Stevie did a Bat Mitzvah

[David]

He's one of my faves too. I can't help but think, though, that he's donating his proceeds to charity or something. But who knows? Also, does anyone else find it a bit odd that Stevie Nicks, Tom Petty, and Don Henley (was Joe Walsh there too? I don't remember, this thread has gotten so long) were all invited? They are all linked to one another musically, personally, etc...makes me wonder if this guy, while he may not be a direct friend of theirs, has some sort of connection to someone who IS a friend of theirs. Because really, who out of the blue invites those particular musicians for his 13 year old daughter? Makes me think that this "little soiree" was really for the dad not the daughter.I want to see video of those 13-year-old brats with rings in their genitalia actually trying to dance to "Hotel California."

[strandinthewind]

I think you are mixing apples and oranges, Jason.

I don't think anyone is saying "rich people are bad". The whole point of this tirade is that dude is tacky and gross. You said to me earlier, "I would never throw this kind of party". So, I know that you know the score. I don't see why you cannot just admit that this guy was way over the top and just leave it at that instead of trying to twist people's disgust into some kind of class warfare.

Well, I think there is the whole vibe against the rich as a whole going on here, even if it is slight. But, that is just how I see it.

In the end, I get all wired when people start bitching about how other people spend their money.

[Jyqm]

Do you think all rich people are bad? Or, can rich people be good?

Don't even bother, clifdweller. He'll do this all day and never once address any points you bring up.

[Jyqm]

Well, I think there is the whole vibe against the rich as a whole going on here, even if it is slight. But, that is just how I see it.

No. There is no vibe against rich people. There is a vibe against rich people who engage in ridiculously over-the-top, extragant, conspicuous consumption. I know that this whole subgroup-within-a-group thing is somehow an incredibly difficult topic for you to wrap your mind around, but you've got to try and work with us here.

[sparky]

Jeezus, Jason- read my fukcing post!!! I said I wanted to be considered a high class call girl- not a whore....

It's all semantics, homeslice.

[jannieC]

I want to see video of those 13-year-old brats with rings in their genitalia actually trying to dance to "Hotel California."
You. Kill. Me. :lol:

[strandinthewind]

No. There is no vibe against rich people. There is a vibe against rich people who engage in ridiculously over-the-top, extragant, conspicuous consumption. I know that this whole subgroup-within-a-group thing is somehow an incredibly difficult topic for you to wrap your mind around, but you've got to try and work with us here.


wow - and I thought I was doing well by learning to count to 10

[strandinthewind]

Don't even bother, clifdweller. He'll do this all day and never once address any points you bring up.

Piss off - and I mean that in the nicest way.

Moreover, I did address her points and was having a discussion with her why I thought what I thought. If that offends you so much, then do not read my posts.

[DavidMn]

wow - and I thought I was doing well by learning to count to 10Funny, but you struck me as being smarter than that...:lol: ;)

[strandinthewind]

Funny, but you struck me as being smarter than that...:lol: ;)

Apparently, I am just a mental midget when it comes to complex subgroups :rolleyes: Oh Well, time to go play ring around the rosie during recess.

[DavidMn]

Apparently, I am just a mental midget when it comes to complex subgroups :rolleyes: Oh Well, time to go play ring around the rosie during recess.Very good. It's good to see that some of us can still laugh at ourselves and not take things too seriously.:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

It's all semantics, homeslice.

which brings us to the point of whether it is okay to pay a hooker $100 but $1,000 is an obscene display of wealth :wavey:

[DavidMn]

which brings us to the point of whether it is okay to pay a hooker $100 but $1,000 is an obscene display of wealth :wavey:Hold on, lemme ask Hugh Grant.....:lol:

[amber]

which brings us to the point of whether it is okay to pay a hooker $100 but $1,000 is an obscene display of wealth :wavey:
I find that $500 is the perfect amount to charge without feeling....wait, nevermind....

[strandinthewind]

I find that $500 is the perfect amount to charge without feeling....wait, nevermind....

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I used to carry around a coin changer on my belt :wavey:

[amber]

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

I used to carry around a coin changer on my belt :wavey:

:lol:
Coins...

[sparky]

which brings us to the point of whether it is okay to pay a hooker $100 but $1,000 is an obscene display of wealth :wavey:


A whore costs 50-200. I would say 250 and up is a call girl. If this Brooks character was going to go the hooker route for his son's Bar Mitzvah, I would expect a hotel full of no less than 3 dozen supermodels and A list actresses. All for his 20 second premature squirt. And yeah, it would be an obscene display. I think we have established that.

[strandinthewind]

A whore costs 50-200. I would say 250 and up is a call girl. If this Brooks character was going to go the hooker route for his son's Bar Mitzvah, I would expect a hotel full of no less than 3 dozen supermodels and A list actresses. All for his 20 second premature squirt. And yeah, it would be an obscene display. I think we have established that.

It could be argued and it has been implied by others and mostly stated by you, that whores were hired for the recent Bat Mitzvah.

[dissention]

A whore costs 50-200. I would say 250 and up is a call girl. If this Brooks character was going to go the hooker route for his son's Bar Mitzvah, I would expect a hotel full of no less than 3 dozen supermodels and A list actresses. All for his 20 second premature squirt. And yeah, it would be an obscene display. I think we have established that.

Ha! I'm just dying to see how he tops this for his daughter's Sweet Sixteen.

[strandinthewind]

Ha! I'm just dying to see how he tops this for his daughter's Sweet Sixteen.

He is going to hire Anderson Cooper and Jake Webber to take her out.

[ELIUD]

Well, I think there is the whole vibe against the rich as a whole going on here, even if it is slight. But, that is just how I see it.

In the end, I get all wired when people start bitching about how other people spend their money.

That's probably because you identify with people who have money and spend it exorbitantly, which explains why you come rushing to their defense.
But I know as you have pointed out, you do so on a smaller scale and give a lot to charity. I'm not attacking you here, just coming up with a theory on why you are so sensitive to issues regarding the rich.

[strandinthewind]

That's probably because you identify with people who have money and spend it exorbitantly, which explains why you come rushing to their defense.
But I know as you have pointed out, you do so on a smaller scale and give a lot to charity. I'm not attacking you here, just coming up with a theory on why you are so sensitive to issues regarding the rich.

Well, I do spend it rather freely :eek:

[DavidMn]

He is going to hire Anderson Cooper and Jake Webber to take her out.Uh-Oh. That wont make Josh very happy....:nod:

[sparky]

It could be argued and it has been implied by others and mostly stated by you, that whores were hired for the recent Bat Mitzvah.

If the road case fits...

Do not assume, however, that I attach a negative connotation the word whore. Actually, it is one of my favorite words !

[sarafield]

But then, I am also one who thinks NOT one single soul in the world should be allowed to earn more than $100,000 a year (and that's for important jobs, like teachers and counsellors and healthcare providers and environmentalists, not ceo's :P) as you will NEVER convince me any one person needs more money than that to exist on. No way, no how.

You obviously don't live in Connecticut! :lol:

[DavidMn]

Well, I do spend it rather freely :eek:Hey Man, good for you that you got it I say.:nod:

[sparky]

You obviously don't live in Connecticut! :lol:


Or Los Angeles, where a 1200 sq.ft. "fixer" house runs 400k if you're lucky.

[cliffdweller]

Pffft. I take it you did not hear about Oprah's incident at Hermes. :rolleyes: :p

Oh lord :rolleyes:. Alright, touche. But I STILL think my point is at least 99.99995% valid :laugh:.

[cliffdweller]

I want to see video of those 13-year-old brats with rings in their genitalia actually trying to dance to "Hotel California."


:laugh: Pfffffffffffft! Exactly!

Eeeeewwwwww, I don't think I want to see a video of pierced genitalia :laugh::p

[cliffdweller]

Well, I do spend it rather freely :eek:

Well then you can throw a little of it my way ;) And please do not hesitate to donate generously :p

[Livia]

More articles - my apologies if they've already been posted in this behemoth of a thread.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/30/143016.shtml

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/entertainment/gossip/13289372.htm

http://www.jewsweek.com/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=Article%5El1932&enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enVersion=0&enZone=Articles

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/1915/50_Cent_the_War_Profiteer_and_the_10_million_Bat_Mitzah

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=44919

The comments under the blabbermouth article are worth reading. LOL

[bikerchic]

Thank's for posting those. The second to last (with pics) article really did make me realize how absurd this really was. Just sickening. I really can't believe Stevie did it. I know, wouldn't you do it for the money? I wonder how much she actually got paid.

[strandinthewind]

Well then you can throw a little of it my way ;) And please do not hesitate to donate generously :p

Next time I am in Texas - me, you, and Livia are going out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[strandinthewind]

If the road case fits...

Do not assume, however, that I attach a negative connotation the word whore. Actually, it is one of my favorite words !

I know - I did not attached that connotation!!!!!

My fav. word is HOOKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In fact, I think I called you that in Vegas and then put a $100 down those leather pants - oooo wait, the latter was with someone else :eek:

[strandinthewind]

Oh lord :rolleyes:. Alright, touche. But I STILL think my point is at least 99.99995% valid :laugh:.

What was your point again :p :p

[strandinthewind]

Hey Man, good for you that you got it I say.:nod:

Well, Mr. Visa and Mrs. MasterCard have it right now and for the foreseeable future :laugh:

[irishgrl]

Ah the line drawing again. What if he paid $5,000 for the party? What about $500? If he has the money, I say more power to him. But, people are loathe to let others do as they please and instead want to bash them for doing so :wavey:

I agree:shrug: who are WE to point fingers if the celebrities themselves dont see anything wrong with it? perhaps this person is a mover and shaker and knows lots of industry greats? Nobody twisted their arms after all...

and that little girl, OMG! how lucky is SHE?

[dissention]

perhaps this person is a mover and shaker and knows lots of industry greats?


Since he's such a hot-shot defense contractor with such a hefty wallet, chances are he doesn't need to know anyone. He probably just waves the checks and they come flocking.

[sasja]

Just was thinking... I wonder if any of the soldiers Stevie visited in the Walter Reed hospital were there on account of having worn the defective body-armor this Brooks fellow manufactured and sold to the government? Which proceeds then subsequently went to subsidize the ostentatious Bat-do that Stevie provided entertainment for?

How sadly would that close the circle?

Sasja

[strandinthewind]

Since he's such a hot-shot defense contractor with such a hefty wallet, chances are he doesn't need to know anyone. He probably just waves the checks and they come flocking.

Well, he and/or his wife probably move in those circles a la the Long Island Summer weekend set. So, he probably is very social with someone who knows someone and they all want the check!!!!

[dissention]

Just was thinking... I wonder if any of the soldiers Stevie visited in the Walter Reed hospital were there on account of having worn the defective body-armor this Brooks fellow manufactured and sold to the government? Which proceeds then subsequently went to subsidize the ostentatious Bat-do that Stevie provided entertainment for?

How sadly would that close the circle?

Sasja

Very sadly. One can only hope that Stevie donated her fee to those soldiers in some manner. I'm actually quite surprised that people like Henley and Petty, who are politically active, decided to partake in this.

[Rickypt]

And let's not forget he's a defense-contractor with a history of labor disputes.

[jannieC]

Has anyone read the comments after the pictures of the event? Hilarious. :)

[dissention]

Just was thinking... I wonder if any of the soldiers Stevie visited in the Walter Reed hospital were there on account of having worn the defective body-armor this Brooks fellow manufactured and sold to the government? Which proceeds then subsequently went to subsidize the ostentatious Bat-do that Stevie provided entertainment for?


How much do you want to bet that those are questions that will not be asked during her next interview when she mentions Walter Reed? :lol:

[sparky]

More articles - my apologies if they've already been posted in this behemoth of a thread.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/30/143016.shtml

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/entertainment/gossip/13289372.htm

http://www.jewsweek.com/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=Article%5El1932&enPage=BlankPage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enVersion=0&enZone=Articles

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/1915/50_Cent_the_War_Profiteer_and_the_10_million_Bat_Mitzah

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=44919

The comments under the blabbermouth article are worth reading. LOL

They totally were. Thanks Liv ! :wavey:

I love Jewsweek. Rich.:lol:

[sparky]

Just was thinking... I wonder if any of the soldiers Stevie visited in the Walter Reed hospital were there on account of having worn the defective body-armor this Brooks fellow manufactured and sold to the government? Which proceeds then subsequently went to subsidize the ostentatious Bat-do that Stevie provided entertainment for?

How sadly would that close the circle?

Sasja

This is the most brilliant connective point made in the thread. Poetry.

[ragandbone]

A really rich guy in San Francisco wanted to have a concert with his favorite artists in SF, so he funded the whole thing thing the first year, and made it free to the public in GG park. Granted, the artists he gets don't cost as much as the ones at the bat mitzvah, and I don't think his money is from defense contracts.

It is a great festival:
http://www.strictlybluegrass.com/

Artist
A.J. Roach
Alison Brown
Ana Egge
Austin Lounge Lizards
The Be Good Tanyas
Bill Evans String Summit
Buddy Miller
Chip Taylor & Carrie Rodriguez
Dale Ann Bradley & Coon Creek
David Jacobs-Strain
Deborah Pardes
The Del McCoury Band
Doc Watson with David Holt & Richard Watson
Dolly Parton
Druha Trava
Dry Branch Fire Squad
Earl Scruggs
Eliza Gilkyson
Emmylou Harris
Gillian Welch
The Greencards
Guy Clark
Hazel Dickens
Hot Buttered Rum String Band
Hot Rize
Hud featuring Javier Matos
J.D. Crowe & The New South
Jim Lauderdale w/ His Bluegrass Band
Jimbo Trout & The Fish People
Jimmie Dale Gilmore
Joan Baez
Kelly Joe Phelps
Kevin Welch & Kieran Kane & Fats Kaplin
The Knitters
Laura Cantrell
Laurie Lewis & Tom Rozum w/ The Guest House Band
Los Super Seven feat. Calexico, Joe Ely, Raul Malo, Ruben Ramos, Rick Trevino & The West Side Horns
Michael Fracasso
P.M.W.
Patty Griffin
The Peasall Sisters
Perfect Strangers
Peter Rowan & Tony Rice Quartet
Poor Man's Whiskey Sat Oct 1, Arrow Stage
Ralph Stanley & His Clinch Mountain Boys
Rhonda Vincent & The Rage
Ricky Skaggs & Kentucky Thunder
Robert Earl Keen
Rodney Crowell & The Outsiders
Rosanne Cash
Rykarda Parasol
Shawn Camp
Songwriter Circle featuring Dave Alvin, Steve Earle, Joe Ely, Guy Clark & Verlon Thompson
South Austin Jug Band
Split Lip Rayfield
Steve Earle & The Bluegrass Dukes
Stiff Dead Cat
Th' Legendary Shack*Shakers
Tim Bluhm & Greg Loiacono
Tim O'Brien
Todd Snider
Toshio Hirano
Wake The Dead
The Waybacks w/ Darol Anger
Willow Willow

[irishgrl]

But he never said that all rich people were assholes...

Nor did he imply it. You simply misread the sentence.
ummmm actually, I got the same impression Jason did. The tone of that original post was that there would be MORE RICH ASSHOLES. as in MORE. as in RICH ASSHOLES. I dont see how any OTHER interpretation is possible:shrug:

[Livia]

Next time I am in Texas - me, you, and Livia are going out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:blob1: :blob2: :blob1:

[Rickypt]

It is a great festival:


It is indeed, and thanks for pointing out this difference. A guy (Warren Hellman) wants to have a party and gives it as a gift to thousands of people.

[dissention]

ummmm actually, I got the same impression Jason did. The tone of that original post was that there would be MORE RICH ASSHOLES. as in MORE. as in RICH ASSHOLES. I dont see how any OTHER interpretation is possible:shrug:

He never said that all rich people were assholes. And I'd certainly call David Brooks an asshole, someone who got their wealth by manufacturing defective body armor for use in war zones. Check out the website of his company at http://www.dhbt.com where they proudly advertise their $30.1 million contract with the US government for body armor. How much money did David Brooks personally take in last year? $70 million. He then sold almost $190 million dollars worth of stock right before the vests he manufactured were recalled. At the end of the day, he pocketed $250 million. $10 million for a party is what his maid probably finds between the sofa cushions.

