Precedence: bulk
Subject: Chalkhills Digest #6-290

         Chalkhills Digest, Volume 6, Number 290

                Wednesday, 25 October 2000


                       Re: SYWPTYRP
                RE: Jihad time again . . .
     My Poem About Talking About God On The XTC List.
             The Longing Look You Gave Me...
                       Bumble Nova
      *** FREE Crimson ticket if you act now!!! ***
              God told me to flame your ass
                       Re: Poozies
              Re: New EeeZee Skip Chalkhills
              Always Winter, Never Christmas
                        Bi-assed ?


    To UNSUBSCRIBE from the Chalkhills mailing list, send a message to
    <> with the following command:


    For all other administrative issues, send a message to:


    Please remember to send your Chalkhills postings to:


    World Wide Web: <>

    The views expressed herein are those of the individual authors.

    Chalkhills is compiled with Digest 3.7b (John Relph <>).

Methinks world is for you / Made of what you believe.


Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 09:13:19 -0400
From: "Brian" <>
Subject: Re: SYWPTYRP
Message-ID: <00b301c03dbc$2e469ee0$800affd1@Brian>


>Shut the fuck up, Brian.<

Sorry, Todd... that'll never happen.

-Brian Matthews
Insistence ain't existence.


Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:48:44 +0100
From: "Smith, David" <>
Subject: RE: Jihad time again . . .
Message-ID: <>

Errrr, so what is up?

Robert Miner said in 288

"I've never seen a mailing list more obsessed with religion."

I could actually point you to the discussion group on the soccer
website Football365, where about four times a year (funnily enough
around the time of the local derby match between Glasgow Rangers and
Glasgow Celtic), the air turns positively blue with sectarian, racist,
bigoted lunacy.

It's depressing, but at the same time a real education on man's
stupidity and a pointer to why, for example, "the troubles" in Ireland
may never go away.

All very sad, and it makes the *mostly* reasoned arguments on here
seem very tame in comparison.

Having said that, Rob you are so right - a few more XTC mentions would
not go amiss.

Bob J - the lightbulb? Brilliant me old son, just brilliant!

The Mole asked

	"Does anyone know if Sony were consulted before their
corporate name was used in "Respectable Street".

I would have thought - if they'd have even noticed - that they may
have considered it good advertising.

It's not the only song they've snuck into, like it or not. I refer you
to the track entitled (imaginatively) "Sony" on This Is B.A.D., the
first (and best) album by Big Audio Dynamite. In it, the venerable
Japanese mega-monolith-corp is used as the archetype of "here's what's
wring with Japan".

It's actually a good (funny) song from a generally good album -
exceptional for driving to.

Anyother shameless Sony plaugs we should know about?

Paulo X told us of hearing ITMWML over the speakers at the Sharks v
Stars game the other night. Paulo, was the game at Dallas or San Jose?
I only ask because when Dallas were in the playoffs last season, they
played Stupidly Happy during timeouts on more than one occasion.

If this was in Dallas as well, we may have uncovered a fan in the
music booth at Dallas' home arena!

That's all. I'm done. Ta ta.

Smudge "Hockey? On ICE???" boy


Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:24:21 -0400
From: "Duncan Watt" <>
Subject: My Poem About Talking About God On The XTC List.
Message-ID: <>

Lord Almighty <> hath spake, to the hapless Brian:

>My Son
<sni... wait, can I do that? Oh, what the Hell...p>

>We both know you are just fabricating this nonsense
>to attract attention to yourself..  Shame on you!!
>How about all the fox-hole prayers you mutter to me
>when you are in dire need?

'Twould be interesting to ponder
Whom exactly will burn
For longer
For this.

Well, at least I can put God on my mailing list now. 9,998 more Dieties to


Currently re-falling for Radiohead after hearing the Thom Yorke/Bjork duet.
There's a cool mix, Yorke and AP. Listen to "Just" from "The Bends", then
any AP 'rocker' since Black Sea, like "Merely A Man" et al... they need each
other! Perfect excuse to *really rock* for both of them, cool side project,
get the drummer from 311 and Kim Deal or better the original Smashing
Pumpkins woman for bass, no gigs, coolness! 'Net only release, couldn't cost
more than $50,000 to make, they could get that back off of CDNOW and Amazon
sales alone, then it's pure profit... or do it for a charity? Won't piss off
either band... hey a guy can dream...

