Precedence: bulk
Subject: Chalkhills Digest #6-291

         Chalkhills Digest, Volume 6, Number 291

                Thursday, 26 October 2000


             christ almighty... (XTC content)
                    Re: God to my dog
                 Re: Immaculate Reception
              Economical With The Actualite
       Heaven is paved with poo and mashed potatoes
   Rook Pt.2 (stick your hand inside the Pumpkin head)
                    The best I can do
                         XTC meal
                    Sony subreference
                A crow comes home to roost
                      Re: Bi-assed ?
          RE: I reserve the right to be simple!
                     re poozies again
                   Re: Wayland's Smithy
                    aw fuck it already


    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 <>).

He lead them up a garden path.


Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:09:26 CDT
From: "Megan Heller" <>
Subject: christ almighty... (XTC content)
Message-ID: <> kids sure can talk a lot.

Perhaps a poor choice of words.

I've actually been deleting digests a lot lately, not at all because of
content (it seems to have started before this whole, I don't know, thing
that I'm noticing by skimming the last couple digests), but because I don't
have enough time to read the intructions on a frozen dinner at this point,
much less the digests.  Grad school & all.

But anyway, my undergrad roommate sent me something today which I'm afraid
may be a little controversial considering the latest topics of conversation,
so I would just like to emphasize that it doesn't have *anything* to do with
*any* of this, well, stuff.  Y'know, religion stuff.

She (a vegetarian feminist who practices witchcraft, but so much more than
stereotypical labels) sent me, as a joke, a long warning written on some
website talking about witchcraft and "feminist" spirituality, and the way in
which things like "Lilith Fair" are warping the minds of teenage girls.

I choked when I saw the following (XTC-related) quote--
"While we don't know about Sarah McLachlan and overt witchcraft, we do know
about her rabid hostility to God as expressed in song (see below for the
lyrics of "Dear God.")"

excuse me?  written by...?

and, at the end of the article--
"Pro-pagan, anti-God.......

Sarah McLachlan Shakes Her Fist

Here's what our young people are listening to at the witch-friendly Lilith
Fair, on the radio, in their rooms...

"Dear God" by Sarah McLachlan

Dear God,
Don't know if you noticed, but....
Your name is on a lot of quotes in this book
Us crazy humans wrote it,
You should take a look [etc...]"

[note-- she heard this on the radio somewhere?]

So, ALL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION ASIDE, I was simply startled by Sarah McLachlan
getting all the credit for Partridge's musical ode to religious doubt, minus
a small-print "original lyrics by XTC" at the bottom.  Sheesh.

so, XTC-related.  Not religion-related, not "Dear God" debate-related.  XTC
related.  Don't blame me.



Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:53:25 -0400
From: "Brian" <>
Subject: Re: God to my dog
Message-ID: <009d01c03ea4$186980e0$ce0affd1@Brian>


>I suggest a round of applause for our cuddlesome<

You know this for a fact?

> and remarkably patient sensei, Mr. Relph, for refraining
> from blowing his whistle and ordering all of us out of
> the pool during the recent religion thread.

Perhaps he agrees with the dissenting statement of apparent fact.
Or is it that bothersome "Dear God" song (XTC content, for those of you
Did I misinterpret that one, too?

> Here in the tiny universe known as the Anthony Hamster
> Ranch, I am god. One of my dogs, an Airdale, is really
> a cat in disguise and heretically deems me no better
> than a slow, oafish servant, but the other, a
> retriever-collie mix yclept Susie B. Anthony, is a
> true believer.<

Sorry, but I can't make sense of the sentence... what is "yclept"?

>That's my infallible take on religion, and if you
don't like it, you can go to Cat.<

I've got one of those.

-Brian Matthews
Insistence ain't existence.


Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 12:39:55 -0400
From: "Brian" <>
Subject: Re: Immaculate Reception
Message-ID: <009101c03ea2$35188f80$ce0affd1@Brian>


> 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?

There's a heads up.
I had a set of lyrics for "Respectable Street" at one time that indicated
the line was "...sorry entertainment centres..."
I hadn't even given it any thought since, as I figured it was just another
quirky A.P. way of complaining further about the neighbo(u)rs.
Of course, now that I read the lyrics in my CD, they do say "...Sony
entertainment centres...".
I wonder if the change to "sorry" was someones' response to this issue.
Does anyone else recall seeing "sorry" instead of "Sony" in lyrics anywhere?

