🚀 go-pugleaf

Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!) wrote:

< taking over the edit wand this round >

>>>No _Islands_ offerings there..
>>
>>Just a sane grace for a meal offered.
> 
> 
> You've heard nothing more recent, I see..

You do indeed, I've been to busy "killing it and grilling it".

>>>>>>Didn't Belew have a few worthy solo efforts?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, _Lone Rhinocerous_ is one that I have..
>>>>
>>>>There we go, good recall.
>>>
>>>And a "music video" called _Big Electric Cat_, and _Sleepless_
>>
>>Don't watch many of those anymore, too spent a medium.
> 
> 
> "mispent" would be more concise..

Point.

>>The Turner brothers were jam masters, yet anything but sloppy. That kind
>>of interplay is sadly lacking from the current abomination that passes
>>for "rock".
> 
> 
> There's "jam bands" making the rounds of late, I haven't bothered with
> much..

Last I heard Phish went belly up...

>>Posit a list of similar fresh talent, your acumen here 
>>may be more timely than mine.
> 
> 
> I have yet to hear of it, to be frank..

That's disheartening, but unsurprising, things go in cycles.

>>Bela Fleck spends time in my carousel.
> 
> 
> UFOTOFU..

http://www.banjohangout.org/tab/browse.asp?m=byletter&v=U

tabbed...

>>>>Almost makes me want to sign up with my jazz club again.
>>>
>>>I wouldn't go that far yet..
>>
>>True, the bounty of new must haves must reach a dozen before 
>>I'll endure the bi-weekly solicitations once more.
> 
> 
> Isn't 'spam' bad enough?

Why I left it.

>>There's a blast from the past, was it Eric Brann that passed away
>>recently? 
> 
> 
> Yes, he'd replaced Eric Barnett from the original line-up..
> 
> http://www.ironbutterfly.com/

Java heavy site, but seeing an old sunburst Mosrite was a treat - not 
many of those around these days...

>>This brings back recollections of Grand Funk and Blue Cheer for me.
> 
>  
> I'll send a "get well" card some day..

Post it to Chilliwack, BC...

>>>Owing the IRS over a 1.5 million has that effect on me...
>>
>>Caramba!
>>
>>Did you invent the next great thing, or just incur the wrath of the
>>federal Odin? That would make a rock star cringe...
> 
> 
> Neither, they'd not been paying taxes as they went along, so any
> outcome with them at the time was dubious, as far as I could tell..
> 
> Plus, their manager at the time was an utter flake, like that would be 
> any news about 'musical management' in the rock'n roll arena..

Ah, you're currently managing IB then, I see. Is there anyone in rock 
who _didn't_ have a good fleecing at one time or another?


>>So it also encompasses the effects boards that guitarists use now in
>>lieu of the old stomp boxes, echoplexes, etc?
> 
> 
> Yes, those too, even 'analogue tape' for a subtle change from the
> sterile 'digital' sound.  I can't say that I've quite heard enough
> of it to say one way or the other, but it's there..

Digitech and Roland have slowly upped the ante on replica "tube" sounds 
to the point they
don't make an old Super Muff sound discrete.


>>>>And his take on "8 Miles High" still churns with vitality.
>>>
>>>I can imagine how he played it, but not his singing, please..
>>
>>I'm with you there, fortunately he concentrates on the riffs.
> 
> 
> Good, and he's better off not telling his 'chicken jokes' too..

Which takes up what, 15 minutes or more?

Musicians should just play dammit. Be glad he doesn't have a 
sledge-o-matic...


>>I haven't specified 'my" religion -[..]
> 
> 
> Any 'religion' that thinks itself 'better' than real science is
> simply bullshit, in my experience, and the persecution of the
> first scientific efforts are proof of that..

No denying that, but there are faiths which presume no exclusive 
comparative high ground.

> So, I say again, fuck your 'religion'..

I say again, I've not specified any given "religion".

>>>Fuck your religion, science is but simple observations, uncluttered
>>>by untestable beliefs, it is unencumbered in its "art" by belief in
>>>that it tests what you know, not relying upon 'beliefs'..
>>
>>Creative science however encompasses the same leap of faith[..]
> 
> 
> Nope, that's patently absurd, intentionally ignorant and silly..

Not at all.

many discoveries are made by leaps of faith, accident, even intuition. 
If you're a Tesla devotee you realize how he birthed much of his work.

>>>And what about the 'millenialarists'?  You seem to be one..
>>
>>No more so than an apocalypsist - grand denouements like these
> 
> 
> Pardon me, but my bullshit detectors just went off..

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.
> 
> 
>>>>You're spot on with one parry though, I decry liberalism as a more
>>>>costly form of collective nannying than our social structures can
>>>>bear with any lasting efficacy.
>>>
>>>The costs of not being "liberal" have a tendency to add up quickly..
>>>Check the recent budget, deficits and dollar-exchange rates..
>>
>>We've sen those balloon as well under liberal stewardship, 
> 
> 
> Uhmm, excuse me again, my bullshit detectors went off again..

Anything to deny that liberals can be profligate spenders as well...

>>it's really a question of where the spending occurs and for what end. 
> 
> 
> I see, so you're going to 'redefine' budgets, deficit spending and
> the decline of our dollar, under the 'sewershit', er, "stewardship"
> of the W. Bush administration to suit your 'conclusions'..

The decline of the dollar strengthens exports. Deficit spending is best 
done in a climate of low interest rates. Simply put, if you want a 
national refi, strike while rates are low.

> I'm turning off the bullshit detectors for now, too many interruptions..
> 
> 
>>I will say that the current deficits, despite a perceived "healthy" 
>>economy are abrupt in their intensity and one hopes do not presage 
>>a larger global economic re balancing. 
> 
> 
> Good thing I turned the BS detectors off..

Oh?

You not much on measuring global fiscal trends?

>>Dear me, I got a bit apocalyptic there now didn't I...
> 
> 
> Yup..

Just following the golden rule...

>>Well the real gift is one you gave yourself, 
>>those tend to be the best kind anyway.
> 
> 
> Well, I don't suffer fools gladly, so being around drunks
> never really suited my tastes, though I can put up with it
> for a while, as long as I'm distracted by playing music..

Harshly judgmental, most people apply balm to salve wounds as yet raw, 
no patience for the unhealed eh?

>>Oh I am, I'd not have featured you a meditator however. 
>>The breath counting varietal perhaps?
> 
> 
> Never had to 'count', the idea at the end of all that practice
> is go on to using less archtypes, so why start?  You've again
> presumed to know something about the Path, yet you preconceive
> what the Path is, which isn't..

There are those who use mantras, breathing, music, herbs, detached 
awareness, any number of mechanisms. All are valid to they extent they 
produce the desired result. Your snark at me regarding the "path" is but 
more ego-puss.

>>My larger point was that a single-minded focus on the literal 
>>leaves one hemisphere atrophied, though I can see now from your 
>>zeal for ear candy that sustenance is ongoing.
> 
> 
> Ear candy..  *>LOL!<*  Let's just have it understood that
> I don't have the usual mental clutter that most enmesh themselves
> in.  We have 'dental hygeine' taught to us from early on, what
> about a 'mental hygeine' as well?  That's the Zen of it..

Oddly for a Zen-adherent you present a most hostile and haughty patois. 
That's a manifestation at odds with zazen's ego less state.

>>Direct access is to my view preferable, yet the introduction of ritual
>>and repetition has its own benefits depending on one's place on the
>>board and personality.
> 
> 
> Yet, you've accused me of being 'soul-less' in my dispassionate study,
> though you actually do not know me to any extent, except by way of 
> these fuzzy wiggles dancing upon phosphor screens..
> 
> Nice backpedal..

I've surmised from your charged responses on evolution an overweight to 
the literal, yes.


>>Again I've specified no personal dogma,[..]
> 
> 
> Of course not, that would take commitment..

To this thread, or you? One doesn't just fling open the larder before 
knowing the diner's manners.

>>Well I suppose you would. Yet a look at older socialist nations paints
>>my perceptions. Or perhaps I merely intensely prefer *this* model we're
>>hammering away on.
> 
> 
> *>shrug<*  Still the best going, though quite young..

Until technology replaces the food chain game socialism will remain but 
a failed means of enforcing social strictures through coercive financial 
policy and peer pressure. Piss on it.


>>Awesome cite, I pict it up right away...
> 
> 
> Grantchester Meadows is a bitch to play solo..

I don't doubt it.

Another fave is the soundtrack from "La Vallee" - a feat for the eyes 
and ears.

http://home.comcast.net/~barbetschroeder/la-vallee.html

>>I confess to no more than 2 bouts with anthro and that paleo trapped in
>>strat and sed, but I feel at no particular disadvantage in shaking loose
>>what seem to be some rather broad leaps of fossil record as presented.
> 
> 
> You have to appreciate the efforts that went into the basis of the
> study..
> 
> Physics had to endure religious persecution, paleo/anthro hasn't had
> as many hard knocks, excepting the Scopes Trial..