Here's a fabulous report which details all of this entitled Executive Excess 2005 if you'd like to read it. My favorite is how he billed his company $87,500 for compensation of "foregone vacation."

http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2005/EE2005.pdf

[sparky]

He never said that all rich people were assholes. And I'd certainly call David Brooks an asshole, someone who got their wealth by manufacturing defective body armor for use in war zones. Check out the website of his company at http://www.dhbt.com where they proudly advertise their $30.1 million contract with the US government for body armor. How much money did David Brooks personally take in last year? $70 million. He then sold almost $190 million dollars worth of stock right before the vests he manufactured were recalled. At the end of the day, he pocketed $250 million. $10 million for a party is what his maid probably finds between the sofa cushions.

Here's a fabulous report which details all of this entitled Executive Excess 2005 if you'd like to read it:

http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2005/EE2005.pdf


It must be about time for Huffington to write a sequel to her book Pigs At The Trough. Fascinating, the backstory that the stink of this party leads to.
Just goes to show you, where there is a stench, there is usually something rotten. Why do we ever think twice about why cliches exist ?

[dissention]

It must be about time for Huffington to write a sequel to her book Pigs At The Trough. Fascinating, the backstory that the stink of this party leads to.

Surely you aren't surprised. As soon as some lovely soul brought up the fact that this man was a defense contractor, bells should have gone off and a fire under your ass should have been lit. I highly recommend reading that report in full, he's the biggest swine of them all. Pocketed a quarter of a billion dollars this past year and charged his company $87,500 for vacation time. I wonder how much a private in combat makes yearly. Does he even make $87,500? Fukc no. He's lucky if he makes $25,000.

Just goes to show you, where there is a stench, there is usually something rotten. Why do we ever think twice about why cliches exist ?

Beats me. :laugh: I wonder how much of this steak Mr. Brooks donated to charity...surely he's got a generous heart!

[strandinthewind]

ummmm actually, I got the same impression Jason did. The tone of that original post was that there would be MORE RICH ASSHOLES. as in MORE. as in RICH ASSHOLES. I dont see how any OTHER interpretation is possible:shrug:

I know. It was just the impression I got. But, Eluid explained it or at least agreed with the other explanation, so that is cool. Sometimes things on these boards can be taken not in the intended context. It is no big deal though.

[sparky]

Surely you aren't surprised. As soon as some lovely soul brought up the fact that this man was a defense contractor, bells should have gone off and a fire under your ass should have been lit.

I was caught up in my revulsion over the event.:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

. . . Beats me. :laugh: I wonder how much of this steak Mr. Brooks donated to charity...surely he's got a generous heart!

If they live in Manhattan, odds are a great deal of it. That city has so many hospitals, museams, parks, etc. in peoples' names it is scary.

[dissention]

I was caught up in my revulsion over the event.:laugh:

:laugh: It's unspeakably tacky, yes. But now you can be even more repulsed knowing that some of your tax dollars possibly played a hand in making that party happen. His company did get to keep that $30 million even after the recall, after all. Now he's being sued over his stock fiddling (http://www.forbes.com/prnewswire/feeds/prnewswire/2005/11/03/prnewswire200511030927PR_NEWS_B_NET_NE_NETH020.html). You have to love it.

[strandinthewind]

. . . But now you can be even more repulsed knowing that some of your tax dollars possibly played a hand in making that party happen . . . .

Tax dollars pay for things all of the time. Granted not in that manner, but people deduct parties all of time and it is allowed under the tax code if it is for charity or for business. In fact, a portion of the porceeds of this party could be a business deduction if he had clients there. I am not saying that is right (again I am for the flat tax) - but I am just saying that it is likely that more than just the defense contract money went toward or at least against the cost of this.

[amber]

ummmm actually, I got the same impression Jason did. The tone of that original post was that there would be MORE RICH ASSHOLES. as in MORE. as in RICH ASSHOLES. I dont see how any OTHER interpretation is possible:shrug:
Another interpretation is possible because the person didn't use the phrase "all rich people are assholes". That is the only phrase possible that could be used to mean that all rich people are assholes.
no offense, but it bugs me when people infer meanings that are not any of the words the person actually said or wrote. It's like, making something up.
The only thing "MORE RICH ASSHOLES" implies is that there are already SOME rich assholes. Which is undoubtedly true, assholes are everywhere.

[irishgrl]

He never said that all rich people were assholes. And I'd certainly call David Brooks an asshole, someone who got their wealth by manufacturing defective body armor for use in war zones. Check out the website of his company at http://www.dhbt.com where they proudly advertise their $30.1 million contract with the US government for body armor. How much money did David Brooks personally take in last year? $70 million. He then sold almost $190 million dollars worth of stock right before the vests he manufactured were recalled. At the end of the day, he pocketed $250 million. $10 million for a party is what his maid probably finds between the sofa cushions.

Here's a fabulous report which details all of this entitled Executive Excess 2005 if you'd like to read it. My favorite is how he billed his company $87,500 for compensation of "foregone vacation."

http://www.faireconomy.org/press/2005/EE2005.pdf

Ok, the implication was that rich people were assholes, and that the current crop of rich assholes were training the next generation to be just as bad. If I misinterpreted, obviously I wasnt the only one.

As for David Brooks, I actually havent heard of the man before, I guess I havent read the right articles apparently! And he certainly embodies excess, anyone can see that. If, on top of his obvious excess, he also shortchanges the end consumers of his goods (and all indications are that he has) he certainly qualifies for the supreme rich asshole award.

I want to clarify my original posts somewhat:
Without really knowing a lot about the man, it seemed to me like everyone was deploring the AMOUNT of $$$ he spent. As far as Im concerned it takes two heels to click. Im of the opinion that every performer at that Bat Mitzvah was just as reprehensible as David Brooks was. Obviously they chose to overlook (or didnt know, or didnt care about) his shady business dealings (btw: thanx Diss for the article, most enlightening) And I can certainly see the merit of the argument that this man is training his daughter to be a spoiled little princess who will probably make everyone she meets miserable. What a legacy. One wonders what the future holds for David should he be indicted? What will daddy's little girl do then?

Anyway, Davids behavior perfectly illustrates the disconnect between the rich and the poor. There is absolutely NO WAY the rich can even comprehend poverty and the attendant suffering. Its not even on their radar. Its all well and good to give to charity but like I said before, the people that need the charity monies the most rarely see it. it goes to Universities, Foundations etc which benefit people somewhat higher up on the ladder. And the bulk of the monies that DO benefit the neediest (in the form of public assistance) come from the middle class taxdollars

[strandinthewind]

Another interpretation is possible because the person didn't use the phrase "all rich people are assholes". That is the only phrase possible that could be used to mean that all rich people are assholes.
no offense, but it bugs me when people infer meanings that are not any of the words the person actual said or wrote. It's like, making something up.
The only thing "MORE RICH ASSHOLES" implies is that there are already SOME rich assholes. Which is undoubtedly true.

Well, obviously other people interpreted it differently. That happens all of the time here. It really is not big deal and Eulid explained his intent. It is not like I was attacking him or anything.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Its all well and good to give to charity but like I said before, the people that need the charity monies the most rarely see it. it goes to Universities, Foundations etc which benefit people somewhat higher up on the ladder. And the bulk of the monies that DO benefit the neediest (in the form of public assistance) come from the middle class taxdollars

Indeed it does. But, those entities do give some direct assistance to the poor or needy as well. Many universities give scholarships, give free medical attention in their hospitals, etc. I know that is not food on the table and a roof over the head of a poor family of four. But, it does help in its own way.

[amber]

Well, obviously other people interpreted it differently. That happens all of the time here. It really is not big deal and Eulid explained his intent. It is not like I was attacking him or anything.
I know. I'm just always suprised when people add things a person didn't say/write. I wonder, then, what they use to get the meaning they inferred if the words do not say what they inferred. :confused: To me the conclusion, based on the words, is totally illogical (and I mean that technically, like if you were doing a logic/word problem. )
Also, it helps people not misinterpret things if they base their opinions on what another person actually said rather than what they think the person meant. :)
Oh, and in case you are wondering, I've held my tongue on that logic problem since yesterday...it was your birthday....:lol:
:xoxo:

[dissention]

Tax dollars pay for things all of the time. Granted not in that manner, but people deduct parties all of time and it is allowed under the tax code if it is for charity or for business. In fact, a portion of the porceeds of this party could be a business deduction if he had clients there. I am not saying that is right (again I am for the flat tax) - but I am just saying that it is likely that more than just the defense contract money went toward or at least against the cost of this.

Um, yeah, that's why I said "some of your tax dollars." :wavey:

[irishgrl]

Another interpretation is possible because the person didn't use the phrase "all rich people are assholes". That is the only phrase possible that could be used to mean that all rich people are assholes.
no offense, but it bugs me when people infer meanings that are not any of the words the person actual said or wrote. It's like, making something up.
The only thing "MORE RICH ASSHOLES" implies is that there are already SOME rich assholes. Which is undoubtedly true.
He didnt say SOME rich assholes he just said "rich assholes" an adjective describing a noun. no qualifier (as in SOME). Thus, your implication that I made something up is incorrect. BTW: I find it funny that you lecture to ME about inferences when you did exactly that very thing to one of MY posts.
It bugs me too, believe me.

[amber]

He didnt say SOME rich assholes he just said "rich assholes" an adjective describing a noun. no qualifier (as in SOME). Thus, your implication that I made something up is incorrect. BTW: I find it funny that you lecture to ME about inferences when you did exactly that very thing to one of MY posts.
It bugs me too, believe me.
He said MORE rich assholes. More only implies there are some. Unless he didn't say MORE rich assholes. Perhaps I'm remembering incorrectly. If I am, and he didn't say more rich assholes, then I apologize.

[dissention]

As for David Brooks, I actually havent heard of the man before, I guess I havent read the right articles apparently! And he certainly embodies excess, anyone can see that. If, on top of his obvious excess, he also shortchanges the end consumers of his goods (and all indications are that he has) he certainly qualifies for the supreme rich asshole award.

Cross your fingers that he loses the current lawsuit!!

One wonders what the future holds for David should he be indicted? What will daddy's little girl do then?

All I can think about is "Arrested Development." :laugh:

There's always money in the banana stand.

[strandinthewind]

I was not being snarky. I was just pointing out that other tax dollars than the ones you referenced with "His company did get to keep that $30 million even after the recall" could have gone toward this.

[irishgrl]

I know. I'm just always suprised when people add things a person didn't say/write. I wonder, then, what they use to get the meaning they inferred if the words do not say what they inferred. :confused: To me the conclusion, based on the words, is totally illogical (and I mean that technically, like if you were doing a logic/word problem. )
Also, it helps people not misinterpret things if they base their opinions on what another person actually said rather than what they think the person meant. :)
Oh, and in case you are wondering, I've held my tongue on that logic problem since yesterday...it was your birthday....:lol:
:xoxo:

fyi: I didnt add anything. my original post said I could see why Jason interpreted it the way he did. I used Eliud's exact words so if anybody is "adding" anything here, its NOT ME :shrug:

[irishgrl]

He said MORE rich assholes. More only implies there are some. Unless he didn't say MORE rich assholes. Perhaps I'm remembering incorrectly. If I am, and he didn't say more rich assholes, then I apologize.

he DID say "more rich assholes." What I did was parse his sentence to show how it COULD be interpreted the way Jason and I did. "more" only means an increase in the original number. Since there were no other qualifiers (such as "some") it is possible to infer that he believed the entire body of rich people to be assholes.

btw: he later clarified his meaning and thats fine. Again, my original post was regarding Jason's take on Eliud's original statement and I just wanted to say I agreed with Jason at that time.

[dissention]

With all of this arguing over qualifiers & parsed sentences & nouns & implied meanings & making **** up, this bat mitzvah is beginning to look less ridiculous in comparison. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

he DID say "more rich assholes." What I did was parse his sentence to show how it COULD be interpreted the way Jason and I did. "more" only means an increase in the original number. Since there were no other qualifiers (such as "some") it is possible to infer that he believed the entire body of rich people to be assholes.

I think his original post said "another rich asshole" and it now reads "more rich assholes" - but I could be mistaken. I say this because I referenced "another" in one of my posts.

[strandinthewind]

With all of this arguing over qualifiers & parsed sentences & nouns & implied meanings & making **** up, this bat mitzvah is beginning to look less ridiculous in comparison. :laugh:

Again, it was my mistake of his intent. And get of your high horse - no one is making anything up. I am glad you never make a ****ing mistake in your life.

[irishgrl]

With all of this arguing over qualifiers & parsed sentences & nouns & implied meanings & making **** up, this bat mitzvah is beginning to look less ridiculous in comparison. :laugh:
edit.

actually, you have a point there my friend!

[dissention]

Again, it was my mistake of his intent. And get of your high horse - no one is making anything up. I am glad you never make a ****ing mistake in your life.

Bite me. Next time you pipe up with your "I was trying to inject levity" bull****, I'll be just as much of a prick to you as you're being now since you obviously wouldn't recognize it if it flew up and bit you in the ass.

[irishgrl]

I think his original post said "another rich asshole" and it now reads "more rich assholes" - but I could be mistaken. I say this because I referenced "another" in one of my posts.
even if that's true, its a minor differentiation because both indicate an increase to the original number. Whether he meant "some" or "all" was not clarified until later.

[irishgrl]

Bite me. Next time you pipe up with your "I was trying to inject levity" bull****, I'll be just as much of a prick to you as you're being now since you obviously wouldn't recognize it if it flew up and bit you in the ass.

whoa nelly! a little levity wouldnt be amiss right about now :shocked:
and I was just kidding you in my post, I hope you know that! I thought you were right on actually :nod:

[dissention]

whoa nelly! a little levity wouldnt be amiss right about now :shocked:

That's what I tried to inject before Jason suddenly went on the rag.

and I was just kidding you in my post, I hope you know that! I thought you were right on actually :nod:

Of course I knew you were kidding. :laugh:

[amber]

With all of this arguing over qualifiers & parsed sentences & nouns & implied meanings & making **** up, this bat mitzvah is beginning to look less ridiculous in comparison. :laugh:
Oh, hush. It's no more silly then going on and on and on and on about some TV show. Logic interests me. So sue. :laugh:

[amber]

he DID say "more rich assholes." What I did was parse his sentence to show how it COULD be interpreted the way Jason and I did. "more" only means an increase in the original number. Since there were no other qualifiers (such as "some") it is possible to infer that he believed the entire body of rich people to be assholes.

Well, I disagree that it properly COULD be interpreted how you said, and still be a correct way to do so, but obviously it was, and so I will look to other sources for my academic logic knowledge, and leave you nice people be. Sides, diss has much more important things to discuss. I probably do, too, come to think of it. :laugh: :wavey:

[dissention]

Oh, hush. It's no more silly then going on and on and on and on about some TV show. Logic interests me. So sue. :laugh:

I would, but our government would classify it as a "frivolous lawsuit" and use my suit as an argument for tort reform. :p

[amber]

I would, but our government would classify it as a "frivolous lawsuit" and use my suit as an argument for tort reform. :p
:laugh:
you've got to think more basic, anyway - you only go after deep pockets. Does that sound like me? :p You'd get my bike. :laugh:

[dissention]

:laugh:
you've got to think more basic, anyway - you only go after deep pockets. Does that sound like me? :p You'd get my bike. :laugh:

:laugh:

And a frisbee!

[Janis_no1]

What the guys??

I see we have 23 PAGES HERE.... do we acutally have any goss from the event or pics or is this a political thread?? just dont want to go searching through 23 pages....

[strandinthewind]

Bite me. Next time you pipe up with your "I was trying to inject levity" bull****, I'll be just as much of a prick to you as you're being now since you obviously wouldn't recognize it if it flew up and bit you in the ass.

Apologies with my hat in hand and head bowed.

[irishgrl]

Well, I disagree that it properly COULD be interpreted how you said, and still be a correct way to do so, but obviously it was, and so I will look to other sources for my academic logic knowledge, and leave you nice people be. Sides, diss has much more important things to discuss. I probably do, too, come to think of it. :laugh: :wavey:
Well, actually this is par for the course! you never fail to disagree with anything I say so why should this be any different? Personally I dont see how you could verify that there is only one way to interpret anything....even when the exact same language is used. Look at how many interpretations of the Bible there are? (no, I dont mean different versions) People can take the same verse and see two (or more) different meanings.