-Brian Matthews


Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 21:32:22 +0200
From: "Mark Strijbos" <>
Subject: Bollocks
Message-ID: <>

> I'm probably not the only one to post this info, but on Friday's
> "Never Mind the Buzzcocks" on BBC2 Kirsty McColl & Sean Hughes
> 'performed' the intro to Making Plans for Nigel as part of the "guess
> the intro" round.
Oh bollocks!

That's just _so_ annoyingly typical... I ALWAYS watch this show but
i manage to miss one with a reference to our Heroes.

i'm sure that i do not have to point out that the song in question was
in fact produced by Kirsty's (ex?)hubby Steve Lillywhite but i'll throw
it in anyway.

Another mildly interesting factoid: Steve L. pulled out of the Nonsuch
production jobbie in order to save his marriage to Mrs. McColl and
our Heroes ended up in the hands (or rather: at the mercy) of Gus
"Gussington" Dodgy instead. So i think it's fair to say that Kirsty has
played a far bigger role in XTC's career that we usually give her
credit for!

yours in an anorak,

Mark Strijbos


Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 21:11:35 +0100 (BST)
From: Rory Wilsher <>
Subject: Economical With The Actualite
Message-ID: <>


David Edwards quoth:

As retailing analyst Victor Lebow noted:

"Our enormously productive economy demands that we
make consumption our way of life, that we convert the
buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek
spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in
consumption. We need things, consumed, burned up, worn
out, replaced, and discarded at an ever increasing

Poisongold, aka MJC, then commented:

Capitalism (in its pure form, not the politically
contaminated mixed economies of the "capitalist"
world) is the one and only economic expression of "DO

The main problem with this is that the last three
words are usually omitted. See Engels, Marx, etc. I
disagree with their conclusions, but they did have a
point about laissez-faire capitalism. There are areas
where intervention is required. Also, current
environmental thinking has a bearing here. I'm a great
believer in capitalism myself, and the "trickledown
theory" whereby the overall effect of increased
prosperity in society helps everyone who chooses to
participate in the economic system (not everyone by
all means, even in our "developed" societies. I'm not
a big fan of "care in the community", or "how to save
money and feed lions at the same time".) Just an
example: in the UK, a figure is regularly bandied
about that "25% of people live below the poverty
line". 98% of UK households own a television.
Perchance we're setting this "poverty line" a tad too
high? Ask a sub-Saharan African about that
sometime...(gets off soapbox)

The Lebow quote applies not merely to the pervasive
consumerism of our age, but also to the
"military/industrial complex" so beloved of conspiracy
theorists: the "mature" (ha!) democracies (aka
dictatorships) actually have a vested interest in
fostering low-level warfare amongst "less-developed"
(double-ha!) countries in order to ensure the
consumption of arms and munitions, and connive in this
via the Security Council of the UN, thus keeping their
arms manufacturers and armies in business through
repeat orders, "peacekeeping" missions etc.

Points to ponder:

Where did Saddam Hussein get his weapons? (USA,UK,
USSR (as was) et al). All United. Like Manchester.
(Probably means nothing...when will MUFC have a
nuclear capability? Are they signatories of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty? :-)) Come to think of it,
where did Iran get all its weapons for the Iran/Iraq

Why are the British armed forces so well trained?
(They have a practice yard in Ulster)

Was the Falklands War a marketing exercise? (British
weapons are better than French ones)

On the "science as religion" side of things: a true
scientist understands the depths of his ignorance.
Chances are, our current understanding of the physical
world will seem laughably quaint 100 years from now,
as they whizz around through hyperspace and transmute
metals as a routine process whilst communicating via
telepathy ("can you believe it? 100 years ago people
had to sit in front of MACHINES called COMPUTERS,
typing out "e-mail" on a "keyboard" in order to
communicate! How PRIMITIVE!"). There's a reason why
Einstein and Darwin called their ideas "theories".
That's all they are, and they were humble enough to
know it. At the moment, they're the best we've got,
but then, so were the ones before. They're not

More points to ponder:

A(n almost) serious post from me. Must be the sign of
a new world order.

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're NOT
out to get you (aaahhh! normal service has been

OK, we've done religion. Can we move onto politics

Rory Wilsher

SYWPTYRP - ancient Chalkhill saying


Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 21:32:22 +0200
From: "Mark Strijbos" <>
Subject: Next?
Message-ID: <>

Dear Chalkers of the Hill,

> A couple of points on the great religion debate

Sure, here's a few:
 - boring
- off-topic
- load of poppycock
- irritating

> propose a new XTC mailing list without light bulb discussions.
me too!