Duncan "man, Selway really improved between "Pablo Honey" and "The Bends",
hm?" Watt

email me:
surf me:


Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 13:31:09 -0400
From: Richard Hamilton <>
Subject: The Longing Look You Gave Me...
Message-ID: <>


> May I once again point to the incredibly sublime "Harvest Festival,"
> which as far as I'm concerned is a perfect expression of Andy's "harmony
> of all that exists" religiosity? Think of the conflation of carnal and
> religious love that flows between the singer and the girl at the altar,
> all filtered through exquisitely observed nostalgia for childhood and its
> as-yet undisappointed possibilities. The mundane banality of the festival
> (itself a toothless echo of ancient celebrations of fertility) is
> suffused by something that I think Andy, if pressed, might call "God":
> The Longing Look.

While the aforementioned "longing look" is certainly the crux of the biscuit
(apologies to FZ) as Mr. Harrison so eloquently points out, I beg to differ
on the notion that this look necessarily promotes the "conflation of carnal
and religious love" or a notion of "God" specifically. In fact, through a
close reading (listening) of the lyrics, the "longing look" (the most
repeated phrase of the song) is essentially void of ANY attributable
meaning, outside the context of the speaker's feelings of fulfillment as its
result. Of course, a longing look that's "enough to keep me fed all year" is
a very inviting vessel one might be tempted to imbue with any number of
ideals (among them notions of God or love). The song ultimately succeeds,
however, (is "sublime"), not as a result of what the look "means", but
rather in what the look MIGHT mean. The purposeful ambiguity of the key
phrase (its meaningless-ness) is precisely what seems to make it meaningful.
Ultimately, the "look" raises more questions than it answers (as I think it
was intended, but that's another issue....).

Things we know about the look: it comes from one of the "two who have been
chosen", presumably as king and queen of the harvest festival (the
"toothless echo" of ancient fertility celebrations, as Mr. Harrison points
out). This notion is affirmed in the very next verse with the children with
hair like "corn, neatly combed in their rows." The connection between the
peaches in tins/two who have been chosen/children with combed hair: all are
products of the harvest and the cycles of life and death. The look occurs at
this point (and henceforth will be recollected in memory by the speaker) and
is described as a "longing look". "Longing" is generally understood as a
"strong desire," that can be used with either negative or positive
connotations when read in context (except that context here is incomplete).
Without further clarification, we are left with the following (unanswered)
questions: Is the longing in the look a happy longing or a sad longing? What
is the relationship between the looker and the speaker (or, why does the
speaker receive the look)? Why is the look meaningful to the speaker? When
the speaker says its "enough to keep me fed all year" what does he really

The bridge in the song is in stark contrast to the naive symbolism promoted
by the festival ("What a year when the exams and crops all failed"),
representing an aberration or arrested development of growth ("we all grew
and we got screwed and scratched our nails"). The "invitation in gold pen"
comes "out of nowhere" to bring the song back to the verse and (this time)
the ritual of marriage ("see that you two got married"). Apparently, the
speaker is unaffected by this news as is indicated by his simple response,
"I wish you well" (hardly the words of a someone in love). Instead, the
speaker returns to the recollection of that look, which at this point seems
to be the only shred of meaning that remains from the harvest festival of
his youth.

Some final thoughts: what type of "harvest" yields only a "look"? Of course,
a "look" by definition is ineffable, it cannot be expressed in words. How is
a look then celebrated or re-enacted through ritual? Is the ritual itself
effective at conveying meaning with all of its gaudy symbolism, or would the
speaker argue that the "look", whatever it was, and despite its ambiguity
and lack of any evidence to substantiate it, holds something more? Or is the
search for meaning doomed to failure, relegated to feelings and memories of
the past?

Rich Hamilton


Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 11:26:52 -0600
Subject: Millions
Message-ID: <>

Roger writes:   "The worst thing that could of happened to us humans was
developing our brains."

First of all, that would be "could HAVE happened."

