From: owner-orb-digest@lists.xmission.com (orb-digest) To: orb-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: orb-digest V2 #481 Reply-To: orb-digest Sender: owner-orb-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-orb-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes orb-digest Saturday, June 23 2001 Volume 02 : Number 481 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 13:32:25 -0700 From: Tim C Subject: Re: (orb) Cydonia v2 -- jam on yer honey > the hyper capitolist market that is the collectables trade (ESPECIALLY > ebay :P), or do we have some inate human right to listen to music. This statement belies the fact that you have no understanding of the concept of rights. A human being has rights because they are a volitional creature with conceptual consciousness. The short way to explain this is the opposite of living by rights is living by permission. Yet if a being of volitional, rational consciousness is denied their own free choice of decision (obviously with rules such as the rights of another are inalienable - violate theirs, lose yours), they do not have rights. Now, the right to something does NOT mean the right to demand it for free, from whoever provides it. It means you have the right to negotiate with them for their product - to trade - or not. You are speaking of music as if it just happened without anyone's productive effort going into it. Just how do you expect that person, whose product you have just stolen, to live - if you do not give value for value? Music is intellectual property as sure as a house is physical property - and without property rights you have no other rights. Let's say you own a stereo for playing your copies of music on. We will presume you purchased the material and therefore have the right to listen to it. Well, I like music. I can even argue that I need it more than you (and you have no effective argument because you have accepted need, which is subjective and cannot be measured, rather than rights as your criterion for ownership). So, you would willingly furnish me with your stereo and collection of recordings? All of them, because I need them more, remember. Yes, you are that socialist and willingly would? How about all your food? Your house? I need these things and by YOUR argument I have the absolute right to ask them of you - - and by your same argument, I have the right to take them by force (because by your argument people don't have rights - therefore there is no crime when I violate your non-rights). > Personally, I fall under the socialist side. I think that people > have a right to listen to music they enjoy, above and beyond the idea of > who 'owns' the music. I already stated that I find it hard to believe that > music, as much, even CAN be owned... See above. Obviously you are socialist. Well, I'd like to see you explain how socialism can even function, when all it actually accomplishes is stagnation, misery, death. You can't "share" something that has not been produced. The argument stops right there. Look at the "great experiment" of the Soviet Union - the ultimate hippie commune - - and observe its history of bloody destruction. In short - Atlas may well shrug someday. Hope you're ready. Tim C. $ # Need help using (or leaving) this mailing list? # Send the command "info orb" to majordomo@lists.xmission.com. # To post, email orb@lists.xmission.com; replies go to original sender. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:54:37 EDT From: Ovation15@aol.com Subject: RE: (orb) Cydonia v2 -- jam on yer honey we all thank you for this very much DJ TeleVision (lazy weed smoking orb fan) In a message dated Fri, 22 Jun 2001 2:13:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "bi11i" writes: > The reason that I [and other people] didn't rip it and up it > to OAA is because it's not that hard to get hold a promo copy > if you really want it. I just think most people are too lazy > to get off their arse and find it or too tight to get their > money out........I've seen several GENUINE copies of V2 on > Ebay go for not a lot. > # Need help using (or leaving) this mailing list? # Send the command "info orb" to majordomo@lists.xmission.com. # To post, email orb@lists.xmission.com; replies go to original sender. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:56:27 EDT From: Ovation15@aol.com Subject: Re: (orb) speaking of b-sides... actually i dig centuries alot. that track moves me. DJ TeleVision In a message dated Fri, 22 Jun 2001 4:12:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, John Goelzer writes: << > Who wants to bet that Jam on Yer Honey slips through the > cracks and is never available "officially". I'm gonna seize this opportunity to change the subject... When is the next single from Cydonia going to come out? And what will it be? My vote is for "Hamlet of Kings," "Centuries" (I seem to be the only one who likes that track) or "Thursday's Keeper." This is semi-related to today's flame war in that "Jam on Yer Honey," et. al. could turn up as b-sides on this theoretical single, if and when it ever comes out... It'd be fun to discuss/brainstorm this (and I think someone might have already done so a while ago?), but concrete information would be even better... anyone? anyone? Smiley? Hard to believe they're going to just leave it at "Once More" and no others... JG # Need help using (or leaving) this mailing list? # Send the command "info orb" to majordomo@lists.xmission.com. # To post, email orb@lists.xmission.com; replies go to original sender. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:02:57 EDT From: Ovation15@aol.com Subject: RE: (orb) speaking of b-sides... its a CD that was mailed out by the nice fello who organised and visualised the world wide orb party. BBRROO@aol.com or whatever. cool guy thanx for the CD bro. i much appreciate and i dig your chill out mixes on the 2nd disc. e-mail me anytime bro if you need some help with future ventures. and if youre reading and havnt checked out my mix (DJ TelVision A dream Within a Dream) you should e-mail me. ill hook you up with one of the original promo CDs which i finally chopped into tracks. the original was all one peice and the MP3s were that in 2 parts. the promo CD has something like 15 tracks (all the same recording divided differently) DJ TeleVision In a message dated Fri, 22 Jun 2001 4:22:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, John Goelzer writes: << > I did hear a remix of centuries > on a teatime session. I think it was buried in the BadOrb 40-minute promo mix, too, wasn't it? > Bill brooks has grabbed it and put > it on the 2001:a space orbyssey. Guh? What's that? JG # Need help using (or leaving) this mailing list? # Send the command "info orb" to majordomo@lists.xmission.com. # To post, email orb@lists.xmission.com; replies go to original sender. >> # Need help using (or leaving) this mailing list? # Send the command "info orb" to majordomo@lists.xmission.com. # To post, email orb@lists.xmission.com; replies go to original sender. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 17:18:32 -0400 (EDT) From: "Benjamin L. May" Subject: Re: (orb) Cydonia v2 -- jam on yer honey I want to preface this response by saying that I am not an absolute socialist. I only took the side of socialism for the this one particular point. Also, I want to mention that, tim, you are obviously superior to me in your rhetorical skills (i was an engineer in college and never took anything slightly akin to debate)... :) > This statement belies the fact that you have no understanding of the > concept of rights. Or that you misunderstood what I meant to begin with. :) > they do not have rights. Now, the right to something does NOT mean the > right to demand it for free, from whoever provides it. It means you True. But, under these circumstances, once a song is played, it can be reproduced by others who are not the original artist. And I don't mean by making a copy... > not. You are speaking of music as if it just happened without anyone's > productive effort going into it. Just how do you expect that person, > whose product you have just stolen, to live - if you do not give value > for value? Hrm. Well I suppose an argument could be made (i wont do it, I will fail) that music sort of does just happen. :) Anyone know the source of every song on the planet? :) > Music is intellectual property as sure as a house is > physical property - and without property rights you have no other > rights. Huh? You think all rights boil down to property rights? I have to think this one over, but I don't think i agree with that. A person has a right to gather their own food. Food is not property, its fuel for the body... And I think you're talking about about property in the context of a particular axiomatic system, namely the laws of the US, which I think are somewhat flawed in this respect to begin with. > Let's say you own a stereo for playing your copies of music > on. We will presume you purchased the material and therefore have the > right to listen to it. Well, I like music. I can even argue that I > need it more than you (and you have no effective argument because you > have accepted need, which is subjective and cannot be measured, rather > than rights as your criterion for ownership). I think you're either misquoting me, misunderstanding me, or assuming I said things I didn't. I never mentioned anything (or if I did I didn't mean it in that way) about need. Obviously, nobody actually needs any music at all. You can survive, reproduce, etc without music. Its not something you really 'need' as such. Although there is something to be said for quality of life. :) > So, you would willingly > furnish me with your stereo and collection of recordings? All of them, > because I need them more, remember. Well that's flawed because if I were a pure socialist I would refute the idea that you need it more than I. :) > Yes, you are that socialist and > willingly would? How about all your food? Your house? I need these > things and by YOUR argument I have the absolute right to ask them of you I never said that. You're sticking words in my mouth. You're grouping all kinds of stuffs that a person could potentially acquire during his or her lifetime, including luxury items and essentials and saying that there's some abstract metric called 'need' and that my 'need' for these things is somehow less than yours. You can't be asked to judge how much you 'need' anything that is not essential to your survival. Its very difficult to ask someone whether they NEED something or WANT something because need has both a relative and absolute meaning. Remember that scene from spaceballs 'I Told you to bring only what is essential for our survival!' response: 'This is my whatever model industrial strength hair dryer AND I CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT IT!!!' :) Much more fair to have an uninvolved party look at the situation and make an informed objective decision. :) > - and by your same argument, I have the right to take them by force > (because by your argument people don't have rights - therefore there is > no crime when I violate your non-rights). I never said people had no rights! What I meant (and albiet may not have said in so many words) is that the idea of 'right to listen to music' needs to be further divorced from the idea of intellectual property of said music. I mean, you can't stop people from knowing a song, but you can (and should) prevent them from trying to profit from your work. > See