Im not sure when you decided you were the final arbiter of meaning but nobody told ME :eek: :rolleyes: Besides, I think a little research would do ya good anyway :nod: I could think of worse ways to spend an evening yessir! :wavey:

[michelle2677]

I'm for sale right this second. Tell your friends. I need a root canal, and my copay is heinous. :wavey:

ask them if they can do a pulpectomy. it's an extra procedure (cost wise), but it is much more economical and will buy you some time until you can afford the complete treatment.

[amber]

Well, actually this is par for the course! you never fail to disagree with anything I say so why should this be any different? Personally I dont see how you could verify that there is only one way to interpret anything....even when the exact same language is used. Look at how many interpretations of the Bible there are? (no, I dont mean different versions) People can take the same verse and see two (or more) different meanings.

Im not sure when you decided you were the final arbiter of meaning but nobody told ME :eek: :rolleyes: Besides, I think a little research would do ya good anyway :nod: I could think of worse ways to spend an evening yessir! :wavey:

Easy, girl.
There are proper ways to interpret a sentence based on the words chosen.
But since you think it's personal (I actually disagreed with STrand, too, remember)
I'm just going to back away slowly....
And what you are talking about above is a completely different type of interpretation then I am talking about. So we wouldn't be talking about the same thing anyway.
:woohoo: :wavey:

[irishgrl]

ask them if they can do a pulpectomy. it's an extra procedure (cost wise), but it is much more economical and will buy you some time until you can afford the complete treatment.
or do like I did and wait until you DO have good insurance. By then your tooth will be dead and the procedure is painless! WOO HOO!

[irishgrl]

Easy, girl.
There are proper ways to interpret a sentence based on the words chosen.
But since you think it's personal (I actually disagreed with STrand, too, remember)
I'm just going to back away slowly....
And what you are talking about above is a completely different type of interpretation then I am talking about. So we wouldn't be talking about the same thing anyway.
:woohoo: :wavey:

If that is true, could you please point me in the direction of the rules etc?
Because that is news to me. And I would appreciate an opportunity to educate myself. My thanks. :wavey:

[amber]

ask them if they can do a pulpectomy. it's an extra procedure (cost wise), but it is much more economical and will buy you some time until you can afford the complete treatment.
Oh, thanks. I wrote my parents. They said they are broke but will put it on the credit card, and I have an appt. tomorrow morning at 10. :xoxo: thank you, though, very sweet.

[ELIUD]

Hey Strand...happy belated birthday.

But I never changed my post from "another" to "more". I did think about changing the word "creating" to "raising" which probably would have made it more clear that I was talking about that particular rich person who I do believe to be an asshole. And for the record I am certain there are assholes roaming the streets from every tax bracket. In fact, some of my best friends are assholes.

[strandinthewind]

Hey Strand...happy belated birthday.

But I never changed my post from "another" to "more". I did think about changing the word "creating" to "raising" which probably would have made it more clear that I was talking about that particular rich person who I do believe to be an asshole. And for the record I am certain they're are assholes roaming the streets from every tax bracket. In fact, some of my best friends are assholes.

its cool - I just did not know. And - I also just misundestood your post, which was my mistake.

and thanks for the borthday wishes!!!! I am STILL celebrating it :laugh:

[Rickypt]

What the guys??

I see we have 23 PAGES HERE.... do we acutally have any goss from the event or pics or is this a political thread?? just dont want to go searching through 23 pages....

There are some links to pics around page 8, I think. Otherwise it's a political thread, and my favorite one since that thread with the realtime commentary on Stevie's Vegas setlist.:thumbsup:

[irishgrl]

its cool - I just did not know. And - I also just misundestood your post, which was my mistake.

and thanks for the borthday wishes!!!! I am STILL celebrating it :laugh:
a week long birthday! what will they think of next? :woohoo:

[strandinthewind]

a week long birthday! what will they think of next? :woohoo:

a $10 million Bat M. (BM for short :eek: )

[irishgrl]

There are some links to pics around page 8, I think. Otherwise it's a political thread, and my favorite one since that thread with the realtime commentary on Stevie's Vegas setlist.:thumbsup:
didnt you know? EVERYTHING'S political :laugh:

[irishgrl]

a $10 million Bat M. (BM for short :eek: )
The GOLDEN COLON! AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH

[David]

We're discussing hermeneutics in the Stevie forum?!

[irishgrl]

We're discussing hermeneutics in the Stevie forum?!
oh GEEZ, out comes the old dictionary.............

edit: ahhhh! thank you David for putting a name to the activity! NOW I know how to approach my next task: that of determining whether or not there is only one correct interpretation! Thank you very much! (I did ask Amber for info, but she is strangely silent for some reason...)

[michelle2677]

or do like I did and wait until you DO have good insurance. By then your tooth will be dead and the procedure is painless! WOO HOO!
but the problem with that is you run the risk of developing a huge abcess and that equals pain. besides, if she needs a root canal, chances are, there is infection and that is never good. Not to do any scare tactics, but it can actually be fatal.

[michelle2677]

Oh, thanks. I wrote my parents. They said they are broke but will put it on the credit card, and I have an appt. tomorrow morning at 10. :xoxo: thank you, though, very sweet.


you're welcome :) not a problem at all. Hope everything goes o.k. I don't know if you've ever had one, and I'm sure you've heard many horror stories, but they are not as bad as ppl say they are. I had one 2 days before my wedding and it was perfectly fine. Good luck and tell them to give you some good ****te!!:lol:

[irishgrl]

but the problem with that is you run the risk of developing a huge abcess and that equals pain. besides, if she needs a root canal, chances are, there is infection and that is never good. Not to do any scare tactics, but it can actually be fatal.
I guess I just got lucky. twice. actually, Im hoping for a third. I dread going to the dentist...

[michelle2677]

I guess I just got lucky. twice. actually, Im hoping for a third. I dread going to the dentist...

yes...I would say you did get lucky. I see it day after day. but usually if it has somewhere to drain-(on the side of the tooth around the gum area) then you can get out of the painful part. And I know a lot of ppl that dread going. Our patients dread going *L* but if you take care of it when it's small (the cavity) you can hopefully avoid root canal therapy. I learned that the hard way ;)

ha ha....I'm sorry. I have to chime in on EVERY dental conversation. I don't know anything about politics, or what stevie wore on march 16th, 1983 and what her setlist was, but I know teeth!! :D

[amber]

you're welcome :) not a problem at all. Hope everything goes o.k. I don't know if you've ever had one, and I'm sure you've heard many horror stories, but they are not as bad as ppl say they are. I had one 2 days before my wedding and it was perfectly fine. Good luck and tell them to give you some good ****te!!:lol:
Naw, I heard they were fine. It's my first. I have a curved canal. What is that? I tried to look it up.
Oh, and the receptionist told me that strong tylenol should be fine, and I told my mom, and she was all ":rolleyes: Oh, they always say that, I don't know why they are so stingy with the the vicoden/codeine. I made them give me some"
So, in other words, I'm going to make sure I get some good shiitte. :woohoo: Oh, and is that thing where you could die called osteomylytis? (sp)

[irishgrl]

vicodin has absolutely no effect on me. I just asked the Dentist to use LOTS of novacaine (sp?) because I have a high tolerance for everything and he ended up using 3 vials worth! but NO gas thank you, and I still have the vicodin. full.

btw: Amber, arent you going to refer me to your references for interpretation?
Im only having marginal success (although I DID find an excellent paper on 7 methods) I was hoping you would show me what sort of info YOU were working with to have thought there was only ONE way to interpret something?
It might help me to understand where you are coming from....

[irishgrl]

yes...I would say you did get lucky. I see it day after day. but usually if it has somewhere to drain-(on the side of the tooth around the gum area) then you can get out of the painful part. And I know a lot of ppl that dread going. Our patients dread going *L* but if you take care of it when it's small (the cavity) you can hopefully avoid root canal therapy. I learned that the hard way ;)

ha ha....I'm sorry. I have to chime in on EVERY dental conversation. I don't know anything about politics, or what stevie wore on march 16th, 1983 and what her setlist was, but I know teeth!! :D
I never had an abcess. I think the dentist that originally filled my tooth killed the nerve or damaged it and it died slowly ever since. just a theory...but my fillings were so large that my tooth broke off around them and eventually there wasnt much tooth left, thus I finally went in and got a root canal AND a crown all at the same time. twice. now, I think I've got a third to look forward to, and Im just biding my time....someday, when I've got the copay I'll have to do it but PLEASE GOD, not for awhile :lol:

[michelle2677]

Naw, I heard they were fine. It's my first. I have a curved canal. What is that? I tried to look it up.
Oh, and the receptionist told me that strong tylenol should be fine, and I told my mom, and she was all ":rolleyes: Oh, they always say that, I don't know why they are so stingy with the the vicoden/codeine. I made them give me some"
So, in other words, I'm going to make sure I get some good shiitte. :woohoo: Oh, and is that thing where you could die called osteomylytis? (sp)


it just means the roots are curved and not straight at the very tip more than likely. It will all be the same for you, but it is going to make the dentist's job harder. make him work for his money:nod: . is this your general dentist or are you going to someone who specializes in root canals (endodontist)? They may not be able to finish the procedure if the roots are REAL curved. Or they may end up filling the canals with material and not get completely to the end of the root. Not that big of a deal, unless you get recurrent infection. I'm sure they will do a fine job, or get you to someone who can. and I have no idea what it is called *L* that could be it tho. I just know it is dormant infection that has no where to go, so it can bring your immune system down, etc.

[amber]

vicodin has absolutely no effect on me. I just asked the Dentist to use LOTS of novacaine (sp?) because I have a high tolerance for everything and he ended up using 3 vials worth! but NO gas thank you, and I still have the vicodin. full.

btw: Amber, arent you going to refer me to your references for interpretation?
Im only having marginal success (although I DID find an excellent paper on 7 methods) I was hoping you would show me what sort of info YOU were working with to have thought there was only ONE way to interpret something?
It might help me to understand where you are coming from....
I was working on it. I was basically trying to compile a list of logical flaws, and examples of them, because that's what I was talking about. Logical rules of words I guess were my references for interpretation. You know, False Dilemma, Bandwagon, Strawman, False Analogy, Circular Logic, Non Sequitur - those things. There are more, just don't have them right here. You know, like "If A always equals C, and C sometimes equals B, then does A always equal B?" (no)
that kind of thing. :)

Oh, and vicoden and codeine are both just fine by me. My mom said vicoden makes her projectile vomit, though. :laugh: ( I wish I'd seen that!).

[amber]

it just means the roots are curved and not straight at the very tip more than likely. It will all be the same for you, but it is going to make the dentist's job harder. make him work for his money:nod: . is this your general dentist or are you going to someone who specializes in root canals (endodontist)? They may not be able to finish the procedure if the roots are REAL curved. Or they may end up filling the canals with material and not get completely to the end of the root. Not that big of a deal, unless you get recurrent infection. I'm sure they will do a fine job, or get you to someone who can. and I have no idea what it is called *L* that could be it tho. I just know it is dormant infection that has no where to go, so it can bring your immune system down, etc.
Cool. thanks for explaining, I was kinda worried. I think that's why the dentist office referred me to a specialist is because of the curve. I can't tell a damn thing when I look at my X ray, though. :rolleyes:
I remember Bette Davis almost died from an infection that started in her jaw, and I think that's what it was.
:woohoo:
Thanks again.

[sparky]

Cool. thanks for explaining, I was kinda worried. I think that's why the dentist office referred me to a specialist is because of the curve. I can't tell a damn thing when I look at my X ray, though. :rolleyes:
I remember Bette Davis almost died from an infection that started in her jaw, and I think that's what it was.
:woohoo:
Thanks again.

Word to the wise on the pain meds - take them exactly as directed. DO NOT let them wear off. You want the stuff coursing through your system for about 2 solid days at least. I am a three time root canal veteran. Trust me.

[michelle2677]

Cool. thanks for explaining, I was kinda worried. I think that's why the dentist office referred me to a specialist is because of the curve. I can't tell a damn thing when I look at my X ray, though. :rolleyes:
I remember Bette Davis almost died from an infection that started in her jaw, and I think that's what it was.
:woohoo:
Thanks again.

good you're going to a specialist. THose little bastards are quick and GOOD!! I HATE doing root canals *L* but eh....such is life. do you HAVE your x-ray??? or you just saw it there??? and it COULD happen. but that would be very severe. I would hope one would get it taken care of before it got that bad.


well looky...seems as tho there is no more argument about the bat mitzvah thingamigiggy.....aaahhh......happiness...yess.... *L*:]

[michelle2677]

Word to the wise on the pain meds - take them exactly as directed. DO NOT let them wear off. You want the stuff coursing through your system for about 2 solid days at least. I am a three time root canal veteran. Trust me.


*LOL* yes..I made the mistake of getting a wisdom tooth taken out and didn't take the meds. it is MUCH more easy to control pain when you're NOT in pain..(ie..take your meds!!) than letting the pain kick in and trying to get it under control!! :)

[irishgrl]

I was working on it. I was basically trying to compile a list of logical flaws, and examples of them, because that's what I was talking about. Logical rules of words I guess were my references for interpretation. You know, False Dilemma, Bandwagon, Strawman, False Analogy, Circular Logic, Non Sequitur - those things. There are more, just don't have them right here. You know, like "If A always equals C, and C sometimes equals B, then does A always equal B?" (no)
that kind of thing. :)

Oh, and vicoden and codeine are both just fine by me. My mom said vicoden makes her projectile vomit, though. :laugh: ( I wish I'd seen that!).
Well, thats different from interpretation. Im familiar with them, I took a critical thinking class in college. However, I didnt engage in any of those fallacies. As I said, I parsed his sentence and explained from a grammatical point of view how it was possible to have more than one interpretation as is commonly done with verses in the Bible.

[Livia]

Word to the wise on the pain meds - take them exactly as directed. DO NOT let them wear off. You want the stuff coursing through your system for about 2 solid days at least. I am a three time root canal veteran. Trust me.

I concur! I had back surgery - if the bottle says take 'em every 4 hours, do it in 3!!

[michelle2677]

Leave it to the stevie forum for the convo to switch to prescription medication:laugh:

[amber]

Well, thats different from interpretation. Im familiar with them, I took a critical thinking class in college. However, I didnt engage in any of those fallacies. As I said, I parsed his sentence and explained how it was possible to have more than one interpretation as is commonly done with verses in the Bible.
Yes, that's why I was confused that anyone interpreted anything, instead of just reading what the words said and applying the meanings theirin. I didn't think it was a matter of word interpretation, I thought it was a flaw of logic. And I still think your parsing and reinterpretation are logically flawed. There's nothing to interpret, imo, just read the words and realize they only mean what they mean.
But I don't want to argue forever or anything. We may never agree, or be able to prove our points to each other. However, I will go back and review what you said, etc, to see if I could agree with you. How's that? :) That way, if I missed something perhaps your point will be revealed to me as one I can find logically valid. And wouldn't that be great? :blob2:

[amber]

Word to the wise on the pain meds - take them exactly as directed. DO NOT let them wear off. You want the stuff coursing through your system for about 2 solid days at least. I am a three time root canal veteran. Trust me.
Way ahead of you. I started taking them on Sunday....:laugh: (not really, but I do know a vicoden guy. :p )
You've reiterated that I absolutely cannot let the specialist get away with not giving or prescribing me something stronger than tylenol. :xoxo:

[amber]

good you're going to a specialist. THose little bastards are quick and GOOD!! I HATE doing root canals *L* but eh....such is life. do you HAVE your x-ray??? or you just saw it there??? and it COULD happen. but that would be very severe. I would hope one would get it taken care of before it got that bad.


well looky...seems as tho there is no more argument about the bat mitzvah thingamigiggy.....aaahhh......happiness...yess.... *L*:]

yeah, they attached my X ray to my referral. And it's funny you say you hate doing them, b/c I swear I heard the attendant and dentist (not mine, the one I saw first by mistake, before they switched me to another room) laugh really loud and say "thank goodness we don't have to do it! aaaaaaah hahahahahahahaha!!!!"
:laugh: seriously. :shocked:

[irishgrl]

Yes, that's why I was confused that anyone interpreted anything, instead of just reading what the words said and applying the meanings theirin. I didn't think it was a matter of word interpretation, I thought it was a flaw of logic. And I still think your parsing and reinterpretation are logically flawed. There's nothing to interpret, imo, just read the words and realize they only mean what they mean.
But I don't want to argue forever or anything. We may never agree, or be able to prove our points to each other. However, I will go back and review what you said, etc, to see if I could agree with you. How's that? :) That way, if I missed something perhaps your point will be revealed to me as one I can find logically valid. And wouldn't that be great? :blob2:

of COURSE its a matter of word interpretation! When a person reads a sentence/passage/paragraph etc, they INTERPRET! and each person who reads gets a different meaning even from the same words! We all use filters based on our understanding or experience! Word meanings have subtle shifts and/or distinctions due to secondary factors such as culture, age (a word's meaning can change from one decade to the next, a prime example is "gay") ethnicity(Ebonics anyone?), socioeconomic status, etc.

btw: parsing is a common technique among linguists precisely to determine meaning. people do it all the time. There is no "logical flaw" because I wasnt engaging in any of those logical mechanisms. Thus, it seems to me that your attempt to turn a linguistic technique into a logical fallacy is in fact the only error being committed here.

