From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #701 Dead-Flames Digest #701, Volume #48 Fri, 28 Oct 05 12:00:01 PDT Contents: Re: NDC Neo-con traitor indicted (leftie) Re: Is Steve Kimock really this bad? (naught@nil.com) Re: Bob Set/Phil Set 10-27 ("Peat her Rabbit") Re: Bob Set/Phil Set 10-27 ("Peat her Rabbit") Re: Bob Set/Phil Set 10-27 ("Peat her Rabbit") Re: Is Steve Kimock really this bad? (JC Martin) Re: Bob Set/Phil Set 10-27 (wyeknot) Re: Bob Set/Phil Set 10-27 (wyeknot) List of those to lie in honor at Capitol Rotunda (wyeknot) Re: I am thinking of driving up to Vermont today. ("Rogues Island's finest") Re: Bob Set/Phil Set 10-27 (leftie) Re: I am thinking of driving up to Vermont today. (leftie) Re: I am thinking of driving up to Vermont today. (kpnnews@yahoo.com) Re: Fitzgerald (JC Martin) Re: Phil at Bimbo's ("Andrew Murawa") Re: Rove gets pass???? (kpnnews@yahoo.com) Re: Is Steve Kimock really this bad? (brew ziggins) Re: List of those to lie in honor at Capitol Rotunda ("scarletbgonias@hotmail.com") Re: The year 1972 (pbuzby2002@yahoo.com) Re: NDC Neo-con traitor indicted ("DevsVult") Re: what should the United States do with combatants who don't belong to regular armies? (jbd4020@hotmail.com) Re: Fitzgerald (JC Martin) Re: NDC Neo-con traitor indicted ("The Iron Muffin") Re: Rove gets pass???? (leftie) Re: Rove gets pass???? (JC Martin) Re: Rove gets pass???? (leftie) Re: Anybody get Creamed @ the Garden last nite? (Spider Dawg) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: leftie Subject: Re: NDC Neo-con traitor indicted Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:43:38 -0700 It's beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas! :-) ------------------------------ From: naught@nil.com Subject: Re: Is Steve Kimock really this bad? Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:45:51 +0000 (UTC) leftie wrote: > > This disc grew on me a lot with a couple of listens. The first listen > had my expectations overwhelming the sounds. After I could really hear > what was there I came to like the release a lot. > > I think that Vermont reviewer *maybe* listened to *some* of this disc > once and let his preconceptions do the rest. Meh, it's just a reviewer doing what reviewers do. It's no different from the many bad reviews the Dead, or any number of good acts have gotten from the random reviewer. Either a kind of music grabs you or it doesn't. If you're coming from an entirely different set of expectations, looking for a different set of aesthetics, you're guaranteed to not like stuff that doesn't fit. Hell, I remember reviewers absolutely excoriating Glenn Gould. As a musician, you have to do what you have to do. The only types of comments or reviews I ever take issue with are those with misinformation, like "lack of jazz training." In Kimock's instance, I assure you that his grasp of harmony is very andvanced. It just may not be the kind of conception of harmony that turns a jazz guy on. ------------------------------ From: "Peat her Rabbit" Subject: Re: Bob Set/Phil Set 10-27 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:28:56 GMT It would have been interesting around 30 years ago. Now its oldies night exactly!! can you say "milking the turkey"? ------------------------------ From: "Peat her Rabbit" Subject: Re: Bob Set/Phil Set 10-27 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:29:18 GMT 95 did not count ------------------------------ From: "Peat her Rabbit" Subject: Re: Bob Set/Phil Set 10-27 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:31:42 GMT some people like hearing mickey hart singing. some prefer his playing drums. some prefer hearing garcia play guitar. some prefer his painting. de gustabis non disputandum est ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: Is Steve Kimock really this bad? Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 17:56:01 GMT naught@nil.com wrote: > leftie wrote: > >>This disc grew on me a lot with a couple of listens. The first listen >>had my expectations overwhelming the sounds. After I could really hear >>what was there I came to like the release a lot. >> >>I think that Vermont reviewer *maybe* listened to *some* of this disc >>once and let his preconceptions do the rest. > > > Meh, it's just a reviewer doing what reviewers do. It's no different from > the many bad reviews the Dead, or any number of good acts have gotten from > the random reviewer. Either a kind of music grabs you or it doesn't. If > you're coming from an entirely different set of expectations, looking for > a different set of aesthetics, you're guaranteed to not like stuff that > doesn't fit. Hell, I remember reviewers absolutely excoriating Glenn > Gould. As a musician, you have to do what you have to do. The only types > of comments or reviews I ever take issue with are those with > misinformation, like "lack of jazz training." In Kimock's instance, I > assure you that his grasp of harmony is very andvanced. Really? On what level would you say? Compositionally, I'm not blown away. Someone like Fleck (another jam-jazzy-lite guy) is far more