I hate light bulbs; they really make my life hell.
Always breaking up and if they do function properly they eat up lots
of precious polluted electricity.

XTC content? you must be kidding!

yours in xtc,

Mark S. @ the Little Lighthouse


Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 21:43:04 EDT
Subject: Heaven is paved with poo and mashed potatoes
Message-ID: <>

Kirk said:

<<<snip> to make the whole world an unliveable field of poo <snip>>>

I believe my toddler son may beat your dogs to that goal.

Rich, no, I've not "had sufficient." Your Thanksgiving lyrics were brilliant!
I haven't laughed that hard in a long time.



Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 21:46:08 CDT
From: "vee tube" <>
Subject: Rook Pt.2 (stick your hand inside the Pumpkin head)
Message-ID: <>

        Once upon a digest,weary.
       Of and not God, me so blurry.
       As I pondered glorious lore,
       Came a...

        (need I say it?) Tapping.

        "Tis a 'Hiller, I Mummered".

     (probably looking for more of Msrs.
          D.Brown's cakes and ale!)

       And every creeped out Chalkster,
      Wrought their ghost upon the floor!

         (are you spooked yet? I am!)

      And heard above the chamber door,

    "Ack!Ack! I'm a F'n Rook you stupid F'K!
     You want the Raven! He's with Lenore!"

  Startled by this ungainly logic,so aptly spoken.
  Fell asleep watching football. To be awoken,

       By the rapping,rapping (need I say it?)

       Quoth the Rook, "Read from my book!"

       (This is getting real scary now!)

   The 'things of evil prophet-still's' began running
  around the the town square, yelling, "look out for the
  Rook!" "It's the ROOK! It's the ROOK! It wants you to
  read from it's BOOK!"

       And still, I hear the,rapping,rapping,tapping...



Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:51:30 -0400
From: "Brian" <>
Subject: The best I can do
Message-ID: <005401c03f00$071461a0$590bffd1@Brian>


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


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


> > 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.

Thank you.

> 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............

And to that I raise a toast.

> 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...

Ok, I can check the archives, too.
Here's what I said:

>Perhaps this is only a feeble attempt to assuage your fears, but:<

Admitting right up front that I may not be Mr. Nice Guy here...

>You are merely mortal.
>We all are, with no exception.
>People die all the time. Except for the grief that their loved ones face<

Acknowledging such...

>there is no other earth-or-universe-shattering result that occurs.
>As for your own personal fear of dying: I wrestle with this on occasion,
>too... it's tough to be a sentient being. We think too damned much.
>When you go, you go... period.
>Worried about that yawning abyss of nothing that comes when you die? You've
>already been there (figuratively-speaking), before you were born.
>Same thing.
>No, I do not believe in in an afterlife, or a supreme being. It's as much
>nonsense as we know the gods of the Romans or the Greeks are.

I'm still trying to figure out exactly how I was _rude_ here.
I didn't call The Worrier Queen names, as someone had said, and I didn't
poke holes into any belief of hers that she wasn't already flip-flopping
about in her post:

>>I'm not sure if I believe in an afterlife, or heaven and hell.
The thought that Terry is no longer *is* makes me afraid, afraid that
one day that's what will happen to me.
The selfish little thought that I am merely mortal.
Don't want to die like you.<<

I can't prove the truth of this, but I do sympathize with people who have
lost loved ones.
I've lost someone I could have loved... should have loved... one-and-a-half
hours out of his mothers' womb.
I told a woman in a car at a big local festival last weekend I was helping
with parking control at that I was sorry for her loss when she told me of
her son who committed suicide some years ago.
My wife had a dearly-loved aunt who passed away a couple of years ago... and
two grandmothers, also.
How do you think I'd be getting along if I had acted with the reckless
abandon attributed to me on this list around my wife and her loss?

Worrier Queen, whatever your real name is, I am sorry for your loss.
Perhaps this will be considered too little too late, and I can't help that
now. It's as heartfelt as I can make it, and you'll have to decide whether
or not you'll accept my apologies. On one hand, I committed a faux pas, and
I regret doing so.

On the other hand:
My convictions about the rest of it stand firm.
Recommended reading: 'God And The New Physics', by Paul Davies.
I am reeling.