Secondly, while I appreciate what you're trying to say about how we have
tended to treat the planet we live on, at the same time I find the concept
that everything would be better without us nasty humans to be
shortsighted. There's this thing that has come along with the development
of our brains called "consciousness," which I happen to enjoy. It is the
thing that makes it possible on one hand to appreciate a great XTC tune, or
on the other to think to ourselves that we're destroying the world we live
in, and maybe something should be done about it. You make me think of my
two dogs, who have my whole back yard to themselves. Every couple of days I
go out there and rake up all their poop for 'em. You know, if I didn't do
that, they'd keep pooping until they lived on a huge pile of it. I don't
know that it would ever enter their minds to clean it up. They'd just deal
with it until the situation became unlivable, and then they'd die. Of
course, if there weren't any nasty humans like myself around, they wouldn't
have to stay in a relatively small yard; they'd have the whold world to
poop in. It would certainly take a lot longer to make the whole world an
unliveable field of poo, but it might happen eventually.

Who's to say if humans didn't dominate this planet, that some other species
might have taken over (or might STILL take over eventually)? A species
without any consciousness of the ramifications of their acts? A species
that would eat and poo and eat and poo until the whole planet is a bigger
pile of shit than even humans have made of it? The reality is that humans
don't exist apart from the natural world, we're part of it, subject to it's
laws and forces, and the development of our brains is every bit as much an
expression of nature as any leaf or tree or lake or volcano or solar corona
or cosmic string or......................

What's funny is that it's that consciousness that makes intruders out of
us, separates us as we try to observe and understand, only barely aware of
how the simple act of our observing changes the systems that we're
attempting to grasp.  We are the test tube and the experiment and the
scientist all at the same time.  So here's one vote, at least, for
continuing this brain development of ours. If for no other reason than to
be able to enjoy the work of A. Partridge, et al............



Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 21:17:18 -0400
From: "Rich Greenham" <>
Subject: Bumble Nova
Message-ID: <>

I've had a couple of weeks to recuperate after Canadian Thanksgiving.  And
I really should be working on something else, but I can't resist...

So, hot from the oven, here's some holiday content for veetube's bumble
nova thingy:

You want some stuffing
I got some stuffing
In my bird (In my bird)
Where the bread crumbs
Dance with onions
Swirl with savory
In my turkey
(Roastin', bastin', tasty for you)
We can play, on this day
We can play at being Pilgrims
We can pray, in our way
We can pray `round My Butterball

Mashed Potatoes
Are made out of spuds
That get creamed up with butt-err-err-err
Mashed Potatoes
Are heaped up in a bowl
`Cause they're made by your Moth-err-err-err
Lots of lumps, lots of lumps
She makes them with lots of lumps
And you better clean your plate
I'm on seconds gasping
Want to worship at the Mashed Potatoes
Drowned in gravy
`Til them spuds go swimming around
Want to worship at those Mashed
Let me worship at the Mashed Potatoes

As my Mum would say after every meal, "Have you had sufficient?"

Cheers!  And Happy Thanksgiving to all those Chalkhillians to the south of
the Great White North!

Rich in Ottawa

ps.  Thank you, Sir Demon Brown!


Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:32:59 -0800
From: William Loring <>
Subject: *** FREE Crimson ticket if you act now!!! ***
Message-ID: <>

Okay folks, I'm running out of time. I still have a single Crimson Ticket
for November 1st. The show is at the Park West Theater. I can't go because
I'll be sitting on an airplane, flying back from stinking Las Vegas. I
arrive in Chicago too late to make the show. Sometimes life just sucks. But
hey, my loss is your gain!

Here's the deal: Because no-one has responded to my original post selling
this ticket for the face value of $35.00, and because I'm such a stunningly
nice person, I'll -give- this ticket to some lucky midwestern Chalker, if
you can get your info to me on time. First person to respond, gets the
ticket. Simple enough?

Here are the details:

Band: King Crimson (Robert Fripp, Adrian Belew, Trey Gunn, Pat Mastelotto)
When: Wednesday, November 1st, 7:30pm. Doors open at 6:00pm
Where: Park West, Chicago, IL
How much: Free!! If you respond quickly!

How to respond: Send an e-mail to Make sure you send
me contact and address info, so I can mail the ticket right away. We don't
have much time left!!

Good Luck!