sophisticated harmonically and his compositions bear that out. -JC -JC >It just may not > be the kind of conception of harmony that turns a jazz guy on. ------------------------------ From: wyeknot Subject: Re: Bob Set/Phil Set 10-27 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:58:05 -0400 Peat her Rabbit wrote: > some people like hearing mickey hart singing. some prefer his playing > drums. some prefer hearing garcia play guitar. some prefer his painting. > de gustabis non disputandum est And some people like spouting. Matt ------------------------------ From: wyeknot Subject: Re: Bob Set/Phil Set 10-27 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:58:53 -0400 Peat her Rabbit wrote: > It would have been interesting around 30 years ago. > > Now its oldies night > > exactly!! can you say "milking the turkey"? Can you say "attribution"? Matt ------------------------------ From: wyeknot Subject: List of those to lie in honor at Capitol Rotunda Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:05:13 -0400 List of those to lie in honor at Capitol Rotunda 1852: Henry Clay, Kentucky representative, senator and sec'y of state. 1865: Abraham Lincoln, president. 1868: Thaddeus Stevens, Pennsylvania member of the House. 1874: Charles Sumner, Massachusetts senator. 1875: Henry Wilson, Massachusetts senator, vice president. 1881: James Garfield, president. 1886: John Alexander Logan, Illinois representative and senator. 1901: William McKinley, president. 1909: Pierre Charles L'Enfant, architect who designed Washington, D.C. 1917: George Dewey, admiral, hero of Manila Bay in Spanish-American War. 1921: Unknown soldier of World War I. 1923: Warren Harding, president. 1930: William Howard Taft, president. 1948: John Pershing, general of the armies of the United States. 1953: Robert Taft, Ohio senator. 1958: Unknown soldiers of World War II and the Korean War. 1963: John F. Kennedy, president. 1964: Douglas MacArthur, general during World War II, Korean War. 1964: Herbert Hoover, president. 1969: Dwight D. Eisenhower, president. 1969: Everett Dirksen, Illinois representative, senator. 1972: J. Edgar Hoover, first FBI director. 1973: Lyndon Johnson, president. 1978: Hubert Humphrey, vice president, Minnesota senator. 1984: Unknown soldier of the Vietnam era. 1989: Claude Pepper, Florida representative, senator. 1998: Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson, slain Capitol police officers. 2004: Ronald Reagan, president. 2005: Rosa Parks Matt ------------------------------ From: "Rogues Island's finest" Subject: Re: I am thinking of driving up to Vermont today. Date: 28 Oct 2005 11:10:58 -0700 John Doherty wrote: > > ba ba booie wrote: > > > > > > > How cold is really up there? > > > In article <1130503521.889544.163580@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > "Rogues Island's finest" wrote: > > > > It's nipply today and the weather Saturday is supposed to be shit. Cold > > rain and snow... > > "Nipply", eh? > > I hadn't heard that variation. I've adopted it as a way to combine two of my favorite things: winter and nipples. Perhaps thats three things, but you get the idea. > I expect that's colder than nippy, cold enough to cause a reaction on > this part of the anatomy? ;-) Bingo. > Is there some standard, for nipply? Like under a wool shirt with a > T-shirt? Another one of my rules: any level of nipply perkiness, provided they are not aimed at the floor, is most welcomed. > Maybe "nutly" is even colder? ;-) That would be numbnuts, and it most certainly IS colder. You must never speak of it again. Mark ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: Bob Set/Phil Set 10-27 Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:12:29 -0700 Rick L wrote: > The second set was... What?!?!? You stole my trick! You bastard! (j/k... hope you had a good time!) ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: I am thinking of driving up to Vermont today. Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:14:01 -0700 Rogues Island's finest wrote: > John Doherty wrote: > >>>ba ba booie wrote: >> >>>>How cold is really up there? >> >>In article <1130503521.889544.163580@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, >> "Rogues Island's finest" wrote: >> >>>It's nipply today and the weather Saturday is supposed to be shit. Cold >>>rain and snow... >> >>"Nipply", eh? >> >>I hadn't heard that variation. > > I've adopted it as a way to combine two of my favorite things: winter > and nipples. Perhaps thats three things, but you get the idea. > >>I expect that's colder than nippy, cold enough to cause a reaction on >>this part of the anatomy? ;-) > > Bingo. > >>Is there some standard, for nipply? Like under a wool shirt with a >>T-shirt? > > Another one of my rules: any level of nipply perkiness, provided they > are not aimed at the floor, is most welcomed. > >>Maybe "nutly" is even colder? ;-) > > That would be numbnuts, and it most certainly IS colder. You must > never speak of it again. "Shrinkage! It's shrinkage!" - George Costanza ------------------------------ From: kpnnews@yahoo.com Subject: Re: I am thinking