[michelle2677]

yeah, they attached my X ray to my referral. And it's funny you say you hate doing them, b/c I swear I heard the attendant and dentist (not mine, the one I saw first by mistake, before they switched me to another room) laugh really loud and say "thank goodness we don't have to do it! aaaaaaah hahahahahahahaha!!!!"
:laugh: seriously. :shocked:

that's because 99.9999999999 % of dentists hate doing them!! you try to open the tooth up. Spend 3 hours doing all the "hard" work, just to find out you can't negotiate the canal and get to the tip. Send them on their way to a specialist. They spend 5 minutes and they made $1000 off of all your hard work. Plus..they are boring as hell. Especially for the assistant. I have actually fallen asleep during one.



hey...don't judge. It had been a hard night the night before:lol:

[Ghost_Tracker]

Word to the wise on the pain meds - take them exactly as directed. DO NOT let them wear off. You want the stuff coursing through your system for about 2 solid days at least. I am a three time root canal veteran. Trust me.

As the perhaps not-so-great Vanilla Ice once said,
"Ice, ICE, baby! . . . ."
(If it still hurts even with the meds you can put ice on it. Probably with a paper towel or something in between the ice and your jaw.)
Anyway yeah - been there, done that, it sucks eggs but it's worse if you don't get it done.
Maybe you can listen to music in the ear phones at the same time - "Rhiannon" for example!
See the way I tied that in to Fleetwood Mac!??? Wasn't that just oh-so-stunningly clever? :rolleyes: ( lol! )

[amber]

of COURSE its a matter of word interpretation! When a person reads a sentence/passage/paragraph etc, they INTERPRET! and each person who reads gets a different meaning even from the same words! We all use filters based on our understanding or experience! Word meanings have subtle shifts due to secondary factors such as culture, age (a word's meaning can change from one decade to the next, a prime example is "gay") ethnicity, socioeconomic status, etc.

btw: parsing is a common technique among linguists precisely to determine meaning. people do it all the time. There is no "logical flaw" because I wasnt engaging in any of those logical mechanisms. Thus, it seems to me that your attempt to turn a linguistic technique into a logical fallacy is in fact the only error being committed here.

Um...I went back and looked. You said this?
"he DID say "more rich assholes." What I did was parse his sentence to show how it COULD be interpreted the way Jason and I did. "more" only means an increase in the original number. Since there were no other qualifiers (such as "some") it is possible to infer that he believed the entire body of rich people to be assholes."

If the original number is "all", how could it be increased? But besides that, I think someone's inference is going to far based on what was actually written in the sentence. So far as to not be logical. In the absence of him saying "all rich people are assholes" I can't understand how anyone could logically make the jump to think he inferred that. And since there were no other qualifiers, don't you have to just use the accepted version of the relativity of the word "more"? I have always learned that "more" means "in addition to what already exists". And if someone uses no qualifiers, and doesn't state the opinion that all rich people are aholes, then I could only logically conclude that in this case "more" means in addition to how many there already is, which was not specified, and is therefore not to be inferred. Unless you want to be illogical, and ascribe things to people they did not say. :laugh:

I appreciated your writings about word meanings, and I agree - but has "more" changed meaning? :confused: I didn't think so.
I don't understand your assertion that there was no logical flaw b/c you weren't engaging in those mechanisms. :confused: I was just going by what he and you wrote. But perhaps I don't thoroughly understand your parsation. :)
By this definition of parsing, I'm not exactly sure that's what you did, either: or, really, I'm not sure that your parsing is accurate.
# To break (a sentence) down into its component parts of speech with an explanation of the form, function, and syntactical relationship of each part.
# To describe (a word) by stating its part of speech, form, and syntactical relationships in a sentence.
#

1. To examine closely or subject to detailed analysis, especially by breaking up into components: “What are we missing by parsing the behavior of chimpanzees into the conventional categories recognized largely from our own behavior?” (Stephen Jay Gould).
2. To make sense of; comprehend: I simply couldn't parse what you just said.

Honestly, I don't think we'll agree here. I'm sure we've bored everyone, though. And I love a good debate about logic. *dork* :lol:
:xoxo:

[irishgrl]

If the original number is "all", how could it be increased?
in the context in which Eliud originally wrote that, and the way I interpreted it, the sum of the rich assholes could very well have a "more" because he was referring to the fact they would have babies and raise them to be carbon copies of themselves. Thus, what was once the sum total, the "all" is increased by the "more" We are not talking a finite number here. Thus no fallacy. sorry.
I have always learned that "more" means "in addition to what already exists".

precisely. What already exists. not some of the rich assholes but rich assholes as a whole. To be sure, he didnt say "All rich assholes" but the mere fact that he didnt fractionalize it by saying "some rich assholes" could give someone the impression he means rich assholes as a GROUP.

And if someone uses no qualifiers,

Again, precisely. he didnt say "SOME rich assholes"

and doesn't state the opinion that all rich people are aholes
actually that isnt necessary.

then I could only logically conclude that in this case "more" means in addition to how many there already is, which was not specified, and is therefore not to be inferred. Unless you want to be illogical, and ascribe things to people they did not say. :laugh:

actually here you are making a fallacy of your own, to wit:
Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false.

You are assuming that because the qualifier "some" was not used, the inference "all" is incorrect. This is not necessarily true from prima facie reading of the text.

By this definition of parsing, I'm not exactly sure that's what you did, either: or, really, I'm not sure that your parsing is accurate.
# To break (a sentence) down into its component parts of speech
I actually DID do that, I mentioned a noun (assholes), adjective (rich), and qualifier(more). thus, parsing is exactly what I did.

You seem to tie yourself up into knots trying to "impress" me with your "logical" prowess, and yet, in this instance, as I said, this is not a matter of Logic, but interpretation. You cant turn this into something it isnt.

[amber]

in the context in which Eliud originally wrote that, and the way I interpreted it, the sum of the rich assholes could very well have a "more" because he was referring to the fact they would have babies and raise them to be carbon copies of themselves. Thus, what was once the sum total, the "all" is increased by the "more" We are not talking a finite number here. Thus no fallacy. sorry.


precisely. What already exists. not some of the rich assholes but rich assholes as a whole. To be sure, he didnt say "All rich assholes" but the mere fact that he didnt fractionalize it by saying "some rich assholes" could give someone the impression he means rich assholes as a GROUP.



Again, precisely. he didnt say "SOME rich assholes"


actually that isnt necessary.



actually here you are making a fallacy of your own, to wit:


You are assuming that because the qualifier "some" was not used, the inference "all" is incorrect. This is not necessarily true from prima facie reading of the text.


I actually DID do that, I mentioned a noun (assholes), adjective (rich), and qualifier(more). thus, parsing is exactly what I did.

You seem to tie yourself up into knots trying to "impress" me with your "logical" prowess, and yet, in this instance, as I said, this is not a matter of Logic, but interpretation. You cant turn this into something it isnt.

Yeah, no. And I think you are committing that fallacy, actually. You are assuming that because the qualifier "some" was not used, the inference "all" is correct.
I'm not trying to impress anyone. I just think you are wrong. And I think you parsed incorrectly, b/c I did the same thing and had a different conclusion. And if people start thinking that all words have no concrete meaning, and are up for "interpretation" even though the interpretation is something no one ever said, or can even be stretched to intimate that they meant that, well, then, suck balls. To me, it's called "spinning" or "making stuff up" pure and simple. It is a matter of logic. And it's a matter of taking words at their meaning.
Seriously. I don't want to get irritated. Now it's been proven that we will never convince each other. Perhaps we should drop it? Because I also resent the inference that when I really discuss something, and have knowledge about it, that someone thinks I am trying to "impress" them. :)
And I think what Eliud said was turned into "something it isn't" by anyone who inferred he meant all rich people. :)

[irishgrl]

Yeah, no. And I think you are committing that fallacy, actually. You are assuming that because the qualifier "some" was not used, the inference "all" is correct.
I'm not trying to impress anyone. I just think you are wrong. And I think you parsed incorrectly, b/c I did the same thing and had a different conclusion. And if people start thinking that all words have no concrete meaning, and are up for "interpretation" even though the interpretation is something no one ever said, or can even be stretched to intimate that they meant that, well, then, suck balls. To me, it's called "spinning" or "making stuff up" pure and simple. It is a matter of logic. And it's a matter of taking words at their meaning.
Seriously. I don't want to get irritated. Now it's been proven that we will never convince each other. Perhaps we should drop it? Because I also resent the inference that when I really discuss something, and have knowledge about it, that someone thinks I am trying to "impress" them. :)
And I think what Eliud said was turned into "something it isn't" by anyone who inferred he meant all rich people. :)

Amber, because you apparently overlooked this pertinent FACT:
you can use one word to talk about a group: Republicans/Democrats, Liberals/Conservatives, Rich/Poor. White/Black etc.... the single word, without a qualifier means the GROUP. It is done all the time. You consistently argue with everything I say and just because it pops out of your mouth or whatever doesnt make you right. I did take his words at their meaning, and this convo PROVES there IS more than one way to interpret words. Apparently your knowledge isnt as extensive as you think it is. much like your vocabulary. Methinks your posting prowess bit into your study time. tsk. Tell you what: you put yer nose in a book and I'll suck balls. I'll even suck spinning balls. Sounds fun.

[Livia]

Wow.

Okay, kiddies, how about a palate-cleanser? Back on topic, just for a second, I'm sure - here's another article...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/01/wparty01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/01/ixnewstop.html

Tycoon spends £6m on daughter's party
By Harry Mount in New York
(Filed: 01/12/2005)

A New York body armour tycoon has spent £6 million on his 12-year-old daughter's coming-of-age party, flying in Tom Petty, Aerosmith and the rapper 50 Cent for the evening.

David Brooks, 50, booked the Rainbow Room, the restaurant on the 65th floor of Manhattan's Rockefeller Centre, for the evening last weekend.

Elizabeth Brooks, who was celebrating her bat mitzvah, the Jewish ceremony that takes place on a girl's 12th birthday, might have been slightly bemused by some of the entertainment.

Many acts on the bill appeared to cater more for Mr Brooks's 150 adult guests, rather than his daughter's 150 friends.

Members of the Eagles and Fleetwood Mac and the saxophonist Kenny G played until 3am. At one point, Mr Brooks, dressed in a black-leather, metal-studded suit, joined Aerosmith on stage.

The rock group allowed Mr Brooks's teenage nephew to accompany them on drums in return for their £1.2million fee for a 45-minute set.

Miss Brooks might have been more familiar with 50 Cent, currently starring in the new film, Get Rich or Die Tryin'.

As part of his £300,000 deal, the rapper customised one of his songs, singing, Go shorty, it's your bat mitzvah, we gonna party like it's your bat mitzvah.

Any disappointment the children might have felt at failing to recognise the wrinklier acts was tempered by their £600 goody bags, stuffed with digital cameras and video iPods.

The 1934 art deco restaurant, run by the Cipriani family, owners of Harry's Bar in Venice, was equipped with a stage, concert equipment and Jumbotron screens to accommodate the rock stars. They were flown to New York on Mr Brooks's company jet.

The bill for the party is small change for Mr Brooks, the chief executive officer of DHB Industries, a bullet-proof vest manufacturer which takes its name from his initials. Last year, Mr Brooks made £44million in salary and company stock options.

Information appearing on telegraph.co.uk is the copyright of Telegraph Group Limited and must not be reproduced in any medium without licence. For the full copyright statement see Copyright

[amber]

Amber, because you apparently overlooked this pertinent FACT:
you can use one word to talk about a group: Republicans/Democrats, Liberals/Conservatives, Rich/Poor. White/Black etc.... the single word, without a qualifier means the GROUP. It is done all the time. You consistently argue with everything I say and just because it pops out of your mouth or whatever doesnt make you right. I did take his words at their meaning, and this convo PROVES there IS more than one way to interpret words. Apparently your knowledge isnt as extensive as you think it is. much like your vocabulary. Methinks your posting prowess bit into your study time. tsk. Tell you what: you put yer nose in a book and I'll suck balls. I'll even suck spinning balls. Sounds fun.

Oh, my. :shocked: Well, I think you may be more stubborn than I:laugh: .
I don't argue with you on "purpose", (and I didn't even think very often) but only whenever I find what you say to be illogical. Believe me, I'd rather agree. Um...even what you say about a "GROUP" right now seems totally unrelated to what was actually said. :confused:
And as far as my knowledge and my vocabulary (which you actually misunderstood, if you look at the other thread) and my study time, and putting my nose in a book - well, that's so offensive in comparison with my actual natural brain and my education that I don't know what to say. I'm inclined to believe that I actually know more than I think I do, honestly, not the opposite. I realize now that you are trying to prove your point by looking down on me somehow, (even though I am very well and roundly educated) and I really can't get involved in a discussion like that. I don't really understand it. Personally attacking me or you isn't really much of a debate about the subject at hand, yeah? :shrug: :confused:
I tend to admit when i don't know about something.
It was fun to debate and hear your perspective, though. :woohoo: :nod::laugh:

[David]

Elizabeth Brooks, who was celebrating her bat mitzvah, the Jewish ceremony that takes place on a girl's 12th birthday, It's 13, & it's often not on the birthday -- it might take place weeks or even in some cases months after the girl's 13th birthday. In fact, even an adult woman can have a bat mitzvah.

[irishgrl]

I'm inclined to believe that I actually know more than I think I do, honestly, not the opposite.


Obviously a typo but If I read you right, and if this is more of what you said to me in PM, you are bragging that you are smarter than I am and where you get THAT opinion I dont know. You may know more in some areas just as I may know more in others. The sage says the beginning of wisdom is to know that you know nothing. So, go ahead and shout from the rooftops just how bright you are. But you'll understand if I snicker, Im sure. Its not often that somebody PM's me to claim they are actually smarter than me. Somehow, the honor of the occasion escaped me.


btw: my comment about the single word having a "group" meaning is what Ive been saying all along, just not so bluntly. maybe I should have been blunt earlier on. So, to recap: "rich" is a group word. as in ALL. as in the entire group. MORE RICH ASSHOLES means those existing (as in ALL. As in the entire group) rich assholes are busy having babies (thats where the MORE part comes in) and teaching them to waste money in a spectacularly offensive fashion.(thats the ASSHOLE part)

NUFF SAID.

[amber]

Obviously a typo but If I read you right, and if this is more of what you said to me in PM, you are bragging that you are smarter than I am and where you get THAT opinion I dont know. You may know more in some areas just as I may know more in others. But just exactly HOW you came to the enlightened conclusion that you are somehow smarter than I am is a mystery to say the least.