William Loring


Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:40:39 -0700
From: Ed Kedzierski <>
Subject: God told me to flame your ass
Message-ID: <>

Well, first of all, in 6-288, newcomer Robert Miner said:
>I've never seen a mailing list more obsessed with religion.<

No, you just happened to come in in the midst of a big religious snit-fest.
Nothing unusual, although I think discussions of Dear God are usually the
starting points for these, unlike this time. You could have started reading
at some other time and think "I've never seen a list more obsessed with gun
control" or "I've never seen a list more obsessed with whether some other
artist than the one the list is devoted to sucks or not (Phil Collins,
anyone?)" or "I've never seen a list so obsessed with itself and what's
allowably on or off topic" etc. This thread will die off soon enough (most
people's posts are already taking on an "In conclusion" tone), and will no
doubt be back someday along with other old favourites and even some real
discussion of XTC. Don't worry about it (you might want to check out the
back issues to get an idea of some of the "cyclical topics that continually
return from the grave" if you're entertained by that sort of thing).
Oh, and hello, welcome, etc.

Also in 6-288, Harrison said:
		My post in #286 implied that all sides were equally guilty
of reviving our periodic bouts of unpleasantness over religion. Stupidly, I
didn't carefully review the origins of the debate, and failed to make the
connection between Jayne's very moving post about the loss of a relative,
and Amy's tender and humane offer of comfort in Jayne's sorrow.
Exactly. This throws everything, especially Brian's rather inconsiderate
reaction to someone's heartfelt condolences into a different light...
I does seem to me that we're talking manners and sensitivity here, more than
whose beliefs are more worthy. I had in fact forgotten completely about the
source of this thread, and can only imagine the horror and shame I would
feel if a fellow "unbeliever" sneered at someone's beliefs while that person
was trying to offer solace in a moment of grief. Brian was just showing off
without regard to the feelings of someone in a vulnerable place, and seemed
to assume that he had been presented with a consequence-free excuse to jump
onto something. The whole thread went off track when people focused on the
opportunity to have a battle about religion rather than the argument being
about sensitivity towards people's feelings. My take on this kind of thing
is basically "believe as strongly and as extremely as you like, but remember
to let sentiment and your own inner "Mr. Big Softy" act as a brake when
dealing with flesh and blood, feeling human beings."

Personally, I'm more of an agnostic with occasional "seeker tendencies", I
just say atheist when dealing with dogmatic types who want to incorporate
their conception of sin into secular law. I just generally get along better
with people who believe what they do because it resonates with who they are
than with hardline literal fundamentalist types (that's true of any belief
system). I've known plenty of intelligent, open Christians who actually
respond to questions about their beliefs by trying to answer rather than
becoming enraged at the mere act of questioning, but I'll admit that literal
fundamentalists can get my hackles up a bit. I've read too much about
Gnosticism, early Christianity, and generally how much the documents
composing the bible have been edited, censored, and just "done over" to ever
buy the fundamentalist line that every word (in translation, yet!) is to be
taken literally as having been dictated by the big G hisself (see just about
any book by Elaine Pagels and the English translation of the Nag Hammadi
Library). That doesn't mean that there's no truth to be found, just that
it's not all literal, and you need to use your brain and feelings in finding
it, and don't just blindly follow professional clergy types (true of all the
major holy documents of the big religions).

I remember I once took a religious studies class in college, covering
introductions to eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddism. The
instructor positively gushed at the beauty he found in these systems of
belief, and the things that western spirituality could learn from them. Not
such an original idea these days (or then), I  suppose, but I soon learned
that the instructor was in fact a Catholic priest, although he only ever
wore a normal suit. Less surprisingly, it turned out that he was forever in
trouble with the bishop and church authority for speaking out against church
policies he disagreed with, suggesting that other faiths were valid, etc.,
but he never let himself get pressured into shutting up, quitting or leaving
the church he so clearly believed he was helping to improve. He wasn't being
allowed to practice as a parish priest, hence the teaching job, but he
hadn't let them defrock or kick him out either. This guy had more faith in
the essential goodness of the world as a whole, and in the people around him
(when he looked at you, you believed yourself to be a good person, you could
feel his belief in that so tangibly) than I have in the fact that my own two
legs will hold me up when I stand. I'm always reminded of him when I think
of the type of "good religious person" that I like and respect.
Unfortunately, these loving positive types often don't get very far up the
chain of command (whoa-oh-oh-oh-oh) in organized religions, they just don't
seem constitutionally suited to it. As with all human social structures,
positions of power within churches (and don't think you're exempt if your're
protestant, or even of a completely unrelated faith) end up in the hands of
power seekers, who often use their own interpretation of scripture to
maintain their own power, which means a very restrictive and literal-minded
interpretation. What we end up with is a process that should be all about
opening up (spirituality, "true" religion, whatever you like) being twisted
into something that's all about clamping down. That's how we end up with the
whole pinch-faced American Gothic lemon-sucking-Calvinist "laughing is
sinful" image of Christianity that turns so many of us off.