of driving up to Vermont today. Date: 28 Oct 2005 11:18:54 -0700 Rogues Island's finest wrote: > John Doherty wrote: > > > ba ba booie wrote: > > > > > > > > > > How cold is really up there? > > > > > > In article <1130503521.889544.163580@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > "Rogues Island's finest" wrote: > > > > > > > It's nipply today and the weather Saturday is supposed to be shit. Cold > > > rain and snow... > > > > "Nipply", eh? > > > > I hadn't heard that variation. > > I've adopted it as a way to combine two of my favorite things: winter > and nipples. Perhaps thats three things, but you get the idea. I smiled when I read your initial post. I use the same term as do alot of my relatives... from New England. Kurt ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: Fitzgerald Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:20:00 GMT Wow, this dude is lpulling no punches. -JC ------------------------------ From: "Andrew Murawa" Subject: Re: Phil at Bimbo's Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:26:24 -0700 "Joe" wrote in message news:3sf5deFo2f9uU1@individual.net... > I think Phil finally found his proper station in life. Being the > fill-in > bass player for DNB, until Billy fully recovers from his rat bite. Heh... Exactly... ------------------------------ From: kpnnews@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Rove gets pass???? Date: 28 Oct 2005 11:30:34 -0700 JC Martin wrote: > Bradish wrote: > > "JC Martin" wrote in message > > news:8vs8f.1299$te3.21468@typhoon.sonic.net... > > > >>Don Bean wrote: > >> > >>>I hear that Rove gets a pass and Libby does not.... We will see > >>>today.......... > >> > >> > >>I hear differently. Libby gets indicted today. Rove is still under > >>investigation (likely to be indicted later)...meaning that Fitzgerald will > >>extend the grand jury. That's definitely not a good sign for the Bush > >>administration since folks like Dick Cheney and others could be looked at > >>in more detail. And IMO, the extending of the grand jury is a worst-case > >>scenario for the Bush administration. > > > > > > How about indicting some folks here for spending every waking minute > > obsessing over politics? > > > > Go take a walk and enjoy the day...forget about washington for 30 minutes... > > > > What are you, some mind reader or something? I don't think about > politics all day and I happen to hike far more than your average guy or > gal. Yeah, I like discussing politics with some people here. Different > strokes for different folks bud. Discussing politics just isn't a > negative for me. If political posts bum you out so much and preclude > you from enjoying the day, don't read 'em. Sheesh. What bums me out is the apparent prevailing political notion that the ends justify the means. Scooter is but a pawn in how policy is implimented today; however, I am a believer in law and don't apologize for his behaviour. I just see it all around. Anything to bring GWB down, it doesn't matter. Anything to get prayer back in schools. Anything to preserve the right to choose. Anything to advance my agenda and discredit yours. That does depress me. We are ripe for a second coming; know what I mean? If someone came along and was straight up in their approach, we'd all think the rapture was happening. Kurt ------------------------------ From: brew ziggins Subject: Re: Is Steve Kimock really this bad? Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:33:13 -0400 Thus spake haha@yahoo.com... > But I guess when you listen to something like Bruce Hornsby > enough, someone like Kimock seems cutting edge. ROTFL!!! -- bruce higgins ithaca ny most of the day, we were at the machinery ------------------------------ From: "scarletbgonias@hotmail.com" Subject: Re: List of those to lie in honor at Capitol Rotunda Date: 28 Oct 2005 11:33:34 -0700 You go girl... ------------------------------ From: pbuzby2002@yahoo.com Subject: Re: The year 1972 Date: 28 Oct 2005 11:33:35 -0700 JonP wrote: > On 28 Oct 2005 07:43:07 -0700, "Dylanstubs" > wrote: > > >> scarletbgonias@hotmail.com wrote: > >> The copy of 9/21/72 sounds pretty good, although I'm sure the official > >> release will sound better. > >> > > But dix may cut stuff out of their release..Songs, jerry solos, maybe > a phil bass solo here or there but other than that and the 20 dollar > price tag its probably one of the greatest dead shows ever....Ill > never understand why they cut the shows up..And cutting up jerrys > solos?...yikes... As far as I know, the only time a Phil solo was cut from a DP was on DP1, and it was because Phil insisted on it. Since DP3, the band has not been involved with the DP's (although DP15 was a Dan Healy multitrack mix which may have been done before the band dropped their involvement, which might explain the edited "He's Gone"). When has a Jerry solo been cut? (Are you thinking of the "Eyes" from the GD Movie Soundtrack? Not a DP...) Pat Buzby Chicago, IL ------------------------------ From: "DevsVult" Subject: Re: NDC Neo-con traitor indicted Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:38:28 -0400 "Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message news:5ft8f.3770$8W.3631@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com... > Why in the hell has it taken this long to indict that > preppie, neo-con, traiterous son-of-a-bitch ? I mean > shouldn't it be illegal to be older than 19 and still > be called "Scooter" ? And shouldn't Dick Cheney be > locked in a room and sexually assaulted by a horny as > hell 800 pound gorilla fired up on cheap meth ? > > Inquiring minds need to know. > > -- > Ken Fortenberry You just can't stand the fact that the so called neo-cons value Israel and include her safety and protection in their efforts to eliminate threats to our own security. You i would say approach traitor to a greater degree in thought and expression though thankfully not in influence than any of those crafting our foriegn policy.May your world view never prevail in this Nations leadership. ------------------------------ From: jbd4020@hotmail.com Subject: Re: what should the United States do with combatants who don't belong to regular armies? Date: 28 Oct 2005 11:51:34 -0700 Sparky the Wonder Dog wrote: > We get your (repeated) point--grtflmark--still you misread the > Convention. The original querstion was written with the Convention in > mind--which is why the term "enemy combatant" was used in the first > place. > > And that "burn the piss out" remark seems pretty shrill to me. Also > barking. Throw in moonbat. Btw, my impression is that warfare is not, > on the whole, a series of satisfyingly sadistic episodes but very hard > work in very difficult weather with long episodes of boredom punctuated > by unanticipated episodes of extreme fear and knife-edge emotional > spikes. Maybe the unit you served in was exceptional. > > OK--here is what the Convention, reprinted by you (thanks), actually > says. > > The Convention does NOT make a distinction between national armies and > terrorists or even national armies and "unlawful" combatants. It makes > a distinction between "lawful" and "unlawful combatants." Uh, the conventions don't use the term "unlawful combatants" anywhere. In fact no international conventions use the term. Here's a good piece dispelling some of the myths about the term written by Jelena Pejic is a Legal Adviser in the Legal Division of the International Committee of the Red Cross. See #2 for discussion of "unlawful combatants": http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-miscon.html > These "enemy combatants"--"unlawful" OR "lawful" can be regular army > soldiers OR guerillas (your own post). It is NOT their formal > organization that makes them "lawful" or "unlawful" but how they > BEHAVE. It is their formal organization that determines whether they are a "combatant" in the first place. "Combatant" is actually a legal term defined in the 1st Protocal to the Geneva Convetions, as (basically) persons who are acting at the behest of a state actor in international armed conflict. These people have certain rights (the right to fight in war) and responsiblities (not to break certain rules when doing so). If the person has no formal state organization but is still fighting, he's just a civilian accused of criminal activity. He would fall under the protections of the 4th Geneva Conventions relating to civilians. > So Al Qaeda in Iraq are "unlawful combatants" because of how > they act False. They aren't "combatants" in the legal sense because a "combatant" is a person who is acting at the behest of a state and who therefore has a "right" to engage in combat on that basis. People who are supposedly in Al Qaeda are civilians that are accused of criminal activity. They would fall under the 4th, not the 3rd, Geneva Convention. > (no "recognizable signs" and they don't "carry arms openly", > don't conduct operations by "customs of war"--by blowing up children > and worshippers in mosques, beheading civilians, descecrating corpses, > etc.) I would argue that the contractors cited by Sean are, even if not > formal Army with signs of rank, "lawful combatants." > > But we can see from the Conventions excerpt why the Bush administration > believes that Al Qaeda is not "protected by the laws of war." They > don't meet the requirements. It doesn't matter if they did meet the requirements. Those requirements are for combatants. Even if civilians did follow all those rules when taking up arms they could still be prosecuted under the law for taking up arms. Only combatants have a right to take up arms and they aren't combatants. ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: Fitzgerald Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:53:47 GMT *LOL* I'm listening to the press conference on Limbaugh's show and Limmy keeps mumbling "Bill Clinton" over Fitzgerald answers. Sheeeeeeeeet~ -JC ------------------------------ Reply-To: "The Iron Muffin" From: "The Iron Muffin" Subject: Re: NDC Neo-con traitor indicted Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:02:02 -0400 DevsVult wrote: > Ken Fortenberry wrote: > > Why in the hell has it taken this long to indict that > > preppie, neo-con, traiterous son-of-a-bitch ? I mean > > shouldn't it be illegal to be older than 19 and still > > be called "Scooter" ? And shouldn't Dick Cheney be > > locked in a room and sexually assaulted by a horny as > > hell 800 pound gorilla fired up on cheap meth ? > > > > Inquiring minds need to know. > > You just can't stand the fact that the so called neo-cons > value Israel and include her safety and protection in their > efforts to eliminate threats to our own security. You i would > say approach traitor to a greater degree in thought and > expression though thankfully not in influence than any of > those crafting our foriegn policy.May your world view > never prevail in this Nations leadership. Looks like Crissy Heresy changed his screen name. -- The Iron Muffin DEAD FREAKS UNITE Who are you? Where are you? How are you? ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: Rove gets pass???? Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:56:25 -0700 kpnnews@yahoo.com wrote: > Scooter is but a pawn in how policy is implimented > today; Horseshit. Scooter nhelps design and implement policy. He's Cheney's Cheney, the VP's own personal Rove. ------------------------------ From: JC Martin Subject: Re: Rove gets pass???? Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:58:26 GMT leftie wrote: > kpnnews@yahoo.com wrote: > >> Scooter is but a pawn in how policy is implimented >> today; > > > Horseshit. Scooter nhelps design and implement policy. He's Cheney's > Cheney, the VP's own personal Rove. I actually have to agree. -JC ------------------------------ From: leftie Subject: Re: Rove gets pass???? Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:59:46 -0700 JC Martin wrote: > leftie wrote: > >> kpnnews@yahoo.com wrote: >> >>> Scooter is but a pawn in how policy is implimented >>> today; >> >> Horseshit. Scooter nhelps design and implement policy. He's Cheney's >> Cheney, the VP's own personal Rove. > > I actually have to agree. That's twice in one month we agree. Something seems amiss in the universe. ;-) ------------------------------ From: Spider Dawg Subject: Re: Anybody get Creamed @ the Garden last nite? Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:59:57 -0500 On 2005-10-25, ba ba booie wrote: > Anybody get Creamed @ the Garden last nite? > > > Just wondering if any reviews are out from last nites show. Anyone here > go? Good, bad, ugly? > > > booie....... I've just gotten home from Wednesday night's show, too fatigued to go into much detail right now but I can say I had one of the best, if not *the* best times of my life. I'm not just talking about the show but NYC in general. The show was awesome, even though I knew what song was coming up next except for the surprise of TOBU (I hadn't read any reviews). To my ears they sound great together, more my cup o' tea than any of them on their own. They sound great, and they and everyone around me seemed to be having a wonderful time. I know I was, but I realize that much of that was from plain ole giddiness from *finally* getting to see these guys jam together. For events to see while in NYC, it doesn't get much better than this for me anymore. And I also owe a *huge* "Thank You" to everyone who posted NYC advise for me. In addition to Liberty Island, Times Square (against the advise to avoid it, sorry), Empire State Building, and a few other places, I also got to experience: Ray's Pizza (6th Ave & 17th St, BTW). Delicious, something different about the crust I can't quite explain, but from what I've read in "best pizza" threads here I'd guess it's the water. Still not as good to my tastes as the family owned joint a few blocks from me, but excellent just the same. Katz Deli for bagels and cream cheese for breakfast, and corned beef on rye with mustard and pickles on the side for the rest of the day (We dare you to finish one). Awesome. Bagels had a similar taste to the pizza crust, reinforcing my "it's in the water" theory. Definitely the best bagel I've ever had, but one I bought at a corner shop tasted the same as what I get here. Corned beef was far and away the best I've ever had, and gigantic. 2 meals, with pickles left over for the ride home. I even went with the Cel-Ray, even though I don't particularly like it. Museum of Modern Art. Well worth the $20, just for the Picassos. It's always a thrill to see a painting I recognize, and since I'm a "I don't know art" kinda guy that doesn't happen often. I now have a much better appreciation of Pablo's work since I've seen some of it up close and in person. I have to say though, I just don't get a lot of this stuff. I guess I'm more of a classic art fan, much like my taste in rock music. The Sleeping Gypsy and Warhol's Campbell Soup cans were other highlights. Ollie's Noodles (the one in Times Square) for roasted pork, rice, and steamed shrimp dumplings. One of the plainest looking meals I've ever seen, and possibly the best I've ever eaten. I know that's saying a lot, but they should be sainted (or whatever) for whatever they used on the pork. Out freaking standing. Thanks RMGD!!! Jim ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .