ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/mobility/archive/v01.n322

Internet Message Format | 1999-02-02 | 25KB

From: [e-mail] (mobility-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: mobility-digest V1 #322
Reply-To: mobility
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-No-Archive: yes

mobility-digest      Wednesday, February 3 1999      Volume 01 : Number 322



Re: @@@@Re: (mobility) I am, well not so new...
Re: (mobility) boring
Re: (mobility) boring
Re: (mobility) @@@@here's some reality for Ed & Tim.
(mobility) blah...blah...blah...
(mobility) @Off Topic? Don't read it
(mobility) Anyone know Moby's background?
Re: (mobility) @Off Topic? Don't read it
(mobility) Your Ideal Videos
Re: (mobility) i am desprate
(mobility) Demons & Horses (was: i am desprate)
(mobility) @@@@here's some reality for Tim.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:12:31 -0600 (CST)
From: TARUN PATEL <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: @@@@Re: (mobility) I am, well not so new...

ON that note....anyone know just how many innocent people were killed by
the "British Empire" and their cronies.  I guess when you kill 1 person,
thats murder, and when you kill by the thousands, you're an empire.

btw, i love England.  its damn good place to live as far as i'm concerned.
But cant really change the past, now can we.

On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Chris Bourke wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Feb 1999 [e-mail] wrote:
> > Britain had a relatively positive impact
> > on their colonies.
> >
> > Oh really!?
>
> Yes, really.
>
> I originally intended to leave the message like that as a joke, but I
> can't resist elaborating(something that you should have done).
>
> Britain ended the legal descrimination of India's caste system that had
> prevailed for thousands of years, creating one of the most stable third
> world democracies(to this day!) who have a majority vote and still respect
> individual liberties.
>
> In Africa Britain ended centuries of tribal warfare in their colonies,
> bringing about peace and relative order, giving structure again to
> governments and society as a whole
>
> Britain was the first European country to ban slavery, and not just in
> Britain, they banned it in the entire empire, saving millions of lives and
> staving off the slave trade.
>
> In general, Britain was interested not in nationalistic conquest or
> violent repressive expropriation, rather they were interested in expanding
> markets and opening trade routes by forcing GOVERNMENTS(little more than
> local and regional tyrants) to lower trade barriers.  In China for
> example, Britain ended the tyrannical hold on the economy during the Opium
> wars.  The contact and influence of latent enlightenment principles
> Britain brought with them were the positive impact that they had on their
> colonies.
>
>
>
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Feb 1999 04:02:30 -0700
From: "M. Rice" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) boring

>this list has gone far too boring, and i am too bored to read it anymore..


Then don't.  No one forces anyone to read anything.  Unsubscribe.  It's not
hard.

>i don't really wanna even know your personal moby favourites or something
>like that. some point for the mails , please.

This is a Moby list.  In spite of arguments on the list about what is 'on
topic,' certainly no one can doubt that personal Moby favorites are on
topic.  This is a list of Moby fans talking about Moby and his music.

>and other thing is that moby's music is ain't as good anymore as it was
>back in 92-95.. almost every new produtions are quite awful, i hate to say
>that, but i think so.

Good, think it.  Not everyone will agree.

>personally i have gone more for deep house and stuff like that. I just love
>that deep & mood chicago house, that is what good music should be. i love
>kevin yost, mood ii swing, wamdue kids, jori hulkkonen , glenn underground
>and artists like that. anyone else here who likes too?


There is nothing that 'good' music should be.  What defines 'good' music is
a person's taste.  I think all of your favorite artists are worthless shits.

Besides, this is a Moby list, not a jori hilkkonen list, not even a deep
house list.  M-O-B-Y

>moby's music is too "pop" for me nowdays.


You sound like an underground kiddie that bitches whenever someone else
discovers an "underground" artist, or when an "underground" artist gets a
little radio play.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:00:47 -0500 (EST)
From: "Eric M. Goldberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) boring

> This is a Moby list.  In spite of arguments on the list about what is 'on

really?
for a second i thought it was the history channel.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 09:16:24 -0700
From: "M. Rice" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) @@@@here's some reality for Ed & Tim.