The sage says the beginning of wisdom is to know that you know nothing. I may not be wise but Im sure not in your sophmoric league. So, go ahead and shout from the rooftops just how bright you are. But you'll understand if I snicker, Im sure.
That's not a typo, and that's not at all what I meant. I meant what I wrote.
And in case that wasn't the best description, what I meant was - I usually think I know less than I actually end up knowing. :) I usually know more than I think I did. And to be even more specific - I'm many years out of school,(except that I am in school now) and my job isn't especially challenging - so I sometimes forget how much I actually know and am good at, and perhaps underestimate myself a bit. I'm more inclined to admit when I don't know something, then the opposite. That was my point in response to you saying I think I'm so smart. :)
But in fact, I am so smart. Do I know more than you? I certainly could not know more than you about everything. That's absurd. Just like I know tons about some stuff that you don't.
I do have a very confident belief in my logic abilities, though, b/c it's been proven in school and many tests, and over and over. It's like my most natural skill aside from sports.
Would that make me say I'm smarter than you? No. It will only make me think I found the logical answer whereas you have not. And you believe the same. So it's even.
And I realize above all else that I don't know everything. My ambition in life is to learn about as many things as I can, b/c I don't know them. Learning is my favorite thing, I wish my parents were rich so I could go to college forever, and figure out how to solve world problems. :laugh:
That's why I so often have to apologize and/or admit that I am wrong :laugh:
which I do.
I'm not sure I was shouting from the rooftops how bright I am, but I certainly did feel the need to defend myself because you questioned my brains and education and vocabulary, in fact denigrated them, and intimated that I didn't know what I was talking about.
Perhaps it was not the most mature thing for me to defend myself in that situation, but like anyone, when attacked, I may respond.
And no, I don't understand why you would snicker. You were personally insulting me in the last few posts, and I didn't snicker. I disagreed with your point, but I didn't snicker. :confused:
But hey, if you get that much pleasure out of snickering at me, then rock on. If it makes you feel good to underestimate me and then snicker about your perceived estimation about my brain power, I'm glad you got some joy. :woohoo:
I still know what I know. *I'llsingwhati'vesaid - it'sathingthatikeepinthebackameyhead*

[irishgrl]

That's not a typo, and that's not at all what I meant. I meant what I wrote.
And in case that wasn't the best description, what I meant was - I usually think I know less than I actually end up knowing. :) I usually know more than I think I did. And to be even more specific - I'm many years out of school,(except that I am in school now) and my job isn't especially challenging - so I sometimes forget how much I actually know and am good at, and perhaps underestimate myself a bit. I'm more inclined to admit when I don't know something, then the opposite. That was my point in response to you saying I think I'm so smart. :)
But in fact, I am so smart. Do I know more than you? I certainly could not know more than you about everything. That's absurd. Just like I know tons about some stuff that you don't.
I do have a very confident belief in my logic abilities, though, b/c it's been proven in school and many tests, and over and over. It's like my most natural skill aside from sports.
Would that make me say I'm smarter than you? No. It will only make me think I found the logical answer whereas you have not. And you believe the same. So it's even.
And I realize above all else that I don't know everything. My ambition in life is to learn about as many things as I can, b/c I don't know them. Learning is my favorite thing, I wish my parents were rich so I could go to college forever, and figure out how to solve world problems. :laugh:
That's why I so often have to apologize and/or admit that I am wrong :laugh:
which I do.
I'm not sure I was shouting from the rooftops how bright I am, but I certainly did feel the need to defend myself because you questioned my brains and education and vocabulary, in fact denigrated them, and intimated that I didn't know what I was talking about.
Perhaps it was not the most mature thing for me to defend myself in that situation, but like anyone, when attacked, I may respond.
And no, I don't understand why you would snicker. You were personally insulting me in the last few posts, and I didn't snicker. I disagreed with your point, but I didn't snicker. :confused:
But hey, if you get that much pleasure out of snickering at me, then rock on. If it makes you feel good to underestimate me and then snicker about your perceived estimation about my brain power, I'm glad you got some joy. :woohoo:
I still know what I know. *I'llsingwhati'vesaid - it'sathingthatikeepinthebackameyhead*

Thank you for the clarification HERE, but the PM you sent me said something quite different. My attitude is a direct result of your having PM'd me to brag about being smarter than me, and I didnt insult you or your intelligence before that. I only said that a Con Law class would have given you the background to have known what was specifically being discussed in that thread at that time. Further, when I said I gave a ****, and that I educated myself, you came blasting back at me all mad because you thought somehow I was implying you didnt. I told you different but that didnt stop YOUR attitude at that time. I am not one to hold a grudge but its a bit hard when I feel that you jump on my posts and say they arent logical when in fact there is no logical component to the topic at hand. and when I point blank explain you say something like "thats unrelated" when in fact it is DIRECTLY related.

If anything, I think YOU underestimated ME. Not a good idea.

[Kelly]

Good grief! :shocked:


Anyway......I am not sure how interested a bunch of 13 year olds would be in Joe Walsh, Don Henley, Kenny G, Tom petty and Stevie Nicks. I asked my fifteen year old son if he knew who Joe Walsh and Don Henley were and he said "Isn't Don Henley who you went and saw this summer?". I said, "yea but do you know what he sings or the name of his band?"... Blank look response. :o My kid loves music too and listens to his Ipod 24/7. I think he would recognize and enjoy Petty but the average 13 year old might not enjoy any of these particular acts. It seems like Daddy booked them more for the adults. 50 Cent and Ciara were for the kiddies. Can you imagine if Stevie and Don broke out in "Circle Dance"? We love the song but a 13 year old would be bored senseless. :( Even Leather and Lace would probably go over like a lead balloon with the kids. Stop Draggin might do ok, I guess? :shrug: What a complete waste of money...but it is his money and he can do whatever the Hell he wants with it. :angel:

[irishgrl]

Good grief! :shocked:
Its me Irish, quite frankly. its been roused a bit. If I had me a brew, I'd be a bit more mellow, unfortunately, Im broke and its a worknight. thus, the spleen venting which was actually brewing for some time. Im better now....:D

[ontheEdgeof17]

Its me Irish, quite frankly.


Total Random Thought #487:


You have red hair? I've always wondered that.

[irishgrl]

Total Random Thought #487:


You have red hair? I've always wondered that.
well, now its only red-ISH in the sun, otherwise a kinda medium brownish, but there was a time when it was golden red and very pretty. I still have red highlights but alas, I miss my redder years...at least I dont have any gray to speak of...thats one good thing :) I did post a pic on the picture thread I think....

[amber]

Thank you for the clarification HERE, but the PM you sent me said something quite different. My attitude is a direct result of your having PM'd me to brag about being smarter than me, and I didnt insult you or your intelligence before that. I only said that a Con Law class would have given you the background to have known what was specifically being discussed in that thread at that time. Further, when I said I gave a ****, and that I educated myself, you came blasting back at me all mad because you thought somehow I was implying you didnt. I told you different but that didnt stop YOUR attitude at that time. I am not one to hold a grudge but its a bit hard when I feel that you jump on my posts and say they arent logical when in fact there is no logical component to the topic at hand. and when I point blank explain you say something like "thats unrelated" when in fact it is DIRECTLY related.

If anything, I think YOU underestimated ME. Not a good idea.
Err....wasn't that PM in direct response to you telling me I didn't know stuff? I think it was. Oh, yeah, right, you said my opinions weren't valid, b/c I didn't know about ONE SPECIFIC CASE in conlaw. I remember now. Yeah, we don't learn every case there ever was. And my opinion need not have had any basis in my education of that one case.

Also, if you tell someone that you "give a ****" (ie, care) enough to "educate yourself" in a direct response to what they said, that implies you think they don't care or educate themselves.
And if you hadn't said that apropos of nothing, I might've thought different, but you said that in direct response to one of my opinions. Direct response. Otherwise, why would you say that? Why would you say "I give a ****, and choose to educate myself" if you thought I didn't? The point that you give a **** and educate yourself certainly had nothing to do with what we were actually discussing, which was a point of conlaw. :shrug: And so, I submit that my 'attitude' was a direct result of your implication. In fact, there was no other reason at all for you to say that you gave a **** and educated yourself, b/c I hadn't accused you of not giving a **** or educating yourself.

Well...If I jump on your posts, it's certainly not for personal reasons - It's actually purely because what I think your saying is fallacious.
Again - I wish I agreed, I'd rather that. :shrug:
It's all too bad, I'm sure, but again, we'll never agree. I will make a check mark in my "Cancer and Libra are squared, and approach things completely differently, and may not get along" log.
I have no desire not to respect what you say. But I have to think what I think. And you do, too. :)
I've never underestimated you before. I've only responded to what you said with the best of my knowledge.

[irishgrl]

Err....wasn't that PM in direct response to you telling me I didn't know stuff? I think it was. Oh, yeah, right, you said my opinions weren't valid, b/c I didn't know about ONE SPECIFIC CASE in conlaw. I remember now. Yeah, we don't learn every case there ever was. And my opinion need not have had any basis in my education of that one case. Also, if you tell someone that you "give a ****" (ie, care) enough to "educate yourself" in a direct response to what they said, that implies you think they don't care or educate themselves. and if you had said that apropos of nothing, I might of thought different, but you said that in direct response to one of my opinions. Direct response. Otherwise, why would you say that? Why would you say "I give a ****, and choose to educate myself" if you thought I didn't? The point that you give a **** and educate yourself certainly had nothing to do with what we were actually discussing, which was a point of conlaw. :shrug: And so, I submit that my 'attitude' was a direct result of your implication.
Well...If I jump on your posts, it's certainly not for personal reasons - It's actually purely because what I think your saying is fallacious.
Again - I wish I agreed, I'd rather that. :shrug:
It's all too bad, I'm sure, but again, we'll never agree. I will make a check mark in my "Cancer and Libra are squared, and approach things completely differently, and may not get along" log.
I have no desire not to respect what you say. But I have to think what I think. And you do, too. :)


Amber I was at a loss to know why YOU PM'd me in the first place because as I recall the convo was between Brwn_eyes, Towie, Diss, Strand and Me. You were a sideliner. however you decided to announce via PM, that YOU didnt have to take a conlaw class, out of the blue as far as I could tell. All I said was that I didnt either but that I did because I liked knowing about stuff. I also took a journalism law class. as an elective. I said I educated myself because I gave a ****. but you chose to take it another way. I never said your opinions werent valid, I said you were shortchanging yourself. You said you didnt need it. I still think you shortchanged yourself, but you'll never see it.

As for your jumping on my posts because you think they're fallacious, you're full of crap. period. Ive not said anything fallacious in this thread or the other one. You havent yet shown that I have. In fact, you've backpedaled when I proved my point. Typical. you can attribute it to astrology or whatever floats yer boat. but as far as IM concerned, yer living in a fools paradise.

now: I have to work tomorrow, and I'm guilty of wasting already too much time arguing with you. So, go ahead and have the last word. Im sure it'll be more of your brilliant pithy scintillating fare. And as you compose your missives, please imagine me saying in my snarkiest voice: WHATEVER.

[Jyqm]

Amber, because you apparently overlooked this pertinent FACT:
you can use one word to talk about a group: Republicans/Democrats, Liberals/Conservatives, Rich/Poor. White/Black etc.... the single word, without a qualifier means the GROUP.

Unless you're using it as an adjective, of course, in which case it simply describes the noun which it is modifying, regardless of the presence or absence of any other qualifiers.

If I said, "Black radicals are marching on Washington today," I don't understand how anyone could infer that I am claiming that all black people are radicals.

If I said, "I think it's wrong for Black Panthers to raise their children to think that violence is an acceptable political response. They're just creating more black radicals," I don't understand how anyone could infer that I am claiming that all black people are radicals.

You misread the sentence. No harm, no foul.

[Jyqm]

MYAAAAAAAAAAAAAARHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

*insert anguished cry to heaven*



*relieved sigh*

that's what I've been trying to et cetera! :mad:


wow, I just relieve sighed about four times.

"misread"? by misread do you mean totally making up what someone has...er...?

nevermind.:rolleyes:

Le sigh. :(

Now now. Let's at least give the benefit of the doubt. Not everyone can be grammar superstars like us. Though I am amazed that this particular branch of discussion has gone on for so many pages. I don't understand what's so difficult about, "Oh, okay, I guess I misread what was written. Oops." Jason eventually said as much. Time to take a deep breath and do the same, O Irish one.

have you decided to marry me yet? :) :woohoo: It's always a party at Amber's house!
or...it's always boring punctuated regularly by points of debate! Which are interesting!

I am a man who cannot be tamed.

[irishgrl]

Unless you're using it as an adjective, of course, in which case it simply describes the noun which it is modifying, regardless of the presence or absence of any other qualifiers.

If I said, "Black radicals are marching on Washington today," I don't understand how anyone could infer that I am claiming that all black people are radicals.

If I said, "I think it's wrong for Black Panthers to raise their children to think that violence is an acceptable political response. They're just creating more black radicals," I don't understand how anyone could infer that I am claiming that all black people are radicals.

You misread the sentence. No harm, no foul.
I used the example rich/poor but I could just as easily have used the example assholes/angels. Thus, the group analogy.
in your second example the noun is radicals, and the adjective is Black. As we know, radicals come in all colors. And if the speaker is talking about radicals and Black radicals in particular, how can you point to a claim that all black people are radicals? That is a change in focus isnt it? And I am not doing that.

My point was that the phrase "rich assholes" defined a GROUP. The intersection between group A (all rich people) and group B (all assholes) A distinct group all its own.(X) (obviously, not all rich people are assholes, nor are all assholes rich) It delineates a particular set, not its separate parts. Thus, MORE rich assholes means an increase to the original group of rich assholes. (since they are procreating!) As I said to Amber (maybe she didnt read?) we are not talking a finite number here.

Earlier on, someone made the fallacy leap (aka Categorical fallacy) between what Jason and I thought (that Eliud was defining a group) to the statement "are you saying all rich people are assholes?" I want to state for the record, I never said that. I never said Eliud said that. I am merely saying that it is possible to recognize or identify the phrase "rich assholes" as its own entity.
As either group A or group B increases its numbers, there is the liklihood that the subset (X) will increase as well.

Eliud clarified his meaning later on and as I said, I was ok with that. I was merely pointing out to Amber that there was more than one way of reading that sentence, and I stand by that statement.


oh and Amber? Whatever.

[Jyqm]

Exaggerated sigh.

except in this case the noun was "assholes" and the adjective was "rich".

Right...

therefore, your example is flipped.

No, it's not.

you can say that not all assholes are rich under your example

In my example, the noun was "radicals" and the adjective was "black," and I used a couple of sentences where it was clear that the phrase did not implt that all black people are radicals.

In ELIUD's sentence, the noun was "assholes" and the adjective was "rich."

As we know, radicals come in all colors.

Indeed, as do assholes.

My point was that the phrase "rich assholes" defined a GROUP.

As does the phrase "black radicals."

Thus, MORE rich assholes means an increase to the original group of rich assholes. (since they are procreating!)

Right. How is this different from my example in the which the black radicals create more black radicals?

I was merely pointing out to Amber that there was more than one way of reading that sentence, and I stand by that statement.

You do that. I can see this is very important to you.

[irishgrl]

Exaggerated sigh.



Right...
No, it's not.

In my example, the noun was "radicals" and the adjective was "black," and I used a couple of sentences where it was clear that the phrase did not implt that all black people are radicals.

In ELIUD's sentence, the noun was "assholes" and the adjective was "rich."

Indeed, as do assholes.

As does the phrase "black radicals."

Right. How is this different from my example in the which the black radicals create more black radicals?

You do that. I can see this is very important to you.


while you posted this, I edited some of my earlier post.

Im not saying our two examples are different. I am saying that someone earlier on made a categorical error (not me) thinking that the phrase I was highlighting actually lead to another conclusion. Go back and read my other post on this page.

btw: YES this is important to me. I resent Amber's insistence that there is only one way to "read" something, or that only she has the ability to be logical. She can cry mea culpa all she wants but I know how she treated me via PM, and considering she wasnt even the person I was talking to originally, her blithe announcements of her superiority were really quite unnecessary. As are her comments (oh so thinly veiled) directed at me now. She really should look in the mirror before she starts accusing ME of anything.

[irishgrl]

Were you born in Ireland?
I wish.....someday I hope to go there....

"getting your Irish up" is an expression...

[Jyqm]

while you posted this, I edited some of my earlier post.

Im not saying our two examples are different. I am saying that someone earlier on made a categorical error (not me) thinking that the phrase I was highlighting actually lead to another conclusion. Go back and read my other post on this page.

Gotcha. All clear.

[irishgrl]

Gotcha. All clear.
Thank you for that.

[David]

btw: YES this is important to me. I resent Amber's insistence that there is only one way to "read" something, or that only she has the ability to be logical.This all reminds me of the exchange between Derrida & Abrams ("The Deconstructing Angel" &c.).

[David]

Not everyone can be grammar superstars like us. Though I am amazed that this particular branch of discussion has gone on for so many pages.As Joseph Sawicki used to say, All grammars leak.

Consider the sentence (used in Fowler): Neither John nor Mary knew his own mind.

Grammatical yet leaky!

Incidentally, Fowler's suggestion is to recast: e.g., Both were alike irresolute.

[sodascouts]

I heard Stevie, Joe & Don used the young lady's Bat Mitzvah as an opportunity to stretch out a little with their set lists -- you know, to run through some Yiddish numbers that they don't get to play very often when they're booked into the Garden or Irvine Meadows. [...]

BWA HA HA!