> Harrison also said:
> >Need anything more be said? Could it be any clearer? THERE IS A REASON WE

I say the reason we don't discuss religion in public is that the religious
were the ones who squawked first when it came to being shown up by logic and
reason. No one asked me if I wanted a ban on it. And I'd vote "Nay."

> The "boy in blue" thing...
> And the first verse sets the scene, that doesn't mean it can only list the
> family members. That's just silly. Sorry.

Didn't say it wasn't a valid way of doing things... just that there might
have been a MORE valid way, especially where it affected my perception.
If I interpreted the lyrics such as I did, why am I being taken to task for
it? Because I tried a little vehemency in trying to back up my subjective
interpretations? Because someone decided to yank it out of the closet and
use it against me when I started stepping on some cybertoes?

> 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.

Oh, we were arguing religion... didn't you hear?

-Brian Matthews
Insistence ain't existence.


Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:53:20 -0700
From: "Victor Rocha" <>
Subject: XTC meal
Message-ID: <01b801c03ede$c0f027c0$>

I don't mind the GodTalk/MummerCrusade as long as I get the occasional
morsel of XTC info (i.e. the signed poster, the fuzzy warbles demos)

that's why I read every chalkhills digest.

Victor Rocha


Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:35:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Rodney E." <>
Subject: Sony subreference
Message-ID: <>
Organization: Inspiracy Press

"Give me Honda, Give me Sony/So cheap and real phony."  So said the
Clash.  Ironically, of course, CBS were bought out by Sony, who
currently press at least 4 different Clash CDs with "Magnificent
"I think the 20th Century will be remembered as the only time in
history when people were more afraid of words than they were of guns."
							- Joe Bob Briggs


Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:36:22 -0400
From: "Todd Bernhardt" <>
Subject: A crow comes home to roost
Message-ID: <>
Organization: Enterworks, Inc.


> >Shut the fuck up, Brian.<
> Sorry, Todd... that'll never happen.

What a pity. Evidence:

> 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.

In Chalkhills #5-174, Curtiss Hammock wrote:
>Perhaps I've misinterpretted this, but I've always thought that the song
["No Thugs in Our House"] was referring to the *woman's* father, or
Graham's grandfather. The lyrics are kind of ambiguous, but it works out
better for me that way.<

To which BM replied, in #5-176:
>Man, Curtiss, did you ever listen to (or read) the lyrics to "No Thugs
In Our House"?
They are quite clear on the matter.
Juvenile delinquency of the typical order, with Judge Dad yanking No.1
son's ass out of the fire.<

Hmmm ... little tolerance, it seems, for Curtiss' "personal take on XTC
song lyrics."

It's this attitude that prompted me take you to task that time, as it
did this time, and that's when you shared *your* personal, very dogmatic
take on the song's meaning, including your interpretation of who the
"boy in blue" is. Oops.

I don't give a rat's ass what your views on religion or lyrics are --
you have as much right to them as anyone else. But you should treat
others as you expect to be treated ... in the interest of maintaining
SOME civility.

Or you should just shut the fuck up.


Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 06:08:35 +0000 (MET)
Subject: Re: Bi-assed ?
Message-ID: <>

Tyler Hewitt mentioned:

>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.

On which Sushiman ("John Boudreau" <>) fumed
(don't know what his subject heading - which I used - refers to, you'll
have to ask him):

> Name me one newspaper or nightly news program that isn't biased.
That's not the point here, is it? Fallacy #1.
> Does that mean what they say is not necessarily true ?
I think the terms "true" and "false" hardly apply to any religion -
basically what's Tyler is implying is that while the title of said book
has an air of impartial, objective research to it, the name of its
publishing firm betrays otherwise. Would you think "God: Real or Hoax?"
by the International Communist Publishing Company is objective?

> I thought you open-minded wanderers out there would be interested in
> reading the OTHER side of the story.
We are, but we'd like to know what we're getting beforehand. As almost
all of Joseph Campbell's work illustrates, it is possible to write on
religion in an objective manner.

> 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 :
Read carefully: "it's not going out on a limb here....biased." Tyler's
not dismissing it, he's merely stating that it might not be as objective
as the title would otherwise imply. Context is everything.

> ... 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 ?
Dear, dear, you're being frightfully stubborn. Templeton's title
(probably) promises all it delivers.

> Why are Christian publishers held to a different standard ?
> Your remarks show YOUR prejudice .
Fallacy #2: no Christian publisher is held to a different standard, only
this one in this particular context. Please get off your high Christian
horse and read posts more carefully next time. Fallacy #3: in what way
exactly does this show Tyler's prejudice?