>> >The U.S.A. was also built on colonialism to get where it is
>> >today - the native peoples didn't get much say when it came
>> >to living on their own land and what rights they had to
>> >their own land. I don't think you'd be saying the same
>> >things if the tables were turned.
>>
>> What the US Government did to the native americans was unforgivable.  But
>> one must understand the mentalities and situation involved.  The Native
>> Americans were largely Nomadic people who had no concept of "owning
land."
>> Even if the "white man" were to pay the native Americans for their land,
>> they would see it as very odd and would probably not have anything to do
>> with such a transaction.  Europeans and Americans on the other hand had
very
>> evolved and developed sence and legal definitions of ownership which
>> included land and natural resources.  This culture clash was sadly
>> inevitable, but I don't think that this country was build on the Manifest
>> destiny move westward.  The east already had highly developed and rich
>> economic bases.
>
>So you think all that was justified!?


Our definitions of property and ownership are far from evolved.  If
anything, they're far primitive to the views that Indians held.  The
'evolved' european views of property and boundaries has led to the rape and
destruction of the environment.  It's culiminated into frivolous lawsuits
and a culture seperate from nature and from one another.

Had the white man attempted to pay for native lands, he would've been told
to go away.  Not only were the lands sacred, but they also had nothing to
gain by the sale of the lands.  So, of course, the more 'evolved' culture
decided to chase them away with the military.  Now, the remains of native
American culture sit in barren wastelands on undesirable lands.



I'd be very interested to hear Moby's viewpoint on history and political
theory.  His environmental and religious views would lead me to jump to some
conclusions, but then again, that's just me interpreting what he's said to
fit what I think he should believe.  If anyone knows of any chat transcripts
or interviews where Moby discussed issues like these, I'd be very
interested.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 11:45:32 +0000
From: [e-mail] (Chris Stepanek)
Subject: (mobility) blah...blah...blah...

When I said I morally can't vote for a democrat I do not mean that in the
sense of I am an ultra conservative.  In fact I am very much not, I do have
some conservative views on things.  What I meant is that what the parties
were founded on way back when they were started.  Republicans were founded
on individual rights while the democrats were founded on the rights of the
collective.  See my problem.

now both parties are so far removed from what they are based on and the
whole world of politics is rather disgusting but like I said in my intro I
am interested in ideas and essences.  In essence republicans stand for
individual rights, but there are so many wrong things with both parties.

but essential I can't vote for collectivists.

- -------

A Moby question...


Does Moby's "honey" video exist online in a quicktime (or RA, AVI....)
anywhere?

- -------

Chris
[e-mail]
ICQ# 25163388

- ---

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:59:23 -0600
From: Christopher Michael Bourke <[e-mail]>
Subject: (mobility) @Off Topic? Don't read it

>to "The Chris' "
>
>I believe you said (a few digests ago) that your topics were -Moby
>related- because of his essays that appear on the last couple of albums
>in which he spews out his view of the world.  It seems as if you're
>using this reasoning to subject the list to your political view (albeit
>interesting to hear and find out about fellow mobility members).

SUBJECT?  what is so hard about pressing the delete button before you are so
horribly impeded upon?  No one is making you read buddy!  I pressed the
delete button many a-times when that long ass survey was going on but I
never complained once!  Jesus christ.

>While I
>don't want to be a "Moby-topic-only!" kind of person, I feel it would be
>more fun to talk about how often Moby jacks off (or you for that matter)
>rather than hear a history lesson according to the Limbaugh "dog eat
>dog" american conservatives.


Personal attacks?  My how mature you are.  Tim is the only one on this list
with enough brains to at least respond in an intelligent manner.  And if you
had been infact reading my comments instead of demonizing them for me, you
would realize that I am as far from Rush as I am from modern liberalism.
Pick up a book sometime and learn my friend, I suggest you start with Ayn
Rand's Atlas Shrugged.  Its Objectivism, not conservatism.

>I know, I know, you put the @@@ symbol in the subject line on some of
>them.  It's great you express your views and I'm intrigued enough to
>respond but please tell us more about your Moby-subway experience
>instead...