[sodascouts]

I figure since most of the familiar (and familial sorta) names like Petty, Nicks, Henley, etc...went in on this, they donated their "earnings" to Henley's Walden Woods thingy or whatever.


Perhaps Henley enlisted them, since as you know, one of the articles said his pay went to that (although that's unconfirmed). It would explain Petty's presence. Slumming for "the greater good" and all that.

[irishgrl]

I know, I'm actually Irish myself. It's just when Curtis asked if you had red hair I suddenly wondered if you were called Irishgrl because you were born in Ireland or just that your family is Irish.
My family is Irish, (my dad's side particularly) and I identify with that part of my heritage the most. Hence the name I picked for myself.

[cliffdweller]

Next time I am in Texas - me, you, and Livia are going out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And what a wild time THAT will be :cool::thumbsup:. Don't forget your chiffon! :p

[cliffdweller]

And if people start thinking that all words have no concrete meaning, and are up for "interpretation" even though the interpretation is something no one ever said, or can even be stretched to intimate that they meant that, well, then, suck balls. To me, it's called "spinning" or "making stuff up" pure and simple.

I like to call it Post-Structuralism, or if one prefers, Deconstructionism...check out Derrida's theory of Differance . He will change the way you think about language and meaning. NOTHING about language is concrete. He'll twist your logic six ways to Sunday ;).

"Derrida's work focuses on language. He contends that the traditional, or metaphysical way of reading makes a number of false assumptions about the nature of texts. A traditional reader believes that language is capable of expressing ideas without changing them, that in the hierarchy of language writing is secondary to speech, and that the author of a text is the source of its meaning. Derrida's deconstructive style of reading subverts these assumptions and challenges the idea that a text has an unchanging, unified meaning. Western culture has tended to assume that speech is a clear and direct way to communicate. Drawing on psychoanalysis and linguistics, Derrida questions this assumption. As a result, the author's intentions in speaking cannot be unconditionally accepted. This multiplies the number of legitimate interpretations of a text. Deconstruction shows the multiple layers of meaning at work in language. By deconstructing the works of previous scholars, Derrida attempts to show that language is constantly shifting. Although Derrida's thought is sometimes portrayed by critics as destructive of philosophy, deconstruction can be better understood as showing the unavoidable tensions between the ideals of clarity and coherence that govern philosophy and the inevitable shortcomings that accompany its production. "

:thumbsup:

[cliffdweller]

This all reminds me of the exchange between Derrida & Abrams ("The Deconstructing Angel" &c.).

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

[irishgrl]

I like to call it Post-Structuralism, or if one prefers, Deconstructionism...check out Derrida's theory of Differance . He will change the way you think about language and meaning. NOTHING about language is concrete. He'll twist your logic six ways to Sunday ;).

"Derrida's work focuses on language. He contends that the traditional, or metaphysical way of reading makes a number of false assumptions about the nature of texts. A traditional reader believes that language is capable of expressing ideas without changing them, that in the hierarchy of language writing is secondary to speech, and that the author of a text is the source of its meaning. Derrida's deconstructive style of reading subverts these assumptions and challenges the idea that a text has an unchanging, unified meaning. Western culture has tended to assume that speech is a clear and direct way to communicate. Drawing on psychoanalysis and linguistics, Derrida questions this assumption. As a result, the author's intentions in speaking cannot be unconditionally accepted. This multiplies the number of legitimate interpretations of a text. Deconstruction shows the multiple layers of meaning at work in language. By deconstructing the works of previous scholars, Derrida attempts to show that language is constantly shifting. Although Derrida's thought is sometimes portrayed by critics as destructive of philosophy, deconstruction can be better understood as showing the unavoidable tensions between the ideals of clarity and coherence that govern philosophy and the inevitable shortcomings that accompany its production. "

:thumbsup:
may I just say: THANK YOU!! :blob2: :blob1: :blob2: :blob1: now its MY TURN to feel validated. And to point out that the reason Amber was having such a hard time illustrating any error in logic on MY part was due to the fact that I didnt MAKE any. Now, Im off to research Derrida, because I like educating myself and I give a ****.

[Jyqm]

I like to call it Post-Structuralism, or if one prefers, Deconstructionism...check out Derrida's theory of Differance . He will change the way you think about language and meaning. NOTHING about language is concrete. He'll twist your logic six ways to Sunday ;).

Now both of you - you and David - just stop it! This is a family message board, and it's no place for your dirty, dirty French linguists.

[irishgrl]

Now both of you - you and David - just stop it! This is a family message board, and it's no place for your dirty, dirty French linguists.
why? are they nekkid? :eek:

[Serrart]

Okay , I've just read four pages of the effects caused by an Amber's or Irishgirl's post. Since I can't find it where is it? Even a small hint would help. Page 10? 15? 22?

Romy

Edit: Thanks anyway, I've been told.

[cliffdweller]

may I just say: THANK YOU!! :blob2: :blob1: :blob2: :blob1: now its MY TURN to feel validated. And to point out that the reason Amber was having such a hard time illustrating any error in logic on MY part was due to the fact that I didnt MAKE any. Now, Im off to research Derrida, because I like educating myself and I give a ****.

No prob. I'm a fan of Deconstruction and Post-Structuralism (one feeds right into the next). Derrida is a mad genius! There's a documentary that was released in the past couple of years about his life and theories, you should check it out. I haven't seen it yet, but was told it was fantastic. I've been meaning to rent it for the longest time!

[cliffdweller]

Now both of you - you and David - just stop it! This is a family message board, and it's no place for your dirty, dirty French linguists.


oooooooh dirty and subversive. Me likey :cool:

[Johnny Stew]

Now both of you - you and David - just stop it! This is a family message board, and it's no place for your dirty, dirty French linguists.Are you not fond of cunning linguists?

[strandinthewind]

Are you not fond of cunning linguists?

Only if they are clean shaven and freshly bathed - which the French are notoriously loathe to do.

[amber]

may I just say: THANK YOU!! :blob2: :blob1: :blob2: :blob1: now its MY TURN to feel validated. And to point out that the reason Amber was having such a hard time illustrating any error in logic on MY part was due to the fact that I didnt MAKE any. Now, Im off to research Derrida, because I like educating myself and I give a ****.
yeah, that's still not true even though Cliffdweller shared some interesting theories and thoughts with us right there, that I'm sure are valid and all that, it doesn't really apply to your point, nor does it really illustrate your point as you were previously arguing it. You still made a logical error.
For you to feel your point was validated by that is absurd.
Good try, though. Well, actually, lame try, but that makes sense.

[irishgrl]

yeah, that's still not true even though Cliffdweller shared some interesting theories and thoughts with us right there, that I'm sure are valid and all that, it doesn't really apply to your point, nor does it really illustrate your point as you were previously arguing it. You still made a logical error.
For you to feel your point was validated by that is absurd.
Good try, though. Well, actually, lame try, but that makes sense.

poor Amber. egg on face is not your best look.....or maybe it is :rolleyes:

[irishgrl]

here's what you said:
And if people start thinking that all words have no concrete meaning, and are up for "interpretation" even though the interpretation is something no one ever said, or can even be stretched to intimate that they meant that, well, then, suck balls. To me, it's called "spinning" or "making stuff up" pure and simple.
and here's how Cliffdweller precisely refuted YOU:

NOTHING about language is concrete.

"Derrida's work focuses on language. He contends that the traditional, or metaphysical way of reading makes a number of false assumptions about the nature of texts. A traditional reader believes that language is capable of expressing ideas without changing them, that in the hierarchy of language writing is secondary to speech, and that the author of a text is the source of its meaning. Derrida's deconstructive style of reading subverts these assumptions and challenges the idea that a text has an unchanging, unified meaning.
Which is what I said: that there is more than one way to interpret words.

I supplied a Venn Diagram (in text) to show what I was talking about. Even Jyqm could see that. But YOU conveniently ignore THAT and hold fast to your erroneous position.....I can only conclude that you lied when you said you could admit you were wrong because guess what? you ARE. :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:
to put it another way:
Hope you read this post, and it pissed you off....Little Miss Little Miss Little Miss CANT BE WRONG!!!!!

I will forever think of YOU when I hear that, how priceless :nod:

[Ghost_Tracker]

here's what you said:

and here's how Cliffdweller precisely refuted YOU:




Which is what I said: that there is more than one way to interpret words.

I supplied a Venn Diagram (in text) to show what I was talking about. Even Jyqm could see that. But YOU conveniently ignore THAT and hold fast to your erroneous position.....I can only conclude that you lied when you said you could admit you were wrong because guess what? you ARE. :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:
to put it another way:
Hope you read this post, and it pissed you off....Little Miss Little Miss Little Miss CANT BE WRONG!!!!!

I will forever think of YOU when I hear that, how priceless :nod:

"Fascinating," as Mr. Spock on Star Wreck would say - but can I ask how a discussion about Stevie doing a Bat Mitzfah for fun and profit evolved into a discussion of postmodernism??? JUST wondering! :shocked: :shrug:

[sarafield]

"Fascinating," as Mr. Spock on Star Wreck would say - but can I ask how a discussion about Stevie doing a Bat Mitzfah for fun and profit evolved into a discussion of postmodernism??? JUST wondering! :shocked: :shrug:

To summarize:

Someone said something about creating more rich assholes; someone drew a not-necessarily-correct conclusion about what the "rich assholes" comment meant; Amber and IrishGirl started using big words; someone brought up Derrida, whose work is irrefutable, apparently; and now IrishGirl is going to think of someone she argued with on a forum every time in the future she hears a song which will forever be in rotation on classic rock radio.

[Mari]

"Fascinating," as Mr. Spock on Star Wreck would say - but can I ask how a discussion about Stevie doing a Bat Mitzfah for fun and profit evolved into a discussion of postmodernism??? JUST wondering! :shocked: :shrug:

There is no mr Spock on Star Wreck (http://www.starwreck.com).
There's a mr Spökö though and captain Pirk, and a mr Fukov..
Best star trek parody ever :thumbsup:

[Jyqm]

Which is what I said: that there is more than one way to interpret words.

I supplied a Venn Diagram (in text) to show what I was talking about. Even Jyqm could see that.

However, I don't especially agree with the example of this thread. I was just agreeing to disagree and move on because this has all gotten rather silly. I realize neither of you has a dick to whip out, but surely there be something else we can measure here.

And words most certainly do have concrete meanings (though they may have multiple ones and they may change drastically over time), especially when they're put into context with other words to form sentences.

A strict reading of Derrida (who never read anything strictly) is rarely a good thing.

[irishgrl]

And words most certainly do have concrete meanings (though they may have multiple ones and they may change drastically over time), especially when they're put into context with other words to form sentences.

Im sure you'll agree that they can have more than one interpretation however.
A quick perusal of the topic of hermeneutics (Thanks David!) will confirm that.

Just think of how much controversy there is over trying to figure out what the Bible means.....or ANY book for that matter. people filter information all the time :shrug:

As for the example of this thread and yardsticks to measure ????......You didnt see the PM I got from Amber several weeks ago and so you dont understand my refusal to back down.....sorry about that :shrug:

btw: you needn't agree to disagree, because if you'll re-read your earlier posts arguing with Jason, you'll see that you actually articulated the same premise I was getting at. I can quote it if you like?

[Jyqm]

Im sure you'll agree that they can have more than one interpretation however.
A quick perusal of the topic of hermeneutics (Thanks David!) will confirm that.

Depends on the sentence and the levels of meaning you're trying to get at.

Just think of how much controversy there is over trying to figure out what the Bible means.....or ANY book for that matter. people filter information all the time :shrug:

This is true, but again, that's moving well beyond literal meanings into more metaphorical (or allegorical, or anagogical...) areas. We're talking about much more basic stuff here.

btw: you needn't agree to disagree, because if you'll re-read your earlier posts arguing with Jason, you'll see that you actually articulated the same premise I was getting at. I can quote it if you like?

That's fine, I honestly really don't care that much. If we agree, that's great, I'm sorry if I misread or misinterpreted something else you said.

[irishgrl]

Depends on the sentence and the levels of meaning you're trying to get at.



This is true, but again, that's moving well beyond literal meanings into more metaphorical (or allegorical, or anagogical...) areas. We're talking about much more basic stuff here.



That's fine, I honestly really don't care that much. If we agree, that's great, I'm sorry if I misread or misinterpreted something else you said.
a rose is a rose is a rose eh? anyway, Ive got no beef with you, and no apology on your part is necessary, but thank you for the civil discussion :nod:

and to everyone's collective relief, Im sure: Im done.

[David]

someone brought up Derrida, whose work is irrefutable, apparentlySarafield, I loved your summary! :laugh: ;)

There are many good demolition jobs of Derrida, as you probably know. But the best demolition job is John Ellis's "Against Deconstruction," a 1989 Princeton U. Press book I steal from periodically.

But if you guys are still interested in goofy-poofy deconstruction, don't read about it; read it in action. Read J. Hillis Miller's preface to "Bleak House" in the Penguin English Library paperback edition of that book.

[Jyqm]

But if you guys are still interested in goofy-poofy deconstruction, don't read about it; read it in action. Read J. Hillis Miller's preface to "Bleak House" in the Penguin English Library paperback edition of that book.

Oh lord. I don't even want to know.

I'm not a huge Dickens fan anyway. I think I'd be ruined on the man for good if I had to read a deconstructionist critique of Bleak House.

[sodascouts]

Not to interrupt this lovely discourse, but it's been confirmed that Henley did indeed give the money he received for the party to Walden Woods.

[Jyqm]

Not to interrupt this lovely discourse, but it's been confirmed that Henley did indeed give the money he received for the party to Walden Woods.

Can you post your source, Nancy?

Thanks!

[strandinthewind]

Not to interrupt this lovely discourse, but it's been confirmed that Henley did indeed give the money he received for the party to Walden Woods.

Interestingly, should Walden Woods refuse it because it comes from a tainted source and Henley is widely perceived as a whore for getting the money in the first place - or is it okay now that a non poverty benefiting charity has benefited :shrug:

Food for Thought :cool:

[Jyqm]

Interestingly, should Walden Woods refuse it because it comes from a tainted source and Henley is widely perceived as a whore for getting the money in the first place - or is it okay now that a non poverty benefiting charity has benefited :shrug:

Food for Thought :cool:

I'm not sure I follow that sentence... Actually, I'm not entirely sure it's a sentence.

Anyway, as noted in my first post in this thread, I think it's great if any or all of the musicians involved give their paychecks to whatever favorite charity or philanthropic organization they like, whether it's for poverty or environmental preservation or whatever other worthwhile cause that can do something good and productive with a handsome sum like that.

[strandinthewind]

. . . Not really.

I think so, at least from a philosophical point of view, in that if it is tainted money to begin with, then how is the charity any less of a bad thing than Henley for taking it in the first place? Does Henley donating it erase the taint of the apparently ill gotten money and, in a separate question, is Henley less of a whore for taking the gig to get the money in the first place?

[strandinthewind]

I'm not sure I follow that sentence... Actually, I'm not entirely sure it's a sentence.

it is a sentence.

Anyway, as noted in my first post in this thread, I think it's great if any or all of the musicians involved give their paychecks to whatever favorite charity or philanthropic organization they like, whether it's for poverty or environmental preservation or whatever other worthwhile cause that can do something good and productive with a handsome sum like that.

Interesting point. So, it is okay for stars to play at $10 million + private parties for apparent criminals if those stars donate the money to a charity.

Personally, I had no problem with them keeping the money for themselves. So, I have no problem with them donating it to a charity, though I think the donation to charity is better than keeping the money for themselves.

[Jyqm]

I think so, at least from a philosophical point of view, in that if it is tainted money to begin with, then how is the charity any less of a bad thing than Henley for taking it in the first place?

Who said that it was "tainted money" and why?

is Henley less of a whore for taking the gig to get the money in the first place?

I say so, yes. Not only does is it erase the tallies from his negative column in my book, it puts a tally or two in the positive column.

[strandinthewind]

Who said that it was "tainted money" and why?


Didn't Diss posted that stuff about this guy allegedly stealing money from the govt. That is what I was referring to.

[Jyqm]

Didn't Diss posted that stuff about this guy allegedly stealing money from the govt. That is what I was referring to.

I either don't recall or didn't read that specific post. Now way no how am I going to go looking for it in the middle of this behemoth, though...

[strandinthewind]

I either don't recall or didn't read that specific post. Now way no how am I going to go looking for it in the middle of this behemoth, though...