above. Obviously you are socialist. Well, I'd like to see you > explain how socialism can even function, when all it actually > accomplishes is stagnation, misery, death. Well I would counter that by saying that there has yet to be a real implementation in the real world of socialism, as defined and intended by those who thought it up. Socialism is supposed to be something that humans realize is right after going through a time when wealth is held by a priviledged few, and the rest of the people live in abject poverty (see US economy from about 1850 until the fed starting controlling how large and powerful corporations can get, anti-trust, etc). Now, every actual instance of socialism in the world we live in has been some group of politicians who liked the idea and decided that their usually non-capitolistic society can benefit from this political structure (russia went from being primarily agricultural to being communist, as did china, and come to think of it I think all of the socialist nations). The problem is that this group of people decides, at some point, that THEY THEMSELVES would be able to govern the country better and basically just takes over because they were the ones spearheading the social change. Socialism, in the way the people who thought it up intended, is a situation where all the people in a society come to a moral realization that allowing the vast majority of wealth to fall into the hands of a small population (as it enevitably does in a capitolistic society, eg: General Electric, Bill Gates, etc) is wrong! I don't think this means (could be wrong, as usual) that nobody should have possesions per se, but rather that the human race has to at some point start thinking more like one macro0-organism; that the suffering of one person might as well be yours, and why not prevent it in any way you can. This is in direct opposition to the capitolistic idea of 'if you managed to make that money then you have the right to do with it whatever you want, as you see fit' Socialism says that you need to think of others, beyond just their capability to help you produce more money. Socialism is not supposed to be implemented by a few, thats why its never worked. In order for PURE socialism to occur, an entire society has to have a shift in beliefs all at once to realize that everyone has just as much right to wealth as anyone else. Or something. > You can't "share" something > that has not been produced. Huh? I can share my thoughts with someone. I can share a song. I can share a beautiful view, a moment, a joke. None of those things were produced in the sense I think you mean it. > The argument stops right there. Look at > the "great experiment" of the Soviet Union - the ultimate hippie commune > - and observe its history of bloody destruction. Yeah well I would say that russia was never a socialist state really. It's such a shame that these perversions of what is a pretty cool idea have given socialism such a bad status in our country... Personally, I think that in the end we, as a people, will have to become more socialist. By which I mean that we have to stop thinking so much about our damn selves because all that has done has pit us in a race against each other and as a byproduct destroyed a lot of the environment, and done a lot of other kinds of harm. I am not a socialist. I live in a capitolist society, the pinnacle of in fact (new york city, and I work for a company whose clients are all huge financial banks), that doesn't mean that I cannot believe that there are things that we can learn from socialist or that there are things wrong with capitolism. I mean for example, I think the US should have socialized medicine. Its a crime that we don't (we are the only industrialized nation that doesn't). And we use capitolist rhetoric to justify not having it. > Tim C. # Need help using (or leaving) this mailing list? # Send the command "info orb" to majordomo@lists.xmission.com. # To post, email orb@lists.xmission.com; replies go to original sender. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 15:04:58 -0700 From: "Seofon" Subject: Re: (orb) lazyness and the world of buying Well, let's not kid ourselves into thinking the OAA is really on the up-and-up. Some label or other still holds copyright on most of that material, at least until it falls into the public domain. This kind of thing is right at the heart of the whole Internet music piracy debacle. However, the Internet music piracy debacle has also highlighted the point that music is where you find it. And if there was enough rare stuff to go around, it stands to reason that it wouldn't be so rare. So if I find something I want to hear on an FTP site, sure I'll download it. But I don't think I'm making off like a bandit, because not only is the sound quality compromised but that mp3 is not going to hold its value (or impress the chicks) in the same way as my collection of gen-u-ine Orb discs. Anyhow, the practical reality is that this is a community of folks who have come together for the purpose of sharing Orb-related stuff, so that's what we do, and I prefer it to filling the pockets of rarity brokers. At the same time, let's not abuse the privileges that this technology affords us. Matt is quite right, in that we should not expect the OAA or its ilk to cater to our every Orbular desire. But, Matt, I will take issue with your criticism of moaning ... in my experience, moaning is a big part of collecting. =) My opinion -- If something is in print, please do not upload it to the OAA. If something is reasonably available, in your estimation, please think twice about uploading it. Please support your artists. Thank you. > Little Fluffy Clouds (ambient mk1) 4:29 > - - someone has uploaded this on OAA, but after downloading I realized > it's incorrectly labeled (dance mk 1) instead of ambient one :-( That was probably me. It's mislabeled on the disc as (ambient mk 1), when in actuality it's a unique dance mix. Lazlo took the liberty of calling it ('dance mk 1') in his discography. - -=Seofon # Need help using (or leaving) this mailing list? # Send the command "info orb" to majordomo@lists.xmission.com. # To post, email orb@lists.xmission.com; replies go to original sender. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:36:24 -0700 From: Chris Johnson Subject: Re: (orb) speaking of b-sides... John Goelzer wrote: > I'm gonna seize this opportunity to change the subject... I was hoping someone would run with this... ;) > When is the next single from Cydonia going to come out? And what will it be? I don't think another Cydonia release is very likely, but if there is one, I'm split between an "EP" (featuring stuff like Red Worm, JoYH, Yungle, Bicycles & Tricycles, etc.), or another single. > My vote is for "Hamlet of Kings," "Centuries" (I seem to be the only one who > likes that track) or "Thursday's Keeper." If it's to be a single, I think A Mile Long Lump Of Lard would be my favorite, but I wouldn't be opposed to Thursday's Keeper. > This is semi-related to today's flame war in that "Jam on Yer Honey," et. > al. could turn up as b-sides on this theoretical single, if and when it ever > comes out... Yeah! :P > It'd be fun to discuss/brainstorm this (and I think someone might have > already done so a while ago?), but concrete information would be even > better... anyone? anyone? Smiley? I'm pretty sure Smiley said that Ghostdancing was originally going to be the second single...(goes to check www.theorb.com)...yep, that's what it says... > Hard to believe they're going to just leave it at "Once More" and no > others... Eh. Depending on how you count it, there have been other Orb albums with but a single single, so to speak. Chris # Need help using (or leaving) this mailing list? # Send the command "info orb" to majordomo@lists.xmission.com. # To post, email orb@lists.xmission.com; replies go to original sender. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 01:39:41 -0400 From: "Reverend djbluE (Chromatest)" Subject: Re: (orb) mp3 debate Chris Johnson wrote: > That isn't entirely true. Selling promos is perfectly legal in the US, > it is part and parcel of marketing music. I'm not so sure this is true. Most promo's do have the disclaimer that the disc is property of the record company, or that the disc is not for resale. To me, resale doesn't mean, "oh, since it was only sold once by the record store, it's legal," but really I'm not sure.. I'd say that the promos are not meant for resale. Of course when the label floods a market, or perhaps somebody at the label makes a few extra bucks by selling a couple cases to a few people....... > The real indignity is that it doesn't take anything away from the label; > the the cost of promos is generally recouped from the artist, which adds > insult to injury, IMO. But if they are out there, I'm going to buy them. I was going to mention this earlier. It is my general impression, and especially so for the major record labels, that all the promo costs are recouped from the artists themselves. I'm pretty sure that the orb's label does this, so if you think about it, by you and me and all of us, making the demand for the promo's so high, we are taking money from the orb. Catch-22 I guess. - -ben # Need help using (or leaving) this mailing list? # Send the command "info orb" to majordomo@lists.xmission.com. # To post, email orb@lists.xmission.com; replies go to original sender. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 23:46:15 -0700 From: Tim C Subject: (orb) Cydonia v2 -- jam on yer honey - continued Hmmm, apologies if this comes through twice. It didn't make it through the first time, presumably due to extensive quotes, so I am trimming those. For full text of what I'm replying to, see original post. T > superior to me in your rhetorical skills (i was an engineer in college and > never took anything slightly akin to debate)... :) I was an engineer in college. I am an engineer now. I have never taken anything akin to, or participated in any organization dedicated to, debate. > Or that you misunderstood what I meant to begin with. :) I answered what you wrote. If you meant something other that what you wrote, you should have written something other that what you wrote. > can be reproduced by others who are not the original artist. And I don't > mean by making a copy... The intellectual property - the original song - is still the property of the artist. Cover versions could not exist without it. Cover versions have strict royalty rules when included on a sold work, but not for public performance - presumably out of the difficulty of policing them. > Hrm. Well I suppose an argument could be made (i wont do it, I > will fail) that music sort of does just happen. :) Anyone know the source > of every song on the planet? :) And who could make this argument? How could music (or any other human creation) just happen? The argument could not be made because it is not possible - it is not just the inadequacies of the particular arguer. > right to gather their own food. Food is not property, its fuel for the > body... Food most certainly is property. In this context, property is not "real estate" - it is "something owned or possessed" - be it physical (food, records, house) or non-physical (intellectual property). > are somewhat flawed in this respect to begin with. Only as their original purpose has been betrayed. And, yes, I am spaking in terms of a "particular axiomatic system." It's called reality. > something you really 'need' as such. Although there is