG ng. > So to both you and Jay, who seem to be the only ones left who really > aren't seeing what I have to say, I give a hearty "Fuck you! I've > killfiled you both." Ah, we see the true monster has been slain. Perhaps he'll learn not to argue a moot point for days and over 50 messages, only to simply resort to childish 4 letter words (as opposed to Moot, which is quite an adult 4 letter word). I am so unhappy to be on the killfile of such an honorable ass. I thought I made it obvious that I was only arguing the point for fun, but apparently, Solomon's not certain about that, so he had to resort to such lowlyhood. Oh well. There will be other Kings... bobscott@tmbg.org AKA Bob "Another name on the list" Scott ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 13:25:24 -0500 From: Bob Scott Message-ID: <370BA314.706A2E7E@tmbg.org> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Lawrence P Solomon wrote: > So saying "There's a > reference in Futurama..." is valid and invalid on different levels. If > you see it as a reference, fine. You see it as a reference. That > doesn't mean that the creators put it there as such. And that's really > what I've been getting at the whole time. But now you're saying something which you earlier stated to be false! You said that the only way a reference could be authentic is if the writer of the show were to let it be known that it's a reference, or if that person told the viewing public that he wouldn't disclose the information of his references. I think we can infer when one doesn't have a conference with his viewers weekly, or isn't writing a book, etc.. that the writer will not be sharing his specific references with the audience anytime soon. Therefore, why can't the fans find references that might not be there? Some seem quite obvious, as the Destination Moon sign on Futurama. I thought it was a reference to TMBG, until the list said otherwise (though it still could be a reference to TMBG, as has been said). Something was learned by some. But with the bits that you've contributed to this thread, you've simply bred ignorance and hostility of your own. You've paid no heed to anything anyone has said and taken very small snippets of the messages of others to respond to. It's a selective process of making yourself seem right. You should have pulled out of Vietnam long ago. bobscott@tmbg.org AKA Bob "squeaky keyboard" Scott ------------------------------ Message-Id: <199904071826.OAA162246@f04n07.cac.psu.edu> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 14:27:31 -0400 From: Jason Fickley Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Did anyone, while posting about the supposed Futurama references actually say that it is fact that a reference exists? I know I *could* check the archives, but unless my memory fails me, the people who posted about these references either: a) Included something like "Coincidence?" or "maybe it's just a coincidence" b) Said something like "Matt Groening must be a TMBG fan" followed by a :), which in my opinion suggests that the statement was not to be taken seriously, or c) Asked for someone to dismiss the reference So how did this change from a debate about whether or not these are references (a somewhat worthwile debate) into a debate about posting opinion as fact (a debate that is seemingly irrelevant in this situation, and is giving me hives)? No one did that prior to this argument! --Jason-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 13:29:21 -0500 From: Bob Scott Message-ID: <370BA401.145CEECC@tmbg.org> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: TMBG: Why Can't We Be Friends? Colleen Anne McClanahan wrote: > And can this thread END???? Well, since LPS has silenced what he believed to be his 2 major oppressors (c'mon, people! This is a call to arms, legs, whatever), the thread might end. But I'm thinking otherwise. He'll keep posting the exact same message over and over, occasionally throwing in a foul word or 2 just to keep half the list alienated from him. But when Leffel the eskimo gets here, all the penguins gonna run to him... bobscott@tmbg.org AKA Bob "Bite my shiny metal ass" Scott ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 13:38:50 -0500 From: Bob Scott Message-ID: <370BA639.BDE6804E@tmbg.org> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Jason Fickley wrote: > Did anyone, while posting about the supposed Futurama references actually > say that it is fact that a reference exists? I know I *could* check the > archives, but unless my memory fails me, the people who posted about these > references either: > > a) Included something like "Coincidence?" or "maybe it's just a coincidence" > > b) Said something like "Matt Groening must be a TMBG fan" followed by a :), > which in my opinion suggests that the statement was not to be taken seriously, > > or > > c) Asked for someone to dismiss the reference > > So how did this change from a debate about whether or not these are > references (a somewhat worthwile debate) into a debate about posting > opinion as fact (a debate that is seemingly irrelevant in this situation, > and is giving me hives)? No one did that prior to this argument! Because LPS is a 10 year old, and when they want to say something, they say it with all the extra savoir faire of a chimpanzee shredding the Olsen twins. I'm sure his mommy is proud. Because, really, who else was saying that it's wrong to state an opinion (basically, that DOES sum up what LPS was saying)? Because who doesn't state their opinions in a factual context (i.e.: I love TMBG)? It's a fact to the speaker of it! Let nitpickers be nit and this less-than-mincing-of-words-thing come to an end. Or let it go on. I suppose I really don't care, save for the fact that the only proponent of the one side now has me on their killfile... Perhaps because I had such a convincing argument? I assume it was actually because he had no argument that he could stand by, which is why every message he would say what he thought to be his topic in the last message he typed, but it underwent serious mutations quite a few times, and finally ended up being something like "You can't be sure something is a reference." So now I just gotta say "Aw, to heck with it" and be mature about this whole