LOL - me either. I believe it was about the recall of some of the bullet proof vests, which the military says never placed any soldiers in harm's way (http://www.libn.com/breakingNews_detail.cfm?id=4238 ) and the that he is being investigated for some, I think, accounting/compensation issues (http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/1101/178.html ) -- so, it is possible to say the money is tainted, which was, I believe said by others earlier.

[Jyqm]

I wish they hadn't done it in the first place for numerous reasons, but it does make it slightly better in my eyes if those artists involved take that "tainted money" and use it to do something good with it. That's how I see it anyway Strandie.

I'll go further than that and say it makes it a whole lot better. I think it actually makes it a good thing that Henley signed on for the party, and I respect him a little more for doing it.

[Jyqm]

LOL - me either. I believe it was about the recall of some of the bullet proof vests, which the military says never placed any soldiers in harm's way (http://www.libn.com/breakingNews_detail.cfm?id=4238 ) and the that he is being investigated for some, I think, accounting/compensation issues (http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/1101/178.html ) -- so, it is possible to say the money is tainted, which was, I believe said by others earlier.

Okay. Well if the guy's indicted or anything, then I think that clearly raises some issues about the being "tainted." Until then, though, I'll presume Mr. Brooks innocent and believe that he at least earned his wealth legally, if not honorably, fairly or legitimately.

[strandinthewind]

I wish they hadn't done it in the first place for numerous reasons, but it does make it slightly better in my eyes if those artists involved take that "tainted money" and use it to do something good with it. That's how I see it anyway Strandie.

I do too. But and again, I am fine with them having done it and if they kept the money and spent it on Prada.

[cliffdweller]

Oh lord. I don't even want to know.

I'm not a huge Dickens fan anyway. I think I'd be ruined on the man for good if I had to read a deconstructionist critique of Bleak House.

:laugh::laugh: This is great.

Anyway, that's cool that Henley dontated his share of the money. I can only think that most of the rest of them did too. Okay, it's really that I just WANT to believe this :laugh:.

[David]

I give Lionel Bart the last word on all this houhah . . .

"You've Got to Pick a Pocket or Two"

In this life
One thing counts
In the bank
Large amounts
I'm afraid these
Don't grow on trees
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two

You've got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two

Why should we
Break our backs
Stupidly
Paying tax?
Better get some
Untaxed income
Better pick-a-pocket or two

You've got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two

Robin Hood
What a crook!
Gave away
What he took
Charity's fine --
Subscribe to mine!
Get out and pick-a-pocket or two

You've got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two

Dear old gent
Passing by
Something nice
Takes his eye
Everything's clear
Attack the rear!
Get in and pick-a-pocket or two

You've got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two

Have no fear, attack the rear
Get in and pick-a-pocket or two

When I see
Someone rich
Both my thumbs
Start to itch
Only to find
Some peace of mind
We have to pick-a-pocket or two!

[strandinthewind]

But would it be okay if they kept the money and spent it in JC Penny's? Eh?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

I do not care where they spend it and believe it or not, I frequent Sears and often, though not usually for clothing. :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Stevie wouldn't spend the money in Penney's though! :) Remember that interview with Courtney Love? :)

I know - I was laughing soooooo hard when I read that. I was like SNOBS :] :]

[Livia]

Stop saying "TAINTED" :lol:

[JazmenFlowers]

Stop saying "TAINTED" :lol:
oh my - that's funny

margaret/marguerite should be a pop culture icon by now

[sparky]

I do too. But and again, I am fine with them having done it and if they kept the money and spent it on Prada.


I don't think any of the Mac are exactly Prada types. Maybe they have some silly slingbacks that Homegirl might use to sashay about the manse.

[strandinthewind]

I don't think any of the Mac are exactly Prada types. Maybe they have some silly slingbacks that Homegirl might use to sashay about the manse.

I know - maybe shades too.

[Livia]

A couple more articles:


MSNBC.com

Go shorty! It's your bat mitzvah
50 Cent, Aerosmith among acts gettin' rich performing at private functions

By James Sullivan
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 11:06 a.m. ET Dec. 2, 2005


Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: 50 Cent, Steven Tyler and Kenny G walk into a bar.

Actually, it’s a true story. That motley crew of top-shelf entertainers and an equally gaudy second tier all performed recently at the bat mitzvah — no kidding — of the daughter of a presumably well-connected New York defense contractor.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: What, no Gene Simmons?

But seriously, folks. 50 Cent may have a streetwise reputation to uphold, but we all know he’s gonna get rich or die tryin’. If a proud papa offers him hundreds of thousands of dollars to kick the hora with his daughter, Fitty’s definitely in.

Besides, the rapper’s hottest joint right now is “Window Shopping.” Safe to say that’s a pastime he might have in common with a pubescent Long Island girl whose parents reportedly gave their guests thousand-dollar gift bags stuffed with digital cameras and video iPods. Yeah, boychik.

The New York Daily News dubbed it “Mitzvahpalooza.” Earlier this week the paper reported that 50, jazz smoothie Kenny G and Tyler and his Aerosmith bandmate Joe Perry — not to mention Tom Petty, Don Henley, Stevie Nicks, “Goodies” girl Ciara and DJ AM, Nicole Richie’s boyfriend — all performed for big money at a gala bat mitzvah at Manhattan’s glitzy, skyscraping Rainbow Room. Tyler and Perry alone supposedly got $2 million in exchange for their 45-minute headlining set.

Singing for their suppers
By now such insider trading shouldn’t come as any great shock. Pop acts have been cashing some of their biggest checks to play private parties for years now. In the past decade, million-dollar corporate paydates have become routine for acts such as the Eagles, Elton John and the Rolling Stones. Bill Graham Presents, the legacy of the late San Francisco rock promoter, has a lucrative Special Events division, and there are entire agencies devoted to producing such exclusive gigs.

It’s the bat mitzvah aspect — all raging hormones and complicated dental correctives — that makes this particular affair so amusing. The first bat mitzvah in America took place in 1922, when the forward-thinking Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan decided to give his daughter the same opportunity to mark her impending adulthood that the boys had. Judith Kaplan later recalled that the event wasn’t as earth-shattering as it appeared to some members of her faith: “No thunder sounded,” she said. “No lightning struck.”

Last weekend, they might have been trying to make up for lost time. We can hear it now: “Party people! Throw your hands in the air, and wave ‘em like you’re all farblondjet.”

Now, Kenny G, we can understand. I have it on good authority that little Kenny Gorelick used to blow the shofar, the traditional ram’s horn, in his family’s synagogue on the High Holy Days.

And the web site Jewsrock.org features Aerosmith in its Challah Fame, alongside such bar mitzvahed luminaries as the Beastie Boys, David Lee Roth and yes, Kiss’s Gene Simmons (who was born Chaim Witz). The band snared its membership through its drummer, Joey Kramer.

What did he say?
Pop music, in fact, is not new to the mitzvot. In the book “Jews Who Rock,” Ben Stiller recalled his own bar mitzvah, at which his youthful band, Capital Punishment, performed. They did a cover of the Beatles’ “Hey Jude.”

It was just the kind of painfully awkward moment that Stiller would later make his comic specialty. His father, he wrote in the book’s foreword, panicked. To him, of course, it sounded like “Hey Jew.”

Jewish culture has gotten a lot hipper since. There’s Heeb Magazine (“The New Jew Review”), He’Brew Beer (just chosen as one of Bravo’s 100 “Great Things About the Holidays”) and the new book “Bar Mitzvah Disco,” in which Sarah Silverman and other brave souls share pictures and stories from their own gawky fulfillment of the Commandment. Neil Diamond, the Jewish Elvis, has a trendy new album out.

And on “The Simpsons,” Krusty the Clown got belatedly bar mitzvahed, with a little help from Mr. T (“I pity the shul”). A parody band called the Beach Boys Experience provided the entertainment, sung to the tune of “Kokomo”: “Mezuzah, menorah, created from the Torah/Pastrami, knishes, on to set some dishes”…

For the right price, the real Beach Boys will sing it at your next Hanukkah party. Either them, or maybe 50 Cent.

James Sullivan is a pop culture writer and a regular contributor to MSNBC.com.

© 2005 MSNBC Interactive

© 2005 MSNBC.com

URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10295486/

[Livia]

Looks like the media is now piecing together the who, what, when and where - have they been lurking here??

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

DEFENSE CONTRACTOR CEO PARTIES

Friday, December 02, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com

A corporate CEO recently spent $10 MILLION. . .for his daughter's Bat Mitzvah party! It's none of our business what he does with his money, you say? What if you found out he's CEO of a huge defense contractor, DHB Industries, whose subsidiary, Point Blank Body Armor Inc., makes the allegedly "bulletproof" vests supposed to help protect our soldiers in Iraq? What if you knew that over 18,000 of these vests had been recalled by our Armed Forces, as being substandard for outfitting those troops?

David H. Brooks is the CEO responsible, but according to Joe Bua in the Daily KOS, he's been too busy hobnobbing with Aerosmith to notice. While the faulty vests were apparently pulled before they got to the field, they represent a significant portion of the company's contracted allotment.

Brooks, meanwhile, according to "booked two floors of the Rainbow Room, hauled in concert-ready equipment, built a stage, installed special carpeting, outfitted the space with Jumbotrons and arranged command performances by 50 Cent, Tom Petty, Aerosmith, Eagles Don Henley and Joe Walsh, Fleetwood Mac's Stevie Nicks, DJ AM, rap diva Ciara, and Kenny G. for over 300 guests, who listened during their pre-dinner cocktails. The 50-year-old Brooks allegedly alternated between a black-leather, metal-studded suit-with biker-chic necklace chains and diamonds from Chrome Hearts jewelers-and a hot-pink suede version of the same ensemble. As Bua comments, "it certainly gives you a look into the world of defense contractors. They are rolling in blood money and happy to spend a lot of it to spoil their kids rotten. My country 'tis of thee ..."


staff reports - Free-Market News Network




Web Address: http://www.FreeMarketNews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=2925

[Livia]

And still more backlash:

Why the world's best 13th birthday party has Iraq vets' blood boiling

On the day the President told the American people to prepare for the long haul in Iraq, here’s a story that seems to perfectly sum up our priorities as a nation. They’re calling it Mitzvahpalooza. It may go down in history as the world’s most obscene birthday party (eat your heart out Dennis Kozlowski). David H. Brooks, CEO of bulletproof vest maker DHB Industries, spared no expense for his 13-year old daughter’s entry into adulthood. The girl and 300 of her closest BFFs were entertained recently in New York’s Rainbow Room by Don Henley, Stevie Nicks, Kenny G, Aerosmith and, believe it or not, 50 Cent (I guess 500 large can make you forget all about street cred). It was hosted by Tom Petty. The reported cost: $10 million. See the pics here.

First off, what 13-year old is a fan of Don Henley, Fleetwood Mac and, for God’s sake, Kenny G? Who was this party really for? Second, and more importantly, where does a guy get $10 million to blow on a Bat Mitzvah? Well, it appears, from you, the American taxpayer. According to United for a Fair Economy, Brooks and Co. have made a tidy profit outfitting our nation’s fighting men and women in body armor that allegedly couldn’t take a hit from a 9mm round:

David H. Brooks, CEO of bulletproof vest maker DHB Industries, earned $70 million in 2004, 13,349% more than his 2001 compensation of $525,000. Brooks also sold company stock worth about $186 million last year, spooking investors who drove DHB’s share price from more than $22 to as low as $6.50 [DHB was trading at $4.20 Wednesday]. In May 2005, the U.S. Marines recalled more than 5,000 DHB armored vests after questions were raised about their effectiveness. By that time, Brooks had pocketed over $250 million in war windfalls.

Read UFE’s full report Executive Excess 2005 (PDF, 3.81 MB).

According to a government memo uncovered in an eight-month investigation by the Marine Corps Times, the company’s vests, made by DHB subsidiary Point Blank Body Armor, failed tests when they suffered “multiple complete penetrations” of 9mm pistol rounds and other ballistics. In the memo, government ballistics expert James MacKiewicz said his office “has little confidence in the performance” of the body armor.

The Marines later disputed the results of the tests.

A spokeperson for the Marines issued a statement at the time saying, “Even though they may not have met contract specifications there’s no evidence to suggest (troops) would be or had been at risk.”

Nevertheless, the Marines recalled 5,277 of the company’s “Interceptor” vests in May.

“It’s shocking to see a guy who has no shame like this. He may be the world champion war profiteer,” said the Institute for Policy Studies’ Sarah Anderson, who co-authored the report. “The shareholders are up in arms over the defective equipment, the military is up and arms, and he’s out partying.”

Indeed, Iraq war veterans are not pleased. Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq war veteran and founder of Operation Truth (and my frequent radio partner), told me, “It is already disturbing that anyone can live the high-life as a result of the booming war business, but it is particularly disheartening to hear about someone having their own private Lollapalooza, in part from the sale of defective equipment that put our troops in harm’s way. America must take a long, hard look at the idea of profit on the battlefield.”

Another OpTruth Iraq vet, Bobby Yen, had a darker take, “I guess it just goes to show the state of affairs and the state of mind of this tired, old (of mind) veteran that when this story came up it didn’t even make me blink. So some rich guy somewhere who made tons of money selling defective bulletproof vests to the military has a filthy rich party for his daughter’s Bat Mitzvah. ‘Oh, wow, someone wants to endanger my life for a few bucks?’ Sounds like the entire war. So the soldiers get paid poorly, on occasion shell out there own few bucks to buy gear, lose a year of their life, lose their sanity, lose their limbs, lose their lives, and a very few, very select group closely connected to our government get very, very rich. OK, if that’s what the American people want. If that’s what they voted for.”

Bruce S. Rubin, of rbb Public Relations, sent this reply on Brooks’ behalf:

“The party was to commemorate his daughter’s Bat Mitzvah, a cherished tradition in the Jewish religion, marking the passage into adulthood. The costs of the reception are private, although I can acknowledge that figures which have been reported are wildly exaggerated and untrue. All other aspects of the reception are private.

I do not accept your use of the word ‘decadence.’ I think it’s inappropriate and inaccurate. I have not seen any criticism from Iraq war vets. I have, however, seen hundreds and hundreds of letters, notes, etc. that Mr. Brooks has received from current and former members of our Armed Forces thanking him and his company for the protective vests which have saved countless lives.

Point Blank takes great pride in the quality, design and workmanship of all of our products, especially our life saving body armor products. To our knowledge, none of the hundreds of thousands of Outer Tactical Vests that Point Blank has manufactured have failed in the field—an extraordinary achievement. All testing procedures for these vests were approved by, and conducted under the close supervision of, the U.S. government. For specific information, I would refer you to the military, which conducted the recall action.

Mr. Brooks’ compensation for DHB is fully disclosed in the company’s annual report. For 2004, it was approximately $3 million.”

According to the company’s 2004 annual report, Rubin is correct. Brooks earned around $3 million in salary and “other compensation.” But he also pocketed an additional $69,930,000 in cash from exercising stock options. This does not include Brooks’ $186 million stock sale, which is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

On November 21, the Army Times reported, “The Army and Marine Corps are recalling more than 18,000 body armor vests because they failed ballistic requirements when they were manufactured in 1999-2000. Many of those vests may now be in the war zone. The Nov. 16 recall order is the second in six months for the Marines. The Corps recalled more than 5,000 vests in May. All of the vests involved were produced by the same manufacturer, Point Blank Body Armor Inc. of Pompano Beach, Fla., under contract to the Marine Corps.”

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/1915/50_Cent_the_War_Profiteer_and_the_10_million_Bat_Mitzvah

[David]

And still more backlash:

Why the world's best 13th birthday party has Iraq vets' blood boiling

On the day the President told the American people to prepare for the long haul in Iraq, here’s a story that seems to perfectly sum up our priorities as a nation. They’re calling it Mitzvahpalooza. It may go down in history as the world’s most obscene birthday party (eat your heart out Dennis Kozlowski). David H. Brooks, CEO of bulletproof vest maker DHB Industries, spared no expense for his 13-year old daughter’s entry into adulthood.This Brooks is being blamed for a couple of things: first of all, they say he's crass (which seems beyond doubt), & secondly, they say his body armor doesn't work.

Why blame him -- or at least only him -- for the bad body armor? The guys to blame are the guys in the Department of Defense who awarded Brokks's company the contract to supply that armor. Why did they award the contract to a manufacturer of bad product? The DoD has plenty opportunities to verify the products & services they buy for the military. Did they just conveniently "overlook" the crappy armor because someone in the DoD owed Brooks a favor?