Harrison also said:
>Need anything more be said? Could it be any clearer? THERE IS A REASON WE
Well, as much as a sucky idealistic part of me wants to say "but nothing
should be a restricted topic among reasonable people", I guess recent goings
on seem to prove your point... (and I realize I'm saying this just after
rambling on about religion myself, but I'm not trying to put anyone down,
just get across how I feel in this area)

To Tom Kingston:
I wasn't trying to piss you off, and I'm not trying to now, but all you've
really convinced me of is to transfer more of my scorn for Castaneda to his
skills (or lack thereof) as an author. It was in fact the third volume you
mentioned that I cast aside just into the first chapter when it looked for
all the world like it was just going to be more of the same. Maybe it's the
fact that I was about 17. Anyway, I ended up throwing him over for the likes
of Wilson and Leary, whether you think that's foolish or not is pretty
irrelevant now, as it's been a long time since I've been in that place (see
Bowie's Quicksand: "Cause I ain't got the power anymore...") Actually, I
read up on piles of that kind of stuff for a good full couple of years
before even touching psychedelics, and had a real "seeker" attidude about
them, including being insufferably snobbish towards contemporaries who used
them as party favours. What a little snotbag I was. Ah well.

The "boy in blue" thing...
I remember this going on when I started reading the list, looong before I
ever de-lurked. I was strongly tempted to post then (but I felt I had the
big de-lurk, history of XTC-listening post to get done first before posting
about particular topics, which took me a good year to get around to doing),
because this was one of the most bogus lyric-interpretation arguments I'd
ever read. I never imagined him as anything other than a cop, and that was
first listen, before pulling out the lyrics as I got more into ES. The
weakest argument I can remember (I'm as lazy as the next guy when it comes
to archive-fishing) reading from that thread was the idea that Andy never
would have used the word "boy" to refer to a policeman because it would have
been "disrespectful"! Of course, no one would ever be less than worshipfully
respectful of the police in a pop song! (And I'm not saying Andy is a
Molotov-throwing "off the pigs" anarchist or anything, but come on, he's not
exactly Mr. Authority-worshipper either) And as far as I can recall (no
specifics, sorry) the term "boys in blue" always had more of an affectionate
ring to it than a derisory one (and proprietary: "our boys in blue who keep
us safe" etc).
And the first verse sets the scene, that doesn't mean it can only list the
family members. That's just silly. Sorry.

Actually, Drums & Wires was more my punk-days jumping around with spiky hair
album, more than Black Sea. I'll make a little confession here: I didn't
listen to Black Sea all the way through until I became a full-on XTC fan.
When I was just a casual, er, "appreciator", and XTC was just a group I
liked among many others putting out stuff at the time, I played D&W all the
way through pretty regularly, and usually just played BS for Respectable
Street and Generals & Majors. Obviously, you don't need to tell me that I
was missing out (and I like to think I've played and re-played it enough to
make up for early neglect). Some years later, I bought "Look Look" and
seeing the video to "Towers of London" actually got me to really listen to
side two for the first time. Isn't that shocking? (Maybe if they'd stuck
with the "Terry and the Lovemen" idea...) On the other hand, I already had a
copy when I became interested, so I had that nice experience of discovering
a bit of neglected treasure already in my own collection...