That was the other Chris, and I think he already did

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 11:08:46 -0600
From: Christopher Michael Bourke <[e-mail]>
Subject: (mobility) Anyone know Moby's background?

>I'd be very interested to hear Moby's viewpoint on history and political
>theory. ....If anyone knows of any chat transcripts
>or interviews where Moby discussed issues like these, I'd be very
>interested.


Infact, does anyone know of Moby's educational background?  Did he go to
college?  If so, where and what was his degree in?

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:17:32 -0500 (EST)
From: "Eric M. Goldberg" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) @Off Topic? Don't read it

> SUBJECT?  what is so hard about pressing the delete button before you are so
> horribly impeded upon?  No one is making you read buddy!  I pressed the
> delete button many a-times when that long ass survey was going on but I
> never complained once!  Jesus christ.


I'd say that be easy too, but most people don't change the subject,
so for a subject line that says Moby's Honey, eventually turns into
an episode from politically correct..
and then you risk missing moby info when it does come on

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 10:47:04 -0500
From: [e-mail] (Daniel Redmond)
Subject: (mobility) Your Ideal Videos

A while ago, I was listening to Hymn (the version on EIW) and had a killer
idea for a video for the song - a night star scape, with comets, satellites,
the moon rising, etc. timed to swells in the music.  I'm curious - has
anyone else been struck with these kind of ideas, i.e. this would make a
good video?  if so, what would the video be?

daniel
in a rather pathetic attempt to start a new thread

"but when they drag you, kicking and screaming from the scene you know, then
it's time to leave" - LTJ

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 13:06:57 -0800
From: Anthony Colorez <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (mobility) i am desprate

Geoffrey Sproule wrote:
>
> could someone please send me a Cdr of underwater I am desperate to get a hold of a copy of that disk or would anyone be willing to sell it or
trade it for anyt
> if you send me a cdr I will get u a copy of anything I have
> Thank you

hi, are you talking about "the blue light of the underwater sun" song? I
just got that the other day if you're interested. Bye.
- -Anthony

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 03 Feb 1999 13:24:46 -0800
From: Anthony Colorez <[e-mail]>
Subject: (mobility) Demons & Horses (was: i am desprate)

Anthony Colorez wrote:
>
> Geoffrey Sproule wrote:
> >
> > could someone please send me a Cdr of underwater I am desperate to get a hold of a copy of that disk or would anyone be willing to sell it
or
> trade it for anyt
> > if you send me a cdr I will get u a copy of anything I have
> > Thank you
>
> hi, are you talking about "the blue light of the underwater sun" song? I
> just got that the other day if you're interested. Bye.
> -Anthonysorry for sending that to the whole list, I meant to send it to Geoffrey
only.
Okay, so does anyone know where I can buy demons & horses on-line??
is this worth tracking down? I've never heard it before.
Why the hell is it called demons and horses anyway? Bye!
thanks.
- -Anthony

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:18:34 -0600
From: Christopher Michael Bourke <[e-mail]>
Subject: (mobility) @@@@here's some reality for Tim.

>>The Good that they
>> did far outweighed the bad, and their motives were just as I said,
attempts
>> to open new markets and tear down trade barriers controlled by local and
>> regional tyrants
>
>... because they were doing it for their own interests, not
>to benefit anyone else, not to try and 'help' people, but
>subjugate them by force - that is not right, pure and
>simple.

British rule was more legally legitimate(ie mandates from the masses and
respect of political rights) than those of the repressive governments
already in place, at least they allowed for self government and stability.
I've never said that their emperialism was ever justified, just that the
final effects were more positive than negative.  What legitimate principle
says that every human action must be dictated by altruism?  People act in
their own interests, fine.  If they CHOOSE to act for the betterment of
others fine.  Again, no one should be"required compelled or expected to do
anything for anybody"!

>>you take your
>> cultural relativism so far as to say WWII Germany was justified in their
>> autrocities in so far as their own borders were concerned?
>
>Of course not! But everyone under the the capitalist god
>seems forced to obey within and without various countries
>borders anyway. It commits atrocities against the majority
>of it's people.