The whole Bat Mitzvah brouhaha is just a smokescreen. The real (potential) story here is this contract between the U.S. Department of Defense & DHB Industries & the possibility of inadequate or nonfunctioning equipment being hush-hushed.

Also, someone in another thread said earlier that the average cost of a Bat Mitzvah is $40,000. That's ridiculous. Where did that info come from? First of all, all it really costs for a Bar Mitzvah is the cost of membership with a congregation & some peripheral costs & fees associated with the Men's Club or Sisterhood providing wine, challah, etc., for the oneg. Temple membership depends on where, but runs from a few hundred a year to a couple of thousand a year -- still nowhere near $40,000. Secondly, you have to differentiate between the Bat Mitzvah & the party AFTERWARDS. The Bat Mitzvah is the religious ritual itself -- calling the child to the Torah as an adult in the Jewish community. As long as you are a paid member of a congregation, your child is "eligible" to have a Bat Mitzvah there. Thirdly, Bar Mitzvah parties (for boys) probably cost more than parties for girls because many parents feel they're going to give their daughters big weddings, so traditionally the boys get the bigger parties at Bar Mitzvah time.

So as far as costs & Bar/Bat Mitzvahs, it's like a wedding: You can party for hundreds of dollars, or you can party for hundreds of thousands of dollars. But to have the actual ceremony BEFORE the partying you plan to do, it doesn't cost much at all.

So now let's dig up some REAL dirt on this DHB Industries ... did they know the armor they were selling to the military was bad?

[sodascouts]

Can you post your source, Nancy?

Thanks!

No sweat. I would have done so earlier but in the past I have been told by a moderator that linking to other message boards was against the TOS and thus posts containing such links would be deleted. Therefore, I'll simply put the content of it here. The admins of the Eagles' only active message board received the following from his office:

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

PETTY, EAGLES, NICKS: All Together Now

How’s this for entertainment at a bat mitzvah -- Aerosmith’s Steven Tyler and Joe Perry, the Eagles’ Don Henley and Joe Walsh with Stevie Nicks, Tom Petty, rapper 50 Cent, Kenny G and others. That’s what you got if you went to the bat mitzvah of Elizabeth Brooks last weekend in New York. Her dad is David H. Brooks, the C-E-O of D-H-B Industries, and he doled out the big bucks for the rock legends, including a reported two-million to Tyler and Perry, who did a 45-minute set. Petty did an acoustic set. Henley did not receive a check for his performance, but a check was sent to his Walden Woods Project.

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

You will find this on the message board of http://www.eaglesfans.com .

[BombaySapphire3]

Ok so that exonerates Henley somewhat.Now what I really think we need to know is what Petty and Nicks did with their share of the $$?

[Livia]

I'm positive my brother's Bar Mitzvah only cost my parents a few thousand dollars. I'm sure my bro made that money back in cash and gifts. That was back in the 70s, however, before the 80s set the tone for excess.

[HenleyFan]

Here's the source:

http://eaglesfans.typepad.com/latest_news/2005/12/party_for_walde.html


Can you post your source, Nancy?

Thanks!

[HenleyFan]

The news is posted on our main news page as well as the message board. We'd like to think we do a little more with the site than simply act as admins for the message board. :)

L&M


No sweat. I would have done so earlier but in the past I have been told by a moderator that linking to other message boards was against the TOS and thus posts containing such links would be deleted. Therefore, I'll simply put the content of it here. The admins of the Eagles' only active message board received the following from his office:

[sodascouts]

The news is posted on our main news page as well as the message board. We'd like to think we do a little more with the site than simply act as admins for the message board. :)

L&M

My apologies if you feel my post diminishes you. That was not my intent.

[sarafield]

Sarafield, I loved your summary! :laugh: ;)

:wavey:


But if you guys are still interested in goofy-poofy deconstruction, don't read about it; read it in action. Read J. Hillis Miller's preface to "Bleak House" in the Penguin English Library paperback edition of that book.

I might just have to check that out...

[strandinthewind]

. . . Why did they award the contract to a manufacturer of bad product? The DoD has plenty opportunities to verify the products & services they buy for the military. Did they just conveniently "overlook" the crappy armor because someone in the DoD owed Brooks a favor? . . . .

Interestingly, the vests have not failed in the field and the numbers recalled are mostly slight in comparison to the overall number out there - to wit:

Military recalls 18,000 DHB vests

Nov. 18 2005 -- 4:09:14 PM EST

by CLAUDE SOLNIK

WESTBURY - The Army and Marine Corps have recalled about 18,000 bullet-resistant vests produced by DHB Industries' Point Blank Body Armor Inc. subsidiary, according to wire reports.

Reuters said that the Army and Marine Corps announced the recall on Thursday. The Army recalled 8,083 vests out of a total of 873,000 [ (1%) ] it has used in the field. The Marine Corp recalled 10,342 out of about 191,000 [ (5.4%) ] being used.

DHB did not return two calls to its offices seeking comment about this recall. The Marines already recalled 5,000 vests made by Point Blank in May, Reuters said.

The wire service indicated that the military said vests were being recalled because they fell short of specifications set for the equipment.

But Reuters said the military said the vests were not believed to have put soldiers in danger, since its own threshold for strength is higher than they are expected to require in the field.

DHB Industries on Tuesday said it had received a new order for $30.1 million from the U.S. Army for additional vests. Shares of DHB slipped 7 percent in midday trading to $3.63 on the news of the recall.

http://www.libn.com/breakingNews_detail.cfm?id=4238

So, DHB is not that bad - at least on this issue and the vast majority of their product works - though clearly it should all work.

Also, this is the only article I could find in my quick search.

[sodascouts]

Interestingly, the vests have not failed in the field and the numbers recalled are mostly slight in comparison to the overall number out there

Interesting, strand. Maybe we are all being too quick to judge.

[strandinthewind]

Interesting, strand. Maybe we are all being too quick to judge.

It very well could that at least from the facts I was able to obtain. However, more facts may be revealed that show DHB is a bad and fraudulant organization.

[golddustdragon]

I can't believe Stevie sold out to a war profiteer. Where has that money come from? I hope he gets exposed.

[irishgrl]

I give Lionel Bart the last word on all this houhah . . .

"You've Got to Pick a Pocket or Two"

In this life
One thing counts
In the bank
Large amounts
I'm afraid these
Don't grow on trees
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two

You've got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two

Why should we
Break our backs
Stupidly
Paying tax?
Better get some
Untaxed income
Better pick-a-pocket or two

You've got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two

Robin Hood
What a crook!
Gave away
What he took
Charity's fine --
Subscribe to mine!
Get out and pick-a-pocket or two

You've got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two

Dear old gent
Passing by
Something nice
Takes his eye
Everything's clear
Attack the rear!
Get in and pick-a-pocket or two

You've got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two

Have no fear, attack the rear
Get in and pick-a-pocket or two

When I see
Someone rich
Both my thumbs
Start to itch
Only to find
Some peace of mind
We have to pick-a-pocket or two!

I LUV Fagin (Ron Moody)! :xoxo: :nod: best scene in the whole movie IMO.

[David]

Interesting, strand. Maybe we are all being too quick to judge.That goes without saying!!

But what REALLY scares the dung outta me is that ... STEVIE PROBABLY RECONNECTED WITH OLD PAL KENNY G.!!!!!

Oh my God, can you imagine? She probably said, "Keeeeeennnyyyyyy!!!!! (hug) We HAVE to do another batch of songs together!!"

WE'RE GONNA SEE ANOTHER BUNCH OF STEVIE + KENNY G. STEWED TUNES WITH SAPPY SAXOPHONE & ADULT CONTEMPORARY MOOD MUZAK, PEOPLE!!!! THEY PLAYED THE SAME SHOW SO THEY HAD TO HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT!!!

[BombaySapphire3]

That goes without saying!!

But what REALLY scares the dung outta me is that ... STEVIE PROBABLY RECONNECTED WITH OLD PAL KENNY G.!!!!!

Oh my God, can you imagine? She probably said, "Keeeeeennnyyyyyy!!!!! (hug) We HAVE to do another batch of songs together!!"

WE'RE GONNA SEE ANOTHER BUNCH OF STEVIE + KENNY G. STEWED TUNES WITH SAPPY SAXOPHONE & ADULT CONTEMPORARY MOOD MUZAK, PEOPLE!!!! THEY PLAYED THE SAME SHOW SO THEY HAD TO HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT!!!
To be fair she did get off the Klonopin .Kenny G.'s muzak sounds like the aural equivalent of sedative-hypnotic overdose so one really could attribute those songs to her addiction .I don't think she'd do it again although I've learned when it comes to La Nicks to never rule anything out.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Interestingly, the vests have not failed in the field and the numbers recalled are mostly slight in comparison to the overall number out there - to wit:

.


Yes, thank you. i.m.o. this guy, and Stevie, deserve the benefit of the doubt. This guy didn't personally send the soldiers to Iraq, the war would be going on no matter what he did. His products help to keep those soldiers safe and it's perfectly reasonable for problems to develop during actual use in the field which result in a small percentage of ANY product being recalled in order for the problem to be solved. Perhaps Stevie doing a concert for a person who makes body armor to protect our troops is a separate issue from the Iraq war, which isn't the topic of discussion in here anyway.

[Rickypt]

I have talked to a zillion people about this party and sent links to the stories to many others. Some are Stevie fans, some are Petty fans, one is an Aerosmith fan, some are Eagles fans, some don't like any of them. To a person, we agree:

1. The father is a narcissist who spent $10 million to throw a party for himself under the guise of doing something for his daughter. That is evident by the performers he chose.

2. This was a gross use of money and while he can do whatever he wants with his $10 million, it shows some really messed up values on his part.

3. We are embarrassed for the performers for being part of it.

No one needs a $10 million party. Brooks could have thrown a great party (maybe one that actually had entertainment a 13 year old would like) for a few thousand. Then he could have asked his daughter to pick a charity and donated the rest in her name. That probably wouldn't be a big deal for her now, but would help instill some values that she will appreciate one day.

Or he could have used the money to improve the working conditions of his employees so those nasty labor disputes could go away.

$10 million for a party/private concert? Might as well flush it down the toilet.

[Johnny Stew]

Oh my God, can you imagine? She probably said, "Keeeeeennnyyyyyy!!!!! (hug) We HAVE to do another batch of songs together!!"Oh, God... I think I'd have to slit my wrists if they did. The first time around was bad enough.

[irishgrl]

Oh, God... I think I'd have to slit my wrists if they did. The first time around was bad enough.
quick: remove all sharp pointy objects from Stewie's orbit. Take no chances people!

[Johnny Stew]

quick: remove all sharp pointy objects from Stewie's orbit. Take no chances people!A couple people around here would probably gladly supply the razor blades! :laugh:

[BombaySapphire3]

I have talked to a zillion people about this party and sent links to the stories to many others. Some are Stevie fans, some are Petty fans, one is an Aerosmith fan, some are Eagles fans, some don't like any of them. To a person, we agree:

1. The father is a narcissist who spent $10 million to throw a party for himself under the guise of doing something for his daughter. That is evident by the performers he chose.

2. This was a gross use of money and while he can do whatever he wants with his $10 million, it shows some really messed up values on his part.

3. We are embarrassed for the performers for being part of it.

No one needs a $10 million party. Brooks could have thrown a great party (maybe one that actually had entertainment a 13 year old would like) for a few thousand. Then he could have asked his daughter to pick a charity and donated the rest in her name. That probably wouldn't be a big deal for her now, but would help instill some values that she will appreciate one day.

Or he could have used the money to improve the working conditions of his employees so those nasty labor disputes could go away.

$10 million for a party/private concert? Might as well flush it down the toilet.
Add me to the zillions that agree with these points .Sorry but I just don't understand the people who are defending this guy .Again I really hope Nicks and Petty donated or used the money from this for something altruistic .

[sparky]

I have talked to a zillion people about this party and sent links to the stories to many others. Some are Stevie fans, some are Petty fans, one is an Aerosmith fan, some are Eagles fans, some don't like any of them. To a person, we agree:

1. The father is a narcissist who spent $10 million to throw a party for himself under the guise of doing something for his daughter. That is evident by the performers he chose.

2. This was a gross use of money and while he can do whatever he wants with his $10 million, it shows some really messed up values on his part.

3. We are embarrassed for the performers for being part of it.

No one needs a $10 million party. Brooks could have thrown a great party (maybe one that actually had entertainment a 13 year old would like) for a few thousand. Then he could have asked his daughter to pick a charity and donated the rest in her name. That probably wouldn't be a big deal for her now, but would help instill some values that she will appreciate one day.

Or he could have used the money to improve the working conditions of his employees so those nasty labor disputes could go away.

$10 million for a party/private concert? Might as well flush it down the toilet.


Where do I send your toaster oven ?

This is indeed fin de siecle, fiddle while Rome is burning decadence. I don't think so badly of the performers - as I have said, entertainers are whores. Petty is the only one who surprises me. It tickles me that there is a scandal or two with this guy's company. Bad taste and gauche extravagence usually carry a stench that comes from a deeper source. It will be interesting indeed to see what is really going one once the stink and smoke clear off of this one.

[strandinthewind]

Add me to the zillions that agree with these points .Sorry but I just don't understand the people who are defending this guy .Again I really hope Nicks and Petty donated or used the money from this for something altruistic .


For the record - I defend no one. I just think I do not want anyone telling me what the hell to do with my money. Apparently, people cannot get that concept.

P.S. Ya know I love ya :woohoo:

[strandinthewind]

Where do I send your toaster oven ?

This is indeed fin de siecle, fiddle while Rome is burning decadence. . . . .

I am seeing togas and a bong :shrug:

[Jyqm]

I have talked to a zillion people about this party and sent links to the stories to many others. Some are Stevie fans, some are Petty fans, one is an Aerosmith fan, some are Eagles fans, some don't like any of them. To a person, we agree:

1. The father is a narcissist who spent $10 million to throw a party for himself under the guise of doing something for his daughter. That is evident by the performers he chose.

2. This was a gross use of money and while he can do whatever he wants with his $10 million, it shows some really messed up values on his part.

3. We are embarrassed for the performers for being part of it.

No one needs a $10 million party. Brooks could have thrown a great party (maybe one that actually had entertainment a 13 year old would like) for a few thousand. Then he could have asked his daughter to pick a charity and donated the rest in her name. That probably wouldn't be a big deal for her now, but would help instill some values that she will appreciate one day.

Or he could have used the money to improve the working conditions of his employees so those nasty labor disputes could go away.

$10 million for a party/private concert? Might as well flush it down the toilet.

Well said, Ricky. Moderators, you can go ahead and delete the other 475 posts if you want, all we really need is this one.

[sodascouts]

Oh, God... I think I'd have to slit my wrists if they did. The first time around was bad enough.

IMHO, their collaboration produced one of her best demos: "Tragedy of One's Own Soul."

[Kelly]

Yes, thank you. i.m.o. this guy, and Stevie, deserve the benefit of the doubt. This guy didn't personally send the soldiers to Iraq, the war would be going on no matter what he did. His products help to keep those soldiers safe and it's perfectly reasonable for problems to develop during actual use in the field which result in a small percentage of ANY product being recalled in order for the problem to be solved. Perhaps Stevie doing a concert for a person who makes body armor to protect our troops is a separate issue from the Iraq war, which isn't the topic of discussion in here anyway.


How many people really believe Stevie knows who the Hell she is going to perform for anyway? Howard/Sheryl Louis probably knew what this guy was all about though. Stevie went again to visit the injured vets, , a visit that was planned before the backlash to this Brooks thing broke out. She probably dislikes Brooks as much as some of us around here do. Her fee could have easily been spent on more ipods but perhaps she does not feel the need to publicize that fact.

[SapphireSister]

I don't feel like scrolling back. What was the outcome of the Amber/irishgrl discussion. Cliffs Notes? I stopped reading after about 5 pages. It was almost more interesting that the original thread topic.

[irishgrl]

I don't feel like scrolling back. What was the outcome of the Amber/irishgrl discussion. Cliffs Notes? I stopped reading after about 5 pages. It was almost more interesting that the original thread topic.
depends upon who you ask.

[SapphireSister]

depends upon who you ask.

I'm asking you ;).

[irishgrl]

I'm asking you ;).
Well then of course, I won!

seriously, I said I was done arguing but if you want, you can PM me and we can talk further.