thing. bobscott@tmbg.org AKA Bob "Koko the Monkey" Scott ------------------------------ Message-Id: <199904071846.OAA17151@ussenterprise.ufp.org> From: "Maki, Michael G." Subject: RE: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:46:53 -0500 Psst... A thread won't die if you keep dredging it up. --- Michael G. Maki - Personnel Office City of Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Direct Dial: 612-661-4846 Fax: 612-661-4777 E-mail: michael.g.maki@ci.minneapolis.mn.us > ---------- > From: Bob Scott[SMTP:bobscott@tmbg.org] > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 1:38PM > To: tmbg-list@tmbg.org > Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? > > Jason Fickley wrote: > > > Did anyone, while posting about the supposed Futurama references > actually > > say that it is fact that a reference exists? I know I *could* check > the > > archives, but unless my memory fails me, the people who posted about > these > > references either: > > > > a) Included something like "Coincidence?" or "maybe it's just a > coincidence" > > > > b) Said something like "Matt Groening must be a TMBG fan" followed > by a :), > > which in my opinion suggests that the statement was not to be taken > seriously, > > > > or > > > > c) Asked for someone to dismiss the reference > > > > So how did this change from a debate about whether or not these are > > references (a somewhat worthwile debate) into a debate about posting > > opinion as fact (a debate that is seemingly irrelevant in this > situation, > > and is giving me hives)? No one did that prior to this argument! > > Because LPS is a 10 year old, and when they want to say something, > they say it > with all the extra savoir faire of a chimpanzee shredding the Olsen > twins. I'm > sure his mommy is proud. Because, really, who else was saying that > it's wrong to > state an opinion (basically, that DOES sum up what LPS was saying)? > Because who > doesn't state their opinions in a factual context (i.e.: I love TMBG)? > It's a fact > to the speaker of it! Let nitpickers be nit and this > less-than-mincing-of-words-thing come to an end. Or let it go on. I > suppose I > really don't care, save for the fact that the only proponent of the > one side now > has me on their killfile... Perhaps because I had such a convincing > argument? I > assume it was actually because he had no argument that he could stand > by, which is > why every message he would say what he thought to be his topic in the > last message > he typed, but it underwent serious mutations quite a few times, and > finally ended > up being something like "You can't be sure something is a reference." > So now I > just gotta say "Aw, to heck with it" and be mature about this whole > thing. > > bobscott@tmbg.org > AKA Bob "Koko the Monkey" Scott > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 14:00:01 -0500 From: Bob Scott Message-ID: <370BAB31.19C9BBA3@tmbg.org> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe time for a new subject? Was: Maybe another Futurama blah "Maki, Michael G." wrote: > Psst... A thread won't die if you keep dredging it up. Nor will most horror movie plotlines, but you don't see me putting away my shovel! > > ---------- > > From: Bob Scott[SMTP:bobscott@tmbg.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 1:38PM > > To: tmbg-list@tmbg.org > > Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? > > > > Jason Fickley wrote: > > > > > Did anyone, while posting about the supposed Futurama references > > actually > > > say that it is fact that a reference exists? I know I *could* check > > the > > > archives, but unless my memory fails me, the people who posted about > > these > > > references either: > > > > > > a) Included something like "Coincidence?" or "maybe it's just a > > coincidence" > > > > > > b) Said something like "Matt Groening must be a TMBG fan" followed > > by a :), > > > which in my opinion suggests that the statement was not to be taken > > seriously, > > > > > > or > > > > > > c) Asked for someone to dismiss the reference > > > > > > So how did this change from a debate about whether or not these are > > > references (a somewhat worthwile debate) into a debate about posting > > > opinion as fact (a debate that is seemingly irrelevant in this > > situation, > > > and is giving me hives)? No one did that prior to this argument! > > > > Because LPS is a 10 year old, and when they want to say something, > > they say it > > with all the extra savoir faire of a chimpanzee shredding the Olsen > > twins. I'm > > sure his mommy is proud. Because, really, who else was saying that > > it's wrong to > > state an opinion (basically, that DOES sum up what LPS was saying)? > > Because who > > doesn't state their opinions in a factual context (i.e.: I love TMBG)? > > It's a fact > > to the speaker of it! Let nitpickers be nit and this > > less-than-mincing-of-words-thing come to an end. Or let it go on. I > > suppose I > > really don't care, save for the fact that the only proponent of the > > one side now > > has me on their killfile... Perhaps because I had such a convincing > > argument? I > > assume it was actually because he had no argument that he could stand > > by, which is > > why every message he would say what he thought to be his topic in the > > last message > > he typed, but it underwent serious mutations quite a few times, and > > finally ended > > up being something like "You can't be sure something is a reference." > > So now I > > just gotta say "Aw, to heck with it" and be mature about this whole > > thing. > > > > bobscott@tmbg.org > > AKA Bob "Koko the Monkey" Scott > > ------------------------------ From: LimeZinger@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 15:00:49 EDT Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? In a message dated 4/7/99 9:03:57 AM, lps+@andrew.cmu.edu writes: >NO! You are missing my point. WOW! i'm glad the delete button was invented. sarah ------------------------------ From: PRMega@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 15:18:56 EDT Subject: TMBG: Anyone going to the Rochester show? Just wondering if anyone here is going to this show. This is going to be my 4th TMBG show, and I was hoping to meet someone from this list there. Anyone