Marty "I'm not saying about Todd Bernhardt - oops, I did already!" van


Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:35:41 +0100
From: "Smith, David" <>
Subject: RE: I reserve the right to be simple!
Message-ID: <>

It is I, le Smudge.

Brian responded to my e-mail regarding calling you guys friends:

	Friends? That would be a stretch . . . There must be another word
	for the relationships, as such, that are forged between those who
	only interact with each other online.

Well, maybe I'm a soft sap, but I like to regard people I have interesting
and enjoyable interactions with as friends (pweeease be my fwiends,

Perhaps, "e-friends" would suffice if one really wants to make the
distinction (especially as I DON'T actually know any of you personally
- yet. Rory, about that Croydon chapter beer . . .)

Brian also said

	BTW, to all: I loathe how I was not allowed my own personal
	take on XTC song lyrics around here

Have to agree with you there - I think you simply fell victim to the
fact that you had managed to rub a few people up the wrong way at that
time. Had you posted that part at another time (and maybe taken the
"anyway, here's my take, for what it's worth" standpoint) I think the
responses would have been different.

Still, things are calming down, thank God (or not). Sorry, couldn't
resist!  That was a joke, OK?


Duncan Watt on Radiohead - love the idea of a collaberation, can't see
those two getting on at a personal level somehow. Far too similar in

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

Didn't he just! Mr Selway gives me hope for my drumming future.


Richard Hamilton's lengthy post on Harvest Festival was very
interesting, but it highlights (see Brian's lyrical interpretations)
how the same song can mean different things to different people.

My take on this is that the "longing look" was simply a one-off
incarnation of some buried desire between two schoolkids, which
probably meant much more to the "lookee" (subject of the look) than it
may have ever meant to the "looker".

I also didn't for one minute see the subject as one of the "two who've
been chosen" simply because, in my time at school, when we did indeed
have these "Harvest Festival Assemblies" the ones who were chosen were
invariably from the youngest section of the school, far too young to
be exchanging longing looks. It was us older kids (15/16 year-olds)
who were far more interested in each other than the service itself -
probably resulting in some longing looks!

Finally, I saw the final verse "you two got married and I wish you
well" as a poorly disguised declaration of the subject's deep
disappointment at the outcome, while he ponders what might have been
had he reacted to the look - and for me, that's the crux of the song.

I suppose the only conclusion I can come to is that what a song might
mean to someone is probably more shaped by our own opinions and
experiences than maybe we realise.

A final point, I think the lyric is either:

"We all grew and we got screwed and cut and nailed"


"We all grew and we got screwed and curtain nailed"

Any offers?

Kirk Gill's dogs

	It would certainly take a lot longer to make the whole world an
	unliveable field of poo, but it might happen eventually.

Two thoughts - one, ever heard of fertiliser? Two, some (many) would
argue that we've already turned the world into an unbelievable field
of poo.  :-)

Rich Greenham

	Mashed Potatoes
	Are heaped up in a bowl
	`Cause they're made by your Moth-err-err-err

You sir, are added to the list of geniuses (geneii?)

Laters . . .

Smudge "Davy's got the bends" boy


Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 08:53:59 -0400
From: sjacobs <>
Subject: re poozies again
Message-ID: <>

 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.

Good lord man, I had the sad misfortune to be browsing on everybodies
favorite "file sharing" website,and came across a lamentable version of
"Nigel" by none other than that meek mannered and humble chap...Robbie
Oh dear me!!!  I only downloaded about 10 % of the track before I aborted
the travesty that I was hearing.
"The Nap**** that shall remain nameless" is a glorious source of
inspiration.  I end up buying so much more music (much to my wife's dismay),
that I would never have heard in the first place.  Since moving to America,
local phone calls are free, so I can leave my electronic computational
device on, downlaoding all night!!!

Deep Joy viva la revolution!!


Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: pancho artecona <>
Subject: Re: Wayland's Smithy
Message-ID: <>

There must be another word for the relationships, as
such, that are forged between those who only interact
with each other online.




Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tyler Hewitt <>
Subject: aw fuck it already
Message-ID: <>

ok, I posted suggesting a possible bias in a book
published by Zondervan, got called prejudiced for
doing so, and was all set to respond to those charges.

No. Fuck it. I'm tired of all the religious discussion
here anyways, and I'm not getting sucked in.

The complaints I have against that post should be


End of Chalkhills Digest #6-291

Go back to the previous page.