That's a concise synopsis. But the latter is taking a few blows even 
now. Consider that of the summary hominid fossil record, all the bones 
cataloged could fit in the back of a small pickup truck. That's rather a 
minute collection - compared to what we have of plant, amphibian and 
reptile life.


>>Hadn't planned to, but they've yet to sell me the full bill.
> 
> 
> Not my problem..

'Tis as long as you choose to take offense at my critiques.

>>They can assemble and catalog till the cows come home and I remain
>>unconvinced that hominid/human evolution will ever be successfully 
>>and completely put into a pithicene continuum.
> 
> 
> Hrmm, well, republicanism does seem to contradict the theory of
> an evolving species, I have to admit..  <smile>

If gigantism is the climax state one would have to hope so - lol.

>>In that religion, like politics is a chapter, not a single book?
> 
> 
> I do not agree to your 'engineered species' conjecture..

I know.

And I wager that whatever points I would make on the matter you'd deride 
as "pseudo-science" - as if all is known today by extant measure. Surely 
it is not.


>>>That you should suggest such tells me that you're only 'cherry
>>>picking' your 'data' to suit your prejudged opinions/beliefs..
>>
>>I think we're all inclined to an extent to have a lens of perception,
>>how else does one embark on any hypothesis and test it?
> 
> 
> Like I said earlier, if you have to ask such, you obviously
> will not 'get' the answers that would follow..

Cop out.

You've your own biases even under laboratory conditions, any premise is 
born somewhere. That it may later be scrutinized under as many blinds as 
possible does not erase the genesis of the concept.

>>I'm me.
> 
> 
> Lucky you..

Quite!

>>Or perhaps I'm a created analog of me testing a boundary between 
>>the 3D solid and extra dimensional.
> 
> 
> Don't go there, you only trying to tangent off again..  Focus..

Well it's not just Kaku you know...

>>>It seems as if you're poisoning the well that you're trying to draw
>>>the details from to justify your subjective beliefs, without any
>>>regard for what actually has disagreed with your conclusion in
>>>search of a data point..
>>
>>Of course it would sem that way to _you_ that's why you're not me!
> 
> 
> Lucky me..

For us both!

>>Yet we're temporally coexistent, thus there must be some degree of 
>>shared reality.
> 
> 
> Lot'sa luck on that..

Hmmm...no shared appreciation of music then?


>>I see magnetic signatures, I see plate tectonics, I see broad
>>inundations. 
> 
> 
> I see no cites..

Did you miss White's book that I mentioned a ways back?

>>Does this mean I see all as linked to one mechanism? No. I
>>also see a rapid decline in our magnetic field. 
> 
> 
> I still see no evidence..

Really?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/12/12/magnetic.poles.ap/

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnetic_031212.html


>>Perhaps we'll have a chance to see if it's climate, asteroid, 
>>chandler wobble, or none of the above that flips the poles this time.
> 
> 
> More likely we'll see the end of the neoconservative political
> movement, as the nation moves again back towards the center..

A 3% variance indicates the masses are quite close to center already. 
Only the polarized point men define the reaches of left and right.

>>You equate objectivity to raw intuitive power?
> 
> 
> Nope, but you're starting to get 'warm'..

Well bring it up to a rolling boil then...

>>At this point I haven't all that many stakes at all.
> 
> 
> Again, the evasions..

No, just fact.

>>So it's a bad crop from which we try and pick the least damaged fruit.
> 
> 
> No, it's far more complex..

I Well what isn't? But that basic truth remains. Find me the good apples 
in the game for that region and you'll carry the day.

>>Their stray nuclear material and continued weaponry sales is a concern.
> 
> 
> They're far more concerned about developing their oil reserves..

Oh no, they're far more concerned about *keeping control of* their 
reserves. Infrastructure is, it's true, in sad shape. But the real rub 
comes not in how they extract, but in where those reserves are located. 
When we broke Humpty Dumpty it was not, at the time, as glaring a 
concern which states had what as it is now.

>>I'd sooner invade Alberta if that was the sole metric, but no,
>>I certainly wouldn't say it's not about oil, in fact I'm pleased 
>>we make some play before China sucks the sands dry.
> 
> 
> Hrmm, I'm still out with the jury on that one..

You have studied the projections of their usage have you not?

> Truth is stranger than Nixon..