going? ------------------------------ Message-ID: <8r2vBei00Ui307x5g0@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 15:35:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Lawrence P Solomon Subject: Re: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin's law Excerpts from internet.music.tmbg: 7-Apr-99 TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin's law by Jim Kuemmerle@m.cc.utah. > what's godwin's law? Godwin's law states something to the effect of this (it originated on UseNet, but became more general): On any electronic discussion forum, such as a newsgroup or mailing list, the longer a flamewar goes, the more likely it is that someone will make an irrational comparison of their opponents in the flamewar to Nazis. When this comparison is made, the person making the comparison loses all credibility they ever may have had, and the flamewar ends. of course, I can't really invoke it because, well, to compare Jay to the Nazis still wouldn't be accurate or appropriate. I despise Nazis much more than I despise Jay. Lawrence Solomon http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~lps/ lps@andrew.cmu.edu "Just because you're floating doesn't mean * This space inadvertently you haven't drowned." -They Might Be Giants * left with stuff in it. ------------------------------ Message-Id: <199904071940.PAA19577@ussenterprise.ufp.org> From: "Maki, Michael G." Subject: RE: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin's law Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 14:41:29 -0500 > of course, I can't really invoke it because, well, to compare Jay to the > Nazis still wouldn't be accurate or appropriate. I despise Nazis much > more than I despise Jay. > Well, that and Jay never tried to systematically kill an entire race of people... But who's counting. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:41:04 -0600 (MDT) From: Jim Kuemmerle Subject: Re: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin's law Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Lawrence P Solomon wrote: > On any electronic discussion forum, such as a newsgroup or mailing list, > the longer a flamewar goes, the more likely it is that someone will make > an irrational comparison of their opponents in the flamewar to Nazis. > When this comparison is made, the person making the comparison loses all > credibility they ever may have had, and the flamewar ends. do you mean to tell me that i could have put a stop to this thing right up front if i'd just compared both of you to nazis right away? ;) --jim kuemmerle, working on his timing so that he can do this better next time... j.kuemmerle@m.cc.utah.edu http://www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/4668/ ------------------------------ Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 15:41:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Lawrence P Solomon Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Excerpts from internet.music.tmbg: 7-Apr-99 Re: TMBG: Maybe another Fut.. by Bob Scott@tmbg.org > Once again, I'll say this as clearly as I can, and as many others have > clearly informed you, if you've even been reading OUR responses to the > messages you seem to think no one understands that you've posted: If > someone's knowledge doesn't cover everything known to mankind as a whole, > there are obviously going to be times when they believe something to be > factual when there might be more information to be gathered. This does not > show ignorance, just that people aren't infallible. I see your argument. I don't think it's entirely accurate, though. The idea is that there are two categories of things: Things people know for sure. Things people aren't quite sure about. The only way to know something for sure is to have it proven. As a result, everything else falls into the other category, and so even if one believes something to be factual, unless they're prepared for a debate, it's a good idea for them to state it as a belief, rather than a fact. What I'm saying is that if someone does believe something to be true that isn't, they're not paying attention to their own possible lack of knowledge, and assuming they are absolutely right. Maybe I'm just too much of a skeptic, but anything that I'm not absolutely certain about I'll not claim to be absolutely certain about. Lawrence Solomon http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~lps/ lps@andrew.cmu.edu "Just because you're floating doesn't mean * This space inadvertently you haven't drowned." -They Might Be Giants * left with stuff in it. ------------------------------ Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 15:45:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Lawrence P Solomon Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Excerpts from internet.music.tmbg: 7-Apr-99 Re: TMBG: Maybe another Fut.. by Bob Scott@tmbg.org > Ah, we see the true monster has been slain. Perhaps he'll learn not to > argue a moot point for days and over 50 messages, only to simply resort to > childish 4 letter words (as opposed to Moot, which is quite an adult 4 > letter word). I am so unhappy to be on the killfile of such an honorable > ass. I thought I made it obvious that I was only arguing the point for fun, > but apparently, Solomon's not certain about that, so he had to resort to > such lowlyhood. Oh well. There will be other Kings... fuck is childish? I didn't know the word when I was a child. arguing for "fun?" in what way? do you mean playing devil's advocate or just jumping in to mess things up? if it's the latter, and you weren't expecting to start a flamewar, then you probably haven't been online very long. If you're trying to actually make a point, it's one thing, but argument for argument's sake, especially in a place like this, just causes trouble... Lawrence Solomon http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~lps/ lps@andrew.cmu.edu "Just because you're floating doesn't mean * This space inadvertently you haven't drowned." -They Might Be Giants * left with stuff in it. ------------------------------ Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 15:50:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Lawrence P Solomon Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Excerpts from