Oh, and the good ol' Mole said:
		Does anyone know if Sony were consulted before their
corporate name was used in "Respectable Street". I can't remember ever
hearing about Sony being ticked off about it but I was listening to it last
night and I was thinking how if that song was released today Sony would
probably sue them faster than Brittany Spears changes clothes. Anyone have
any insights?
I don't know for sure, but I think that the extreme "we'll sue you're asses
off if you so much as mention us without approval, whether you say anything
negative about us or not" thing is relatively recent, though I'm surprised
they didn't run into the old BBC "free advertising" thing that got us
"cherry cola" in "Lola". Things have become pretty ridiculous lately,
though. I wrote a low-budget comedy, and was surprised at the things that
the director, a friend of mine, had to cut for fear of legal trouble. One
scene involving a character trying to use a series of credit cards that are
declined and cut in half had to be cut to the degree that the joke was
destroyed, due to the fact that he was afraid to use names like "Visa" etc.
without permission (and trying to get it was beyond our budget; I had
foolishly though that keeping the script low budget merely meant avoiding
big stunts and special effects). At this point, Respectable Street is
probably quite safe, as it's been out there for so long. Same with Monty
Python's "Bicycle Repairman" sketch; try putting something on TV these days
featuring people wearing the proprietary Superman costume design without
permission and see how long it takes for DC comic's (a division of
Time-Warner) lawyers to start breathing down your neck. Now, of course, it's
been around so long, it's considered a "classic" and Python are so respected
that DC wouldn't dare do anything other than laugh it off, but try doing the
same thing now...  I think the absolute "maintain strict control of our
name, even when it's just so much as mentioned" attitude didn't really start
to get as rigid as it is now until into the 80s, but I could of course be

Still patiently looking forward to the stuff Mitch was telling us about (I
was in a record store the other day, and was slightly depressed by the fact
that I currently have no reasons left to check the XTC section of the
rack...I started almosy automatically to walk towards the aisle where the
alphabet ends, only to realize "Shit! There's nothing left! I've got
everything, at least that a normal, non-collector/specialty record store
like this is going to have!")

Ed K.

If you believe in nothing, honey,
It believes in you
For God's sake don't waste any faith on me
-Robyn Hitchcock "Ye Sleeping Knights of Jesus"


Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:59:27 +0100
From: Adrian Ransome <>
Subject: Fudge!
Message-ID: <497FEA72C392D3118AE700508B731177B431EC@NT4SERVER03>

Ryan Anthony revealed of his retriever/collie Susan B Anthony:

>she and the Airdale have (gasp!) licked
>out the fudge pan dozens of times

Oooh! Matron!
I'm not sure that's the sort of information you should be divulging in a
public forum...... ; )



Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 08:48:27 -0400
From: sjacobs <>
Subject: Re: Poozies
Message-ID: <>

on 10/25/00 1:23 AM, <> at
<> wrote:

>>> Has everyone else heard. The Poozies sing "Love on a farmboys wages?"
>>> The best cover ever.
> Well S, I have heard a couple of XTC covers and I tell ya I will see
> your Poozies and raise you "Making Plans for Nigel" by the Burning
> Heads. A bit obscure but I reccomend searching it out. Nigel as a
> 'punk' as it were is "quite" fun.
> themolefromtheministry

Ok, challenge accepted...but tell me this!  I never realised how much of a
traditional folk song, "Love on a Farmboys wages" was until I heard The

You know it really could be an Olde English traditional folk song.

Hidden influences everywhere...sometimes it takes a different light to
realise it. So much cool Reggae hidden in XTC as really!!
All the best mateys



Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 08:24:42 -0400
From: "Brian" <>
Subject: Re: New EeeZee Skip Chalkhills
Message-ID: <004e01c03e7e$8e4a2880$570affd1@Brian>


>Just got back from two weeks in sunny Florida - nicer part of the world
>than I expected it to be.<

You are lucky. The last few weeks around here have been some the absolute
BEST weather we've had here in quite a while.
Pat yourself on the back!

>I'd like to thank those of you who made it so easy for me to catch up with
>the eight outstanding issues of Chalkhills by filling them with YARDS of
>self-serving afterlife opinions.<

You are quite welcome.

>I don't doubt the validity of ANYONE'S beliefs but c'mon guys 'n gals -
>we're all friends here (aren't we?), and no matter what others say, are
>any of us going to change our beliefs at this stage of our life? I don't
>think so.

That would be a stretch.
Some of you know each other personally, I'm sure, so that's the place and
time for friendship.
There must be another word for the relationships, as such, that are forged
between those who only interact with each other online.

