2000 From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #695 Dead-Flames Digest #695, Volume #48 Thu, 27 Oct 05 23:00:01 PDT Contents: Re: Thank you, Mr. Postman ("Richard Morris") Re: White Sox Win ("Richard Morris") Re: Thank you, Mr. Postman ("Neil X.") Re: Kimock archive.org recommendations? ("scarletbgonias@hotmail.com") Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) ("Ray") Re: The year 1972 ("scarletbgonias@hotmail.com") Re: Kimock archive.org recommendations? ("scarletbgonias@hotmail.com") Re: My project is finally done, Free CD to anyone who wants one. ("Neil X.") Re: White Sox Win ("k sturm") Re: Goin to Vegas, baby! (william weaver) Re: Fillmore 69 Box Set vs 2004 Archive SHN Versions ? ("Bill") Re: FUJI CD_R and DVD ALERT! (Seth Jackson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Richard Morris" Subject: Re: Thank you, Mr. Postman Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:02:51 -0700 "The Lord of Eltingville" wrote in message news:djrvlr0110e@news1.newsguy.com... > Richard Morris wrote: >> >> "ba ba booie" wrote in message >> news:5242-43613885-340@storefull-3274.bay.webtv.net... >> >> Thank you, Mr. Postman >> >> jrmorris@trouserscomcast.net (Richard Morris) wrote: >> I sent some discs to..... >> >> bbb wrote: >> I got them, did you get yours? >> >> booie........ >> >> I think so, booie ... I sent stuff to both you and TEd, and someone sent >> me >> back something. Not sure who, though >> >> :) >> >> R. > > > I haven't been to the post office in a couple days, but am planning on > heading there in the morning. Now, I'm really looking forwad to my > trip... =o) Well, let's see then. I owe Booie a thank you for his response ... thanks, Boo!!! And, you should have a couple of packages stuffed with minidiscs, Ted! R. ------------------------------ From: "Richard Morris" Subject: Re: White Sox Win Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:03:59 -0700 "k sturm" wrote in message news:3ef8f.4604$Kv.3235@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... > > "Steve Terry" wrote in message > news:djro79$124l$1@news.iquest.net... >> >> "Olompali4" wrote in message >> news:1130387230.551508.166830@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>> SSIA >> >> Let's hear some reports from ground zero. Sean, Roxanne, Paul or Kathy? >> Was there a lot of celebrating in your respective neighborhoods? >> Whatsthescoop? C'mon, inquiring minds want to know. >> > > Well, in my neighborhood, there were a lot of people celebrating, but none > of that overturning cars or burning businesses stuff. My dad even broke > out the bottle of wine that he saves for his friend, Henry. > > Tomorrow is the official celebration downtown and I'll be there with my > kid, the real White Sox fan of this family, who came home from college a > day early just to go. He's got to be the most ecstatic person on earth > right about now . . . Let's see .... White Socks ... is that baseball? ;) R. ------------------------------ From: "Neil X." Subject: Re: Thank you, Mr. Postman Date: 27 Oct 2005 21:07:09 -0700 > Dave Kelly asked: > > How do you sleep at night? > > Disgusted in Detroit Yeah, the right wing cultural warriors claim that hippies and Deadhdeads are all criminals with no redeeming social value. And this thread could be their exhibit A. Brazenly stealing from the government. Tsk tsk. For shame, it's an egregious breach of protocol. You're supposed to buy a Senator if you want to do that. Peace, Neil X. ------------------------------ From: "scarletbgonias@hotmail.com" Subject: Re: Kimock archive.org recommendations? Date: 27 Oct 2005 21:18:36 -0700 STFU ------------------------------ From: "Ray" Subject: Re: what political Blogs do you read? (nDc) Date: 27 Oct 2005 21:20:46 -0700 Carlisle wrote: > Ray wrote: > > Carlisle wrote: > > > OpinionJournal & the WSJ are generally reliable sources. > > > > OpinionJournal is various sources - it's only as reliable as the > > various sources are. That a given source is published at > > OpinionJournal says nothing about its veracity. > > > > > The paper is > > > run by human beings and mistakes will be made. In the grand scheme of > > > things, the WSJ has a distinguished reputation among the mainstream > > > media, > > > > And aside from their editorial page, well deserved too. > > > > > notwithstanding that the *official* editorials have a > > > conservative pro-business slant. I mean, it IS the Wall Street Journal. > > > Not your cup of meat apparently, but far from a "rag of > > > disinformation". > > > > Again (upteenth time - I've lost track): it's not the fact that WSJ > > editoral page is conservative that makes it a rag, it's the fact that > > it routinely distorts the truth and lies. > > > > > The thing you seem to be hung up on right now is the > > > the Journal stated that Valerie Plame was not "covert". By this I > > > assumed they meant>>on assignment, overseas, and/or in harm's way. > > > > The WSJ wrote that Plame was "surely not undercover". And they did not > > qualify that