internet.music.tmbg: 7-Apr-99 Re: TMBG: Maybe another Fut.. by Bob Scott@tmbg.org > But now you're saying something which you earlier stated to be false! You > said that the only way a reference could be authentic is if the writer of > the show were to let it be known that it's a reference, or if that person > told the viewing public that he wouldn't disclose the information of his > references. I think we no, I said we can only be certain it is a reference that way. It may still be authentic, we just don't know it is. btw, my original post on this was in response to the "moon street usa -> mainstream usa" post. no offense to the person who made it, but that's really a stretch, and I think that's probably why I bothered to post in the first place. Lawrence Solomon http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~lps/ lps@andrew.cmu.edu "Just because you're floating doesn't mean * This space inadvertently you haven't drowned." -They Might Be Giants * left with stuff in it. ------------------------------ Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 15:53:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Lawrence P Solomon Subject: Re: TMBG: Why Can't We Be Friends? Excerpts from internet.music.tmbg: 7-Apr-99 Re: TMBG: Why Can't We Be F.. by Bob Scott@tmbg.org > Well, since LPS has silenced what he believed to be his 2 major oppressors > (c'mon, people! This is a call to arms, legs, whatever), the thread might > end. But I'm thinking otherwise. He'll keep posting the exact same message > over and over, occasionally throwing in a foul word or 2 just to keep half > the list alienated from him. But when Leffel the eskimo gets here, all the > penguins gonna run to him... I haven't silenced you in the least. And you seem to be doing it more and more just... I'm not even sure why you're arguing it. I just killfiled you, and since I read the list in a newsgroup style format, that doesn't do a whole lot of good, since it only affects my inbox. I'm not trying to alienate the list, although if you really want to know the truth, it's just a discussion forum and I don't really care what people think of me here anyway. I have my friends in real life, and real life is much better than online life anyway. Lawrence Solomon http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~lps/ lps@andrew.cmu.edu "Just because you're floating doesn't mean * This space inadvertently you haven't drowned." -They Might Be Giants * left with stuff in it. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <8r2vXmC00Ui307x3k0@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 15:58:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Lawrence P Solomon Subject: Re: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin's law Excerpts from internet.music.tmbg: 7-Apr-99 Re: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin'.. by Jim Kuemmerle@m.cc.utah. > do you mean to tell me that i could have put a stop to this thing right up > front if i'd just compared both of you to nazis right away? ;) yes, but everyone would laugh at you. :) Lawrence Solomon http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~lps/ lps@andrew.cmu.edu "Just because you're floating doesn't mean * This space inadvertently you haven't drowned." -They Might Be Giants * left with stuff in it. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <0r2vWgu00Ui307xDw0@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 15:57:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Lawrence P Solomon Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Excerpts from internet.music.tmbg: 7-Apr-99 Re: TMBG: Maybe another Fut.. by Bob Scott@tmbg.org > Because LPS is a 10 year old, and when they want to say something, they say > it with all the extra savoir faire of a chimpanzee shredding the Olsen > twins. I'm sure his mommy is proud. Because, really, who else was saying > that it's wrong to state an opinion (basically, that DOES sum up what LPS > was saying)? Because wh 1. resorting to name calling isn't much better than what you're accusing me of. 2. that's *not* what I was saying. It is never wrong to state an opinion as an opinion. it is usually wrong to state an opinion as a fact. see the difference? I'm not going to say it anymore, because if you haven't gotten it by now, you're never going to get it. Lawrence Solomon http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~lps/ lps@andrew.cmu.edu "Just because you're floating doesn't mean * This space inadvertently you haven't drowned." -They Might Be Giants * left with stuff in it. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <0r2vXNG00Ui307x2U0@andrew.cmu.edu> Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 15:58:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Lawrence P Solomon Subject: Re: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin's law Excerpts from internet.music.tmbg: 7-Apr-99 RE: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin'.. by "Maki, Michael G."@ci.mi > Well, that and Jay never tried to systematically kill an entire race of > people... oh yeah, that too. :) Lawrence Solomon http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~lps/ lps@andrew.cmu.edu "Just because you're floating doesn't mean * This space inadvertently you haven't drowned." -They Might Be Giants * left with stuff in it. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 15:50:23 -0400 From: Mark Message-ID: <370BB6FF.6A1@ameritech.net> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: TMBG: video comp/ tour dates! rachel wrote: > > am i the only person who hasn't gotten their video compilation in the > mail? No. That's because it doesn't come out till the end of April. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 15:16:49 -0500 From: Bob Scott Message-ID: <370BBD31.A82873AB@tmbg.org> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Lawrence P Solomon wrote: > Excerpts from internet.music.tmbg: 7-Apr-99 Re: TMBG: Maybe another > Fut.. by Bob Scott@tmbg.org > > Ah, we see the true monster has been slain. Perhaps he'll learn not to > > argue a moot point for days and over 50 messages, only to simply resort to > > childish 4 letter words (as opposed to Moot, which is quite an adult 4 > > letter word). I am so unhappy to be on the killfile of such an honorable > > ass. I thought I made it obvious that I was only arguing the point for fun, > > but apparently, Solomon's not certain about that, so he had to resort to > > such lowlyhood. Oh well. There will be other Kings... > > fuck is childish? I didn't know the word when I was a child. The context you used it in, in the "Help me, I can't prove a moot point that isn't worth proving" sort of way showed the childishness behind it. It wasn't necessarily the use of the word, but the apparent closing of your ears (killfile, I recall?). > arguing for "fun?" in what way? do you mean playing devil's advocate > or just jumping in to mess things up? if it's the latter, and you > weren't expecting to start a flamewar, then you probably haven't been > online very long. If you're trying to actually make a point, it's one > thing, but argument for argument's sake, especially in a place like > this, just causes trouble... Would you like the 5 minute argument, or the full half hour? bobscott@tmbg.org AKA Bob "Tying up the loose ends to other loose ends" Scott ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 15:14:03 -0500 From: Bob Scott Message-ID: <370BBC8A.42AD6399@tmbg.org> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Fact and Belief (Was: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref?) Lawrence P Solomon wrote: > Excerpts from internet.music.tmbg: 7-Apr-99 Re: TMBG: Maybe another > Fut.. by Bob Scott@tmbg.org > > Once again, I'll say this as clearly as I can, and as many others have > > clearly informed you, if you've even been reading OUR responses to the > > messages you seem to think no one understands that you've posted: If > > someone's knowledge doesn't cover everything known to mankind as a whole, > > there are obviously going to be times when they believe something to be > > factual when there might be more information to be gathered. This does not > > show ignorance, just that people aren't infallible. > > I see your argument. I don't think it's entirely accurate, though. The > idea is that there are two categories of things: > > Things people know for sure. > Things people aren't quite sure about. > There are also those things that people are completely unfamiliar with, of course. > > The only way to know something for sure is to have it proven. If you are a scientifically-minded person. There are several people out there who visit Lourdes to be healed. And then when they're healed, they 'know' that it was the divine will of God, no matter what anyone else might tell them. To them, it is a fact. To many Christians, it is a fact. To skeptics, it is the exact opposite. Causality is what is being put to the test here. Proof is different in different cultures, religions, groups of people. Many people think that it is a fact that there are people out there who can levitate through meditation. I do not. To them, it is a fact, to me it is not. > As a > result, everything else falls into the other category, and so even if > one believes something to be factual, unless they're prepared for a > debate, it's a good idea for them to state it as a belief, rather than a > fact. But belief sometimes lies in the realm of fact in people's minds. Evolution is a 'belief'. Creationism is a 'belief'. Which is a fact? I would say Evolution, but many would say Creationism, and I know this from my experiences in the skeptic ng (yes, I am a skeptic as well, though not as narrow minded as some who won't accept any idea unless it can be proven beyond a doubt). > What I'm saying is that if someone does believe something to be true > that isn't, they're not paying attention to their own possible lack of > knowledge, and assuming they are absolutely right. Maybe I'm just too > much of a skeptic, but anything that I'm not absolutely certain about > I'll not claim to be absolutely certain about. Can you at least agree that this thread has gone on for far too long when nothing is really being discussed that has anything to do with the price of a Maine lobster? I respect you as much as everyone on this list, as well as your opinions. That doesn't mean I agree with you, as I do not in this case. This list is an open forum for people to talk about TMBG and such. Really, this thread never should have gone too far beyond it's TMBG reference phase, but some of us have dragged it out, simply to state our beliefs. Let's let bygones be bygones and just keep believing what we're gonna believe, or, perhaps consider the ideas of others, and then throw them away for what they are. :P bobscott@tmbg.org AKA Bob "This calls for a quote!" Scott "All information is imperfect. We have to treat it with humility." -from 'The Ascent of Man' by J. Bronowski ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 May 1999 14:13:24 -0400 Subject: Re: TMBG: futurama wars? don't read this, please. Message-ID: <19990507.141329.2686.8.Phone_Book@juno.com> From: i think my name is jay or not >NO. I'm not saying you have to agree with it! That's BEEN my point >the >whole fucking time. You do, however, have to see a point to argue >against it. And you've been missing mine because you're arguing >against >something I haven't said. THAT is what I've been trying to say, and >you >keep missing it. let me try being as clear as possible: your point is that one should not state as fact what he cannot absolutely be sure as fact, as in false references to tmbg, is it not? i see that. i've said i see that ... if that is not your point, then quite obviously i'm doing something wrong. i have only argued because you effected a self righteous, angry attitude about the whole matter--that is what i'm arguing against. i saw your "point" from the beginning. however, i neither agreed with nor approved of the manner in which you stated it. that's the only point i've been trying to make--that you're being too angry, too testy, too self righteous. do you understand? please tell me you do. i fear for you if you do not. jay. ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 15:18:57 -0500 From: Bob Scott Message-ID: <370BBDB0.BE2DDDE0@tmbg.org> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin's law Jim Kuemmerle wrote: > On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Lawrence P Solomon wrote: > > > On any electronic discussion forum, such as a newsgroup or mailing list, > > the longer a flamewar goes, the more likely it is that someone will make > > an irrational comparison of their opponents in the flamewar to Nazis. > > When this comparison is made, the person making the comparison loses all > > credibility they ever may have had, and the flamewar ends. > > do you mean to tell me that i could have put a stop to this thing right up > front if i'd just compared both of you to nazis right away? ;) Anne Frank, indeed! BTW, who on this list really has much credibility to begin with? bobscott@tmbg.org AKA Bob "Mr. Klaw, Dr. Klaw, it's all the same" Scott ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 16:23:25 -0400 (EDT) From: "mike@journalx.com" Subject: TMBG: My feeling is... Message-ID: it may be time to re-evaluate your approach to things if you've just posted seven or more messages to the list in a row. I've been a part of this forum for a very long time, and the stuff that's happening now is making my jaw drop. I'd even venture so far to say that this is not an on-line community that John and John would be pleased to know was out there. There's a little something called credibility, and we're all losing more and more of it by the second. People who insist on lobbing written hand grenades back and forth should possess the common courtesy to move such a thing to private discussion, because the rest of us, it may safely be assumed, are not only getting sick and tired of the whole thing, but feel embarassed. I used to want to meet people from this list at TMBG concerts, but not any more. It used to be a community that I wanted to be a part of, but I've been watching this forum decline for a while now and it seems we've truly reached the bottom of the barrel. We're really scraping it these days. When I see worthy topics go unanswered and unexplored while stupid meaningless semantic arguments continue unabated for days or weeks, I begin to wonder if all of this is really such a good idea. It appears that when you attempt to create a congregation of like-minded people with the intent of sharing passions and ideas, what you end up with is a shooting gallery in which everyone tries to shake the biggest stick and all the good feelings which previously existed slowly get bleached away. There will always be some dissent in any forum of discussion, because everyone wants to believe that they are right about something, but the TMBG list seems to have gone way beyond that. It's madness, chaos, insanity. I've stopped wanting to post things that I think are valuable or interesting, because it seems people would rather argue and jockey for positions of power and influence rather than discuss one iota of the stated subject of the forum. We should be thankful that John and John spend little or no time here, for if they did, they would not find stimulating discussion, but rather mind-numbing rhetoric serving only to anger those who thought they were joining up for something fun. MIKe www.journalx.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 15:26:53 -0500 From: Bob Scott Message-ID: <370BBF8D.B71DB963@tmbg.org> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Lawrence P Solomon wrote: > Excerpts from internet.music.tmbg: 7-Apr-99 Re: TMBG: Maybe another > Fut.. by Bob Scott@tmbg.org > > Because LPS is a 10 year old, and when they want to say something, they say > > it with all the extra savoir faire of a chimpanzee shredding the Olsen > > twins. I'm sure his mommy is proud. Because, really, who else was saying > > that it's wrong to state an opinion (basically, that DOES sum up what LPS > > was saying)? Because wh > > 1. resorting to name calling isn't much better than what you're accusing me of. > > 2. that's *not* what I was saying. It is never wrong to state an > opinion as an opinion. it is usually wrong to state an opinion as a > fact. see the difference? I'm not going to say it anymore, because if > you haven't gotten it by now, you're never going to get it. > I believe that killfiling someone because of their opinion, and sitting about the list repeating the exact same thing equates the behavior of a child. Everyone understands what you've said, or at least gets the gist of it. But really, how long can you go on imagining that no one understands you? I personally feel that you've forgotten that the people on this list are 'people'. You act as though if they do something wrong, it must be pointed out, and trampled for several days before you can allow them to go back to their idyllic list-reading activities. bobscott@tmbg.org AKA Bob "Esterhaus" Scott ------------------------------ Message-ID: <19990407203027.7460.qmail@hotmail.com> From: "Todd Wetherbee" Subject: non-TMBG: I can just barely hear you Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 13:30:13 PDT ahem..erm...coughcough Well, all throat-clearing aside, I have a question to ask you all and it is unrelated to TMBG references, Futurama, Nazis, or chimpanzees shredding the Olsen twins. Sorry if that disappoints anyone. Okay, here goes: Have you ever been to a concert where you stood so close to the speaker that you heard an irritating high-pitched ringing in your ear after the show was over and then you went home and went to bed and woke up and went to work and worked all day and the annoying ringing still didn't go away? Because that has been my experience today. Does that mean that its permanent? Will I ever be able to detect bass with my left ear again? I feel so ...fragile. Somebody hold me please. Seriously, though, if anybody out there is into some real good jamming (and loud, I might add) they should check out String Cheese Incident (I'm sure Jordan has). They do a sweet folk-jazz-bluegrass kind of blend. It'll make you want to stomp around and dance like a crazy fool. They played last night for about 4 hours(!) with a set break that was oh, maybe 20 min. It was money. I got my exercise for the week. That's all. Todd _______________________________________________________________ Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:02:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "mike@journalx.com" Subject: Re: non-TMBG: I can just barely hear you Message-ID: > Have you ever been to a concert where you stood