>At least I was able to skip two thirds of the content - makes the Middle
East look like a minor spat!<

Funny you should bring that up... to what problem - besides real estate
acquisition - can we trace that little fracas back to?

>Sounding a bit like Yoda, my message is simple: Believe, or don't believe.
>You have a choice - make it.

It's a bigger issue than that, as far as I'm concerned.

BTW, to all: I loathe how I was not allowed my own personal take on XTC song
lyrics around here, and how several people here have decided, in their anger
against me (which says quite a bit, IMHO) to resort to language that I
personally have decided not to just throw around hither and yon, in the
interest of maintaining SOME civility. Just thought you ought to know.

-Brian Matthews
Insistence ain't existence


Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 06:15:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ira Lieman <>
Subject: Co-inky-dink?
Message-ID: <>

Hi all,

I now work in downtown Manhattan, and I take the subway to get there.
I'm listening to Oranges & Lemons on random play (so I can tune in
something other than the wandering harmonica players) and the guy
standing next to me (closer than my wife would, but it wasn't by
choice) opens the New York Post to the article "Garden of Beefy
Delights" (link: as Track #1 comes
thru the headphones. (That's "Garden of Earthly Delights" to the

What a beautiful world this must be for such synergy on the E train.

Let's Go Mets!


Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:17:32 -0400
From: MinerWerks <>
Subject: Always Winter, Never Christmas
Message-ID: <a04310100b61c58e1a64b@[]>

Where are all the musicians?

Where is everyone who shared their massive lists of instruments and
recording gear?

When I made the suggestion of compiling a Chalkhills holiday album, I
heard from TWO people. I think more people were interested in
contributing to the mythical cover-all-songs-of-XTC collection...
But, just in case it was overlooked or some of you may reconsider,
I'm suggesting it again.

I'd like to make a CD of holiday songs BY the members of Chalkhills
FOR the members of Chalkhills.

As an example of something more elaborate, someone wrote me
suggesting they might rewrite Andy's Merry Christmas jingle from a
promotional record into a full song in a Beach Boys-ish style.

But I'm interested in other ideas, too. If you've written any
original holiday songs (Thanksgiving, Xmas, New Years, Chanukah,
Kwaanza, Boxing Day, or anything else celebrated in November or
December), consider submitting them for this collection.

If you're rewriting a song for Vee's Turkey Pluto "exhibition",
consider putting it to music and submitting it!

If you have a favorite holiday song, and you can make it sound more
XTC-ish, by all means, give it a shot!!

If you don't have a lot of resources or musical instruments at your
disposal, consider recording a brief message or greeting to the
members of Chalkhills. I'd be happy to include those as well.

I'd like to hear from anyone who might be interested in doing this,
but I'll need to know fast. If I don't hear from anyone else (other
than the wonderful people who already contacted me), then I'll assume
there's not much interest in this idea and I'll cancel it.

= Derek =


Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:50:51 +0900
From: "John Boudreau" <>
Subject: Bi-assed ?
Message-ID: <000401c03e91$3d6b5c00$735791d2@johnboud>

Tyler Hewitt wrote :

>The following
>book was recommended last time around:

>The Case For Faith : A Journalist Investigates the
>Toughest Objections to Christianity " . It is by Lee
>Strobel and published by Zondervan Publishing House

>Zondervan Publishing is a very large Christian
>publishing firm. It's not going out on a limb to
>suggest that the reporting in this book might be a
>little biased.

Name me one newspaper or nightly news program that isn't biased . You gonna
stop reading newspapers and watching the news ( might be a great idea
actually ... ) ? Does that mean what they say is not necessarily true ? I
thought you open-minded wanderers out there would be interested in reading
the OTHER side of the story . You are already dismissing this book without
having read it because it was written by an athiest turned Christian , and
the publisher has not printed warning labels on the book saying  WARNING :
THIS BOOK MAY CONTAIN BIAS ! ... Did the  publisher
of Charles Templeton's book " Farewell to God : My Reasons for Rejecting the
Christian Faith " go " out on a limb " to suggest that
the book might be a little biased ?  Or any other book about atheism for
that matter ? Why are Christian publishers held to a different standard ?
Your remarks show YOUR prejudice .



End of Chalkhills Digest #6-290

Go back to the previous page.