Seems?  Then this is a misinterpretation of events on your part.  Money is
not like a gun, you cannot FORCE anyone to do anything with it.
"Capitalists" do not have control in either their own countries or in the
international arena.  It is the governments, both legitimate and
illegitimate that have control.  In the third world capitalists are granted
sweeping powers by these governments to do business and exploit the locals
and what not.  This iS NOT CAPITALISM.  governments that hold the real
power.  The capitalists are at the mercy of any subjective whim that they
choose, just as the citizens are.  It is sick to see such a perverse system
pass for true capitalism it gives credence to persons such as yourself when
they say that capitalism is bad and point to autocratic regimes as examples.

>> A result of Nationalism/Facism/and Socialistic trends, Capitalism did not
>> percipitate in any measurable degree the events leading up to the Great
>> world wars.
>
>Maybe you need to have another look at history and the
>industrial revolution and what it lead to....
>>

True Laisezz-faire capitalism was dead in the U.S. beginning with the
Sherman act long before WWI even.  Europe never truly had a true capitalist
system.  I think YOU need to examine especially German aggression, Bismark's
regime and conquests and France's antagonism toward Germany.  The industrial
revolution did make the technology available to make systematic mass killing
possible, but the political reasons behind the 2 world wars were far from
capitalisms blame.  Hegemonic conquest, a mutual distrust and extreme
nationalism are the true culprits.


>> What the US Government did to the native americans was unforgivable.....

>So you think all that was justified!?

PLEASE READ! - ">> What the US Government did to the native americans was
unforgivable." ie unjustified.  But again you identify the true entity that
holds physical power, the GOVERNMENT, not capitalists.

>> Excuse me?  The Third world's economic capital comes from INVESTMENT from
>> the west, not extrodinarily high interest loans.  If anything The third
>> world nations would never (governmetns) would never get ANY loans because
of
>> political turmoil making them extremely bad credit risks.  Instead these
>> countries tend to print more money which leads to hyper inflation,
ruining
>> their OWN economies.  The have nots are have nots, not because of
external
>> "multinational" corporations but because of thier own autocratic
governments
>> controlling their economy and raping their resources in attempts to
continue
>> their regimes.
>
>Excuse me, but the reason many have autocratic governmnets
>is because of the European colonial system and capitalism
>is a new extension of colonialism - sorry the above just
>doesn't wash!
>


The reason many have autocratic governments is because of political infancy.
Freedom and Rights are a relatively new concept(since the enlightenment).
The third world has been used to such governments for millenia.  Low
literacy and ignorance of the masses lends them to rule by any charasmatic
leader promising prosperity and/or stability.  There is no capitalist
conspiracy to institute oppresive regimes in countries that they do business
in, it would be counter to their interests, remember the regime can at
anytime sieze all investments arbitrarily.  Who really has control here?

>You really think that industry will happily give account of
>all it's environmental destruction, exploitation of
>workers, etc without any control measure - no government
>interference? You are more naive than I thought!

Yes I do.  Accountability comes in the form of civil action and self
interest, not a government hand.  But this is secondary, it doesn't matter,
if we are to be consistent then the application of the prinicples of
capitalism should be universal.  Again, remember I wrote of the concept of
Public ownership as well as private ownership.  You never took this into
account.  Please read more carfully next time.

>What? Are you crazy? Yeah right, man/woman will mutually
>agree upon wages and low wages are acceptable to keep the
>workers below the poverty line - great!

Why should an employer be compelled to pay anymore than what he agrees to?
Why should a person be made to take a job that he/she doesn't want or is not
willing to take because of the low wages?  This is yet another ignored
concept, yet you agree to it at the end of this letter, read on....

>>HK & Indonesia<<

>I still think they're capitalists underneath it all - if
>they were really socialist they would not do business with
>capitalists.

Capitalists in the sense of making goods and distributing them for profit
yes, that is the function of any business regardless of the economic system.
You still do not know what laissez-faire capitalism truly is!  IT is not
state ownership, China is still FAR from capitalism.  I've never met a
consistent socialist/communist anyway, agreed.