so close to the > speaker that you heard an irritating high-pitched ringing in your ear > after the show was over and then you went home and went to bed and > woke up and went to work and worked all day and the annoying ringing > still didn't go away? Because that has been my experience today. > Does that mean that its permanent? Will I ever be able to detect bass > with my left ear again? I feel so ...fragile. Somebody hold me > please. I saw TMBG in April 1992 at RPM in Toronto and the sound system was acting up, only the left speaker was working, and I was standing fairly close to it, and I ended up essentially deaf in my left ear for a week following the show. Fortunately everything returned to normal, though subsequent shows have left persistent ringing in my ears for a few days on occasion. Most likely I have suffered permanent hearing loss, and though I still never have done this, I recommend ear plugs, and I think I'll start using those. MIKe ------------------------------ Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19990407171239.00a88100@mail.csrlink.net> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 17:12:39 -0400 From: Dylan Flipse Subject: Re: TMBG: Lock Haven PA show At 08:25 AM 4/7/99 EDT, you wrote: >Anyone have any info about this show, the website isn't all that helpful. I >need a venue and ticket info, how much, where I can buy them and so on and so >forth. > >Any info would be greatly appreciated. (Note-first useful post on this list in a while.) This is all the information from an ad that has now run a few times in my hometown's Williamsport Sun-Gazette. I missed it the first time, and today in school, I had no less than a half dozen people mention it to me. I guess I talk about TMBG a lot, or something. Anyway- Lock Haven University SCC and Haven Activities Council Present They Might Be Giants with Special Guest Michael Shelly (The normal publicity picture of TMBG, in which half the band isn't even in the band anymore.) Friday, April 16, 1999 8PM Thomas Field House Doors open at 7:00PM Tickets: Free to LHU students, $10 public Tickets on sale April 5, available at PUB, Business Office, That's The Scoop in Lock Haven, the Rockstation in Williamsport, Bluetrain in State College For More Information, call 570-893-2125 Dylan "Happy as a Mike Leffel, if Mike were some sort of clam, and he wasn't being forced to read uncharacteristically juvenile posts from otherwise respectable blokes" Flipse Dylan Flipse - dflipse@csrlink.net http://www.flipse.com - Just do it ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 16:15:08 -0500 From: Bob Scott Message-ID: <370BCADB.4C7D9218@tmbg.org> Organization: They Might Be Giants, Unofficially http://www.tmbg.org Subject: Re: non-TMBG: I can just barely hear you Todd Wetherbee wrote: > Have you ever been to a concert where you stood so close to the > speaker that you heard an irritating high-pitched ringing in your ear > after the show was over and then you went home and went to bed and > woke up and went to work and worked all day and the annoying ringing > still didn't go away? Because that has been my experience today. > Does that mean that its permanent? Will I ever be able to detect bass > with my left ear again? I feel so ...fragile. Somebody hold me > please. When I was at a Violent Femmes concert (long story behind it, I'm not a big fan anymore), I was right up front, and was continually pushed close to the speakers. I'd say that for about 3 days, my ears were ringing, and felt somewhat airy (best term I can think to use). I wouldn't worry about it, so long as you're not exposed to such music for extended periods repeatedly. bobscott@tmbg.org AKA Bob "Peanut Butter Cup" Scott ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:18:08 -0400 (EDT) From: "Kirsten L. Brodbeck" Subject: Re: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin's law Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Bob Scott wrote: > Anne Frank, indeed! BTW, who on this list really has much credibility to begin > with? ooh! ooh! me! me! Okay, maybe not. But I did apologize for growling... Kirsten I knew you in another life You were the tears I used to cry Now you're the storm inside the waves When you touch me I float away. - David Garza ------------------------------ From: linnel@snet.net Message-Id: <199904072115.RAA18216@pop.snet.net> Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:13:30 -0400 Subject: RE: TMBG: non-tmbg: godwin's law > > of course, I can't really invoke it because, well, to compare Jay to the > > Nazis still wouldn't be accurate or appropriate. I despise Nazis much > > more than I despise Jay. > > > Well, that and Jay never tried to systematically kill an entire race of > people... ahem. how do YOU know what jay did this weekend? i heard the phrase "world domination" come up a few times in his plans... > But who's counting. the communists. jen ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 17:22:28 -0400 (EDT) From: "Kirsten L. Brodbeck" Subject: Re: non-TMBG: I can just barely hear you Message-ID: On Wed, 7 Apr 1999, Todd Wetherbee wrote: > Have you ever been to a concert where you stood so close to the > speaker that you heard an irritating high-pitched ringing in your ear > after the show was over and then you went home and went to bed and > woke up and went to work and worked all day and the annoying ringing > still didn't go away? Last October, I went to a Ultrababyfat/Bomburas/Man or Astroman concert and stood about a foot and a half from the speaker for most of the show... (well, it was crowded, okay? and I was getting away from the stinky hairy drunk man hitting on me) Needless to say, my left ear was not only ringing, but on the numb side when we left the concert. I still didn't have all of my hearing the next day, but it gradually came back, and by two days later it was completely back. At least as far as I can tell. ;) I'm a lot more careful w/ my hearing now, BTW; I carry earplugs and usually wear them at least for the opening band. They came in handy when I went to a Mekons show, and found that there were four really horrible bands opening for them... Kirsten I knew you in another life You were the tears I used to cry Now you're the storm inside the waves When you touch