Heard a story the other day that when Mao was becoming noisy old Dick 
sent an SR-71 over Begging while he was sitting outside having his 
afternoon tea. The resultant sonic boom shattered some windows and 
perhaps a few of the late chairman's dreams...lol...

>>It goes back a lot further than that.
> 
> 
> With the British, no doubt..

Indeed, and which things don't?

>>Oh pish. They yank the media out at every new drill site, 
>>scream that coal must be stopped, rail against nuclear, 
>>cringe over caribou while the Arctic melts off.
> 
> 
> All readily shown as false generalizations..

Crap.

I could url you to tears with examples.

>>They're little more than Luddite obstructionists anymore.
> 
> 
> I doubt that entirely..

So you think the enviros are chanting for pebble bed nuclear development?

Hardly.

>>Oh what the heck, live dangerously, have at...
> 
> 
> Your expectations will have a disastrous outcome, so sorry..

Come now, that's awfully apocalyptic of you to say. I'm no Morbius after 
all.

>>I suspect that while you'd like to take it straight out of the 
>>P&L realm it's still sequestered there, though there is promise 
>>in the recent hydrogen funding. And too we've a wind power 
>>initiative here that passed as well. Small steps.
> 
> 
> Ad Aspera, Ad Astera..

I see no lack of hope, though I note a lack of interest at large.

>>Recognizing the premise and noting its not-quite applicability 
>>through history leads you to that conclusion?
> 
> 
> Not at all. Intuition and experience tell me this as well..

Experience is in archive for your perusal, I'll see your intuition and 
raise you my last rack of cynicism...


>>Yet the culture craving is unquenchable yet.
> 
> 
> I have attended university with quite a few of them, and
> sadly, you'd be surprised by their cynicism towards us..

Not in the least, they're young...it goes with the age.

>>Or at least "traditional" social conformity, for I see it as replacing 
>>institutions with pop iconography and thus casting psychographic and 
>>demographic peer set conformity.
> 
> 
> Gibberish..

Cop out.

We market to beliefs and ages - and have set such as far more reliable 
control mechanisms than mere religious dogma.

>>Oh it's a matrix all right, and a damned attractive one, 
>>don't you think? Glittery, hip, textured, responsive, showy, 
>>quite a holodeck we've fallen into.
> 
> 
> True, it once held my fascination, in the 70's, but no longer..

Yet for the masses it IS reality.

>>Before crediting you with any religious plaudits, let me at least 
>>say that I'm not qualifying your views exclusively by how much 
>>chapter or verse you can cite, that would be narrow and trite.
> 
>  
> And would hint at elitism..

Yet in the same breath you've been more than willing to tout acumen in 
physics as ennobling you of some higher order in this discussion. Funny 
that physics itself was not the entree.

>>Rather my suggestion was that you came off as being overly 
>>"hard science" on most responses, that there was a quantifiable
>>dearth of respect for or interest in the more esoteric nuances 
>>of the subject matter at hand and a tendency to grade it only
>>on the scientist's scale of perception.
> 
> 
> Your run-on sentences are almost as bad as mine are..

I'll harder to match your standard...

> Okay, I'll take the time left to again point out that your
> views about "engineered species" smacked of 'creation science'
> which I find to be utterly devoid of objective determinations,
> requiring 'leaps of faith' that would not be considered to be
> any kind of "science" at all.  To this, you reacted as if I had
> no faith in God, and that I'd burn in Hell, blah-blah-blah..

It was a reaction based on a history of said responses.

You, otoh, trumpeted a physics mastery as being the overriding 
qualification for discussing hominid evolution. It's a nice enough 
intellectual bauble to be sure, but really a background in either 
medicine or geology would be far more relevant to parsing the material 
in play.



>>I'll walk that bridge with you for the present, 
>>and it was nicely described as well.
> 
> 
> Where is that confounded bridge..

<G>

>>Malic or ascorbic?
> 
> 
> Ascerbic or corn syruppy theories?

Oh no, turbinado only...

>>Prevent a market from adjusting and it becomes impacted.
> 
> 
> That's especailly true with alternate energy products..

Yes and no. PV has languished of it's own inefficency relative to the 
grid. Most anything solar, save for passive, only flourished under the 
tax credits of the 80s.

>>As for taking care of the planet, don't you think that we're 
>>a tad past the real carrying capacity to do more than salvage 
>>regional bioreserves?
> 
> 
> No, not really.. 

I do hope you're right there, Teddy Roosevelt learned about a lot more 
than deer at the Grand Canyon.