declaration with any variation of "by undercover we mean > > undercover on assignment, overseas, and/or in harm's way." > > > > > They did not make that point clear enough. > > > > "Clear enough?!? In the context of declaring that she was "surely not > > undercover" they did not make that point at all. > > > > > If it turns out that they were mistaken, > > > > This is not a 'mistake' - it's a lie. Again: regardless of what > > Plame's covert status actually was or 'turns out' to have been, AT THE > > TIME THE WSJ EDITORIAL PAGE MADE THEIR CLAIM THE AVAILABLE PUBLIC > > INFORMATION DID NOT SUPPORT IT. > > > > > they will need to make a public correction or their > > > reputation will suffer and they will lose subscribers. It's that > > > simple. > > > > If only. What you don't seem to understand is that - and as Rush > > Limbuagh has amply demonstrated for decades now - lying often pays. All > > you need is suckers, er, buyers. Moreover the rest of the WSJ is a > > quality paper - many people subscribe to the WSJ in spite of the WSJ > > editorial page. > > > > Here's another WSJ editorial page lie, Carlisle -- one that you've > > repeatedly turned a blind eye to, even though it's unassailably a lie, > > and even though I've demonstrated as much to you repeatedly now. > > Wilson's July 2003 editorial did NOT, as the WSJ editorial you cited > > stated, accuse the Bush Administration of lying - it only raised the > > possibility. Again: I appended Wilson's July 2003 essay. If you still > > think the Wall Street Journal editorial page wasn't lying here then > > please cite from the appended article where Wilson accused the Bush > > Adminstration of lying. > > > > --------------------------- > > July 6, 2003 > > > > What I Didn't Find in Africa > > By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th > > > > WASHINGTON > > > > Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam > > Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq? > > > > Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up > > to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the > > intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to > > exaggerate the Iraqi threat. > > OK, right here. "Some of the intelligence was TWISTED to exaggerate the > Iraqi threat". And Wilson may be totally correct. I think this is what > happened. The Administration was determined to build a case for war. > But he did imply that the Bush Administration distorted the truth. Further down, however, Wilson qualified this declaration: ________________ 2000 _____________ I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government. The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why)... At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted." ____________________________ That said, because Wilson said "I have little choice but to conclude" -- I had forgotten that he used that wording -- I can see how one could reasonably and honestly interpret that as an accusation of lying, despite the qualification of said declaration further down. So I conceed that that was a poor example of the WSJ's lying - my bad. The other example that I provided of the WSJ lying in that editorial, however, is not - the WSJ is lying with its declaration that Plame was "surely not undercover". Again: regardless of what Plame's covert status actually was or 'turns out' to have been, when the WSJ made their claim the available information did not support it. MediaMatters.org explains further: ============================== Still more leak investigation falsehoods In recent days, news outlets have continued to repeat or air unchallenged numerous falsehoods and baseless claims surrounding the CIA leak investigation. These unfounded claims involve various aspects of the scandal and investigation, including... Claim: Plame was not covert at the time of the alleged leak On the October 21 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, conservative radio host Melanie Morgan asserted that Plame's CIA identity was "already exposed" at the time syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak revealed her name in his July 14, 2003, column [transcript]. On the October 24 broadcast of The Sean Hannity Show, Hannity echoed Morgan's claim. He said of Plame: "It appears she was not covert, given her very public appearance, thanks to her husband" [transcript]. Neither Morgan nor Hannity provided evidence relating to Plame's covert status. But there is evidence to suggest that Plame was indeed undercover at the time of the leak. Without mentioning her covert status, the CIA's referral of the leak case to the DOJ reflected the agency's position that classified information might have been leaked. As The Washington Post reported on October 1, 2003, the CIA submitted a detailed questionnaire to the DOJ in July 2003 to initiate an investigation into whether the alleged leak amounted to a "violation of federal law that prohibits unauthorized disclosures of classified information." Two months later, the DOJ launched its