me I float away. - David Garza ------------------------------ From: LimeZinger@aol.com Message-ID: <5c068c4f.243d0ccb@aol.com> Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 15:32:27 EDT Subject: Re: TMBG: Anyone going to the Rochester show? In a message dated 4/7/99 2:28:25 PM, PRMega@aol.com writes: >Just wondering if anyone here is going to this show. This is going to be >my >4th TMBG show, and I was hoping to meet someone from this list there. Anyone > >going? i'm going. it'll be my 5th tmbg show. woo hoo. i'll be the one there that looks similar to the way i look right now. and i'll probably be looking for my tmbg-luvin' friends the whole time. and i'm short. sarah ------------------------------ Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:03:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Lawrence P Solomon Subject: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref? Excerpts from internet.music.tmbg: 7-Apr-99 Re: TMBG: Maybe another Fut.. by Bob Scott@tmbg.org > The context you used it in, in the "Help me, I can't prove a moot point > that isn't worth proving" sort of way showed the childishness behind it. It > wasn't necessarily the use of the word, but the apparent closing of your > ears (killfile, I recall?). It's not that I didn't want to hear your arguments - I'd heard yours. But you were arguing with something I hadn't said, and were continually ignoring what I was saying. I don't mind having a good argument, but when the people I'm arguing with aren't really clear on what I'm saying, what's the point, really? > Would you like the 5 minute argument, or the full half hour? I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue unless you pay. Lawrence Solomon http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~lps/ lps@andrew.cmu.edu "Just because you're floating doesn't mean * This space inadvertently you haven't drowned." -They Might Be Giants * left with stuff in it. ------------------------------ Message-ID: <370BD6E8.74A46325@sevenlands.com> Date: Wed, 07 Apr 1999 18:06:32 -0400 From: carlyn nugent Subject: TMBG: New Louisville show info I posted info on the Louisville show coming up on 4/28, but it has all changed. They've now decided to have the show at the Brown Theatre (app. cap. 1650) and the ticket prices are $22.50/$15.00 (? I'm guessing it depends on where the seats are). I just got my tickets...Fourth row, stage left...It'll be my third TMBG show (since they rarely come 'round these parts). Anyone else going? I'm going with a friend who's already a "sort of" fan and dragging along another who knows nothing about them. If he likes it, he may make history as the first Russian TMBG fan-convert ever. CN ~~ "I'm going to lash you to within an inch of your life. And then I'm going to have you." - Demons and Angels ------------------------------ Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 18:09:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Lawrence P Solomon Subject: Re: Fact and Belief (Was: Re: TMBG: Maybe another Futurama TMBG ref?) Excerpts from internet.music.tmbg: 7-Apr-99 Fact and Belief (Was: Re: T.. by Bob Scott@tmbg.org > There are also those things that people are completely unfamiliar with, of > course. true. > If you are a scientifically-minded person. There are several people out > there who visit Lourdes to be healed. And then when they're healed, they > 'know' that it was the divine will of God, no matter what anyone else might > tell them. To them, it is a fact. To many Christians, it is a fact. To > skeptics, it is the exact opposite. Causality is what is being put to the > test here. Proof is different in different cultures, religions, groups of > people. Many people think that it is a fact that there are people out there > who can levitate through meditation. I do not. To them, it is a fact, to me > it is not. right. but isn't that basically what I've been saying? They believe it is a fact. That does not make it so. > But belief sometimes lies in the realm of fact in people's minds. Evolution > is a 'belief'. Creationism is a 'belief'. Which is a fact? I would say > Evolution, but many would say Creationism, and I know this from my > experiences in the skeptic ng (yes, I am a skeptic as well, though not as > narrow minded as some who won't accept any idea unless it can be proven > beyond a doubt). but I never said I wouldn't accept any idea unless it is proven beyond a doubt. At least not as absolute truth. I will believe things without total proof, but even there only with evidence. I believe in Evolution, but it's unproven, as is Creationism. If the people who believed in Creationism were able to prove it conclusively, I'd have no choice but to believe (because, well, it would be true) As of right now, we don't know if either is a fact, just that Evolution probably is based on the evidence for it, and Creationism probably isn't based on the evidence both against Creationism and for Evolution. But this is another debate that I really don't want to get into, because it extends into religion. And if you think people are stubborn about TMBG references and 2:1 trading... that's nothing. > Can you at least agree that this thread has gone on for far too long when > nothing is really being discussed that has anything to do with the price of > a Maine lobster? I respect you as much as everyone on this list, as well as > your opinions. That doesn't mean I agree with you, as I do not in this > case. This list is an open forum for people to talk about TMBG and such. > Really, this thread never should have gone too far beyond it's TMBG > reference phase, but some of us have dragged it out, simply to state our > beliefs. Let's let bygones be bygones and just keep believing what we're > gonna believe, or, perhaps consider the ideas of others, and then throw > them away for what they are. :P people should get beat up for stating their beliefs. TMBG couldn't have said it better. :) Lawrence Solomon http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~lps/ lps@andrew.cmu.edu "Just because you're floating doesn't mean * This space inadvertently you haven't drowned." -They Might Be Giants * left with stuff in it. ------------------------------ End of tmbg-list Digest #16-34 ******************************