>>snip<<

>The murder of millions of Kulaks in the name
>> of government controlled agricultural development.  Global warming and
the
>> Rain Forests are scientifically questionable to begin with.
>
>So rainforests and the people that live in them are
>expendable are they? Government controlled ecological
>principles don't have to result in murder when everybody
>gets a fair share of everything. It is possible to work
>together happily in different areas of life. You know there
>were such things as happy communities that people used to
>live in and survive in quite well. But no, the
>capitalists of the world have to bulldoze in and fuck
>everything up. It's normally when there's a huge gap
>between rich and poor that creates revolution, uprisings
>and murder.

Where was the word "expendable" in my statement?  You are resorting to
rhetorical word games rather than answering the arguement.  Government
cotrols don't always end in murder, no.  But they always always end in the
expropriation of individuals and industries.  Government controls deny the
basic human rights of the opportunity to make a living, to persue wealth,
and enjoy life.  As for your Romanticized communities...  They are a myth.
At no point in history have humans reached a point of Utopian bliss.  It
makes me sick to hear people pine for the "old days."  Are you refering to
the thug controlled agrarian societies of feudalism?  The Tribal antagonisms
of the third world?  Sorry buddy, it hasn't happened.


>> Atlas Shrugged.  You identify the prime mistake in all statist/conrolled
>> economy advocates.  First, you resort to pathos-like rhetoric trying to
>> appeal to people with the pathetic starving masses.  You ignore the
entire
>> basis of WEALTH.  Wealth is not static, it is not given, it is created!
The
>> Atlases of our world create weath through hard work and earned(ie
deserved)
>> endeavors.  In a free society wealth cannot be used to exploit put down
or
>> influence anyone to do anything!
>
>Now that view is biased!
>
>Yes it bloody can exploit! There will always be some greedy
>bastard who will do anything, even indirect murder to
>promote his/her own business at the expense of any other.
>Selfism has no respect for humanity or itself. You seem to
>ignore human and environmental suffering, not realising
>what the cause of it is. You think that is progress and
>this will last, this insatiable desire to consume out of
>control? That doesn't give many other poeple a chance for
>freedom, does it? All I advocate is giving everybody a
>chance, no matter where they are from and capitalism
>doesn't allow this, but forces the majority into positions
>they cannot hope to be given a chance in.
>

HELLO?!?!!?  you still have NO comprehension of what I am talking about do
you?  TRUE LAISSE-FAIRE capitalism.  Get out your websters, then get out Ayn
Rand.  Please


>Of course no one is entitled to have someone else's
>property. You capitalists are paranoid aren't you? There is
>a place for equality where the law gives everyone equal
>opportunities, but also caters for those who will
>inevitably make mistakes, or through no fault of their own,
>fail - because they are human. A government that can help
>provide a small helping hand for those in that less
>fortunate position, rather than let them rot around us.
>It's not like present rich governmment nations can't afford
>to do it, either. Unfortunately the money goes on far more
>wasteful and unnecessary things like the military, to
>suppress others who don't want to follow a capitalist way
>of life!
>Tim Beecher


"caters for those who will inevitably make mistakes"?!?!  How?  This can
only mean the redistribution of wealth which requires the expropriation of
those who own property.  Whether it is by direct nationalization of industry
or collection of taxes.  If you agree that there are property rights then
you must be consistent.  The only question that you should be asking
yourself is "at who's expense"?  Let's feed everyone.  At who's expense?
Let's redistribute wealth to make sure everyone has at least the
necessities.  At who's expense?  Let's make sure everyone has equal medical
care and other necessities.  At who's expense?

You still have not shown that you have any concept of ownership or true
laissez-faire capitalism, though you have a vague respect of property rights
and enjoy the fruits of capitalism and advancement yourself(obviously you're
communicating by email).  Instead of building a concise philosophy based on
actual priciples, you merely see evil in the world and assume that it is the
result of capitalists out of control and attempt to alieviate pain and
suffering by inflicting even more pain and suffering.  Equality is not
reached by raising the standards of living of the have-nots at the expense
of lowering the higher standards of the haves.  Equality is merely equality
of opportunity, not guarantees or government hand outs.

------------------------------

End of mobility-digest V1 #322
******************************

-------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [e-mail]
with the line "unsubscribe mobility-digest" in the body.