investigation into the case. Further, a July 20 Washington Post article indicated that Plame's affiliation with the CIA was classified. The article reported that a 2003 State Department memo -- which was likely read by top administration officials during a trip to Africa -- designated as "S" for "secret" a section mentioning Plame, even though it did not mention her covert status. Morgan's claim, which has been repeated numerous times by other conservative media figures, suggests that because Plame was "already exposed," no harm resulted from Novak's column outing her as a CIA operative. But this is contradicted by statements from several current and former intelligence officials. For example, on the September 20, 2003, edition of PBS' NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, former CIA analyst Larry Johnson asserted that Plame was indeed undercover: JOHNSON: I worked with this woman. ... She has been undercover for three decades, she is not, as Bob Novak suggested, a CIA analyst. ... [P]eople she meets with overseas could be compromised. When you start tracing back who she met with, even people who innocently met with her, who are not involved in CIA operations, could be compromised. For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal, and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that well, this was just an analyst, fine, let them go undercover. In testimony before a joint committee of congressional Democrats on July 22, Johnson reiterated his knowledge of Plame's covert status: Although Val started off with official cover, she later joined a select group of intelligence officers a few years later when she became a NOC, i.e. a Non-Official Cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. She was using cover, which we now know because of the leak to Robert Novak, of the consulting firm Brewster-Jennings. When she traveled overseas she did not use or have an official passport. If she had been caught engaged in espionage activities while traveling overseas without the black passport she could have been executed. We must put to bed the lie that she was not undercover. For starters, if she had not been undercover then the CIA would not have referred the matter to the Justice Department. Furthermore, CNN national security correspondent David Ensor told host Wolf Blitzer on the October 25 edition of CNN's The Situation Room that an unnamed intelligence official had informed him that an assessment conducted by the CIA following the leak had determined that the disclosure had damaged intelligence operations: BLITZER: I know you've been looking into this question. The CIA -- does the CIA believe that there was damage done to U.S. national security as a result of Valerie Plame Wilson's name being leaked? ENSOR: I'm told that in the day when it was leaked, there was a quick look done, as there routinely would be, at whether there was damage. Officials simply won't go into the details. But I did speak to one official who said, yes, there was damage. This woman had a long career. And she was posing as someone else. And all those people who saw her now know she wasn't the person they thought they were dealing with. So there was damage. Yes. --- http://mediamatters.org/items/200510260002 ------------------------------ From: "scarletbgonias@hotmail.com" Subject: Re: The year 1972 Date: 27 Oct 2005 21:20:52 -0700 The copy of 9/21/72 sounds pretty good, although I'm sure the official release will sound better. OK guys, correct me if I'm wrong, but 8/27/72 isn't there because it's SSDD and we're still waiting on that official release, right? Theresa ------------------------------ From: "scarletbgonias@hotmail.com" Subject: Re: Kimock archive.org recommendations? Date: 27 Oct 2005 21:21:30 -0700 This post is supposed to be up under #2 and not to you Richard. ------------------------------ From: "Neil X." Subject: Re: My project is finally done, Free CD to anyone who wants one. Date: 27 Oct 2005 21:31:18 -0700 > =A3 =CE Z @ R =D0 asked: > > why? they're actual cds... Post of the week....... Peace, Neil X. ------------------------------ From: "k sturm" Subject: Re: White Sox Win Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 04:35:05 GMT "Richard Morris" wrote in message news:YuOdnf0yHautPvzeRVn-rg@comcast.com... > > "k sturm" wrote in message > news:3ef8f.4604$Kv.3235@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... >> >> "Steve Terry" wrote in message >> news:djro79$124l$1@news.iquest.net... >>> >>> "Olompali4" wrote in message >>> news:1130387230.551508.166830@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >>>> SSIA >>> >>> Let's hear some reports from ground zero. Sean, Roxanne, Paul or Kathy? >>> Was there a lot of celebrating in your respective neighborhoods? >>> Whatsthescoop? C'mon, inquiring minds want to know. >>> >> >> Well, in my neighborhood, there were a lot of people celebrating, but >> none of that overturning cars or burning businesses stuff. My dad even >> broke out the bottle of wine that he saves for his friend, 16f2 Henry. >> >> Tomorrow is the official celebration downtown and I'll be there with my >> kid, the real White Sox fan of this family, who came home from college a >> day early just to go. He's got to be the most ecstatic person on earth >> right about now . . . > > Let's see .... White Socks ... is that baseball? > > ;) > > R. > I'll admit to watching the last two games, but other than those, I don't watch baseball and I could not care less who wins or who loses. I'm only going because my son is a rabid fan and he's thrilled that his favorite team won. Going into the city and being part of that crowd on a cold day is probably the last thing I really want to do, but I'm going because I'm thrilled that he wants me to go with him. : ) ------------------------------ From: ttotto@webtv.net (william weaver) Subject: Re: Goin to Vegas, baby! Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:42:01 -0700 ive been here in vegas 9 years by way of huntington beach , vegas is a very very creepy place , hopefully this time next year out of here , heading up to idaho ------------------------------ From: "Bill" Subject: Re: Fillmore 69 Box Set vs 2004 Archive SHN Versions ? Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 05:40:31 GMT "A Dude" wrote] > > Hi ! > > I was just wondering if there are known to be any substantive differences > between the limited 10 disk Fillmore 69 Box Set and the previously available SHN > downloads at Archive/Etree (that were pulled some months ago) ?? > > Were both made from the same tapes, or were there better quality tapes in the > vault that were not used for the Archive/Etree downloads ? I believe they had 16 track tapes to work with. I believe they also had 16 track tapes for the 4 CD, April '71 Fillmore East (Ladies and Gentlemen, the GD) release. On that they changed the mix pretty radically (for the worse) from the mix on the circulating soundboards. I don't know how they were able to technically do it. Perhaps they took the 16 track tapes and were able to somehow divide it into 16 different sources and then mix those sources to get the product they did. However they did it, they probably used the same technique for this release. I hope they don't change the mix *at all* from the circulating soundboards because IMO they are "just exactly perfect." Last night, I listened to the Dark Star on Live Dead - except I listened to the archive.org version, not Live Dead, so the mix was a little different from the Live Dead mix. Though the two mixes are pretty close, I actually liked the archive.org mix a bit more because you could hear Weir's guitar better on it (though the vocal mix on the Live Dead Dark Star is better.) I think the level of Weir's guitar is perfect on the archive.org version because of its prominence while still being able to hear the other instruments just fine. Hopefully they'll use the archive.org mix as the mix to shoot for and concentrate on just cleaning it up where necessary. To be honest, I have a suspicion I'm going to like the mix more on the archive.org version more than the one that gets released though I hope I'm wrong. The ones doing it may feel that to justify selling it they have to change the mix - that would be a mistaken notion IMO and hopefully they don't come to that conclusion. The mix on the archive.org version is typical of shows from this time period and one of the main reasons I love to listen to shows from that time period - by a year later, Weir's guitar is a lot lower in the mix. Garcia's tone is pretty wonderful too during that time period. Bill > > Thanks, > > A ------------------------------ From: Seth Jackson Subject: Re: FUJI CD_R and DVD ALERT! Reply-To: hitmeister .at. mindspring .dot. com Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 05:54:10 GMT On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:30:36 -0500, Tom wrote: >The first time I got stung on Fuji's rebate scams was on ZIP discs >years ago..Never got my rebate till 4 months later I called and made >a big stink etc.( I ALWAYS keep copies of rebate forms) Mysteriosly >arrived a few days later Well, fool me twice, I ordered CD_Rs and >never got the rebate etc. etc and the third time (hey they OFFER good >rebates) I fell for the "If you register your rebate online you gets >your rebate in 2 weeks" trick. Well 1 month later (who knows what they >did with my e-mail address but afterwards I had to change it due to >spam) I had to call, threaten etc. and mysteriously received it >shortly thereafter. Well what goes around... I got a $700 Fuji camera >for x-mas last year and guess what- I immediately returned it. I will >NEVER but anything from Fuji EVER AGAIN. I wonder if the few bucks >they made delaying my rebates saved them money on my returned camera? I've bought several spindles of Fuji Cd-Rs that had rebate offers, and I always got my rebates within the specified time. Maybe it's a function of where you bought the stuff. I bought my CDRs at OfficeMax. ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** . 0