something to be > said for quality of life. :) The concept of need-based morality (altruism) was implicit in your argument. I obviously have not misquoted you, as I addressed your text directly. I certainly did not misunderstand what you wrote - if you meant something different, you obviously have a ways to go as far as understanding, and thinking in terms of, essentials. It is these essentials, some of them implied, in your argument that I am addressing. If you like, "want" and "need" are interchangeable in my statement above. > Well that's flawed because if I were a pure socialist I would > refute the idea that you need it more than I. :) And how would you do that? And, what's this "pure socialist" stuff? Sit on the fence, get impaled. A mixed economy, unless righted by conscious effort, will move automatically towards socialism. > essential for our survival!' response: 'This is my whatever model > industrial strength hair dryer AND I CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT IT!!!' :) I am not "sticking words in your mouth." I am drawing attention to the essentials and their fundamental meaning in everything you have stated - I am calling them out and naming them, so that you and everyone else can see the true nature of them. You implied in your argument that the right to possess music supersedes the rights of the people who produced it. Whether a piece of property is a luxury item or an essential, by your argument I can say "AND I CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT IT!!!" and that gives me the right to demand it without payment. > Much more fair to have an uninvolved party look at the situation > and make an informed objective decision. :) Anyone who was in fact objective would make the same assessment. > but you can (and should) prevent them from trying to profit from your > work. How can you perform this divorce? You cannot! That is my point! And "needs?" There's that word again.... > intended by those who thought it up. Now you're actually starting to make me angry. This is one of the most blatantly ignorant, uninformed, and utterly evasive of reality (and unfortunately very common among socialist sympathizers and general populace philosophical sheep) viewpoints out there. Socialism cannot work in theory - cannot work in practice - the closer man comes to it, the more he will stagnate, and the more destruction will be wrought. And are you sure you understand the motives of "those who thought it up?" > corporations can get, anti-trust, etc). WHAT. EVER. Capitalism in the US CREATED the middle class, and created more general prosperity than anyone on Earth has ever known. Government control is what's bringing it back down. Anti-trust is evil - and not to mention ridiculous when you consider that monopolies CANNOT exist without government favoritism. > Socialism says that you need to think of others, beyond just their > capability to help you produce more money. I do not think of - or for - others. Other arguments against this stream of gibberish can be found throughout the rest of my response. > just as much right to wealth as anyone else. Or something. "Or something." Nice. And how do you expect an "entire society" to voluntarily shed its humanity and become a vicious pack of savages fighting over the scraps? > produced in the sense I think you mean it. The goal of socialism, as you have stated repeatedly, is sharing of wealth. That is the context of discussion. Ironically, most everything you've mentioned here can in fact be included in the realm of human thought/productivity/wealth. Thoughts can be worth money - useful if you're an engineer by trade, for example. A song can be worth money. A beautiful view can be worth money - say, nature photography books for example. Even jokes can be worth money - observe the take at the box office of any decent comedy for example. I might add, if you are in the position to share these things of your own production with someone, I highly doubt it will be with someone whom you do not value. There is no free love. > idea have given socialism such a bad status in our country... Perversions? Cool idea? Sigh. You really think the scenario of me showing up at your doorstep and having the right to your possessions, your food, your dwelling (back to my original example which all your blubbering has not refuted - and somehow your disclaimer at the start absolves you of this responsibility - even though despite your claim that you basically couldn't argue it is now apparent that you'll damn well try?) is a COOL IDEA???!!! > socialist or that there are things wrong with capitolism. You live in a pinnacle of a capitalist society - and yet you don't see the worth of that? You'd prefer that NYC was a wasteland, that you'd like to come out of your hut there and farm for 15 hours, have no time for eating, no energy for enjoyment - no pleasure - no sex - to be reduced to the status of an animal living a hand to mouth (and hand to all your brothers' mouths, and all your brothers' mud-encrusted hands to your mouth)??? > that doesn't). And we use capitolist rhetoric to justify not having it. Uh, we do have it. Why do you think health care is so expensive and has gone so far downhill in quality? Talked to a Canadian about their health care system lately? The hideous waits for treatment? The brain drain from the field? It's happening here now, too. > wrong, sigh> I'm not attempting to prove you wrong. I am fighting for the emancipation of man from bad philosophy. I am on the front lines of a new renaissance. Many people may be wondering how the hell this discussion got into an Orb forum - well, I read 41 new emails this morning, many of them on this thread but none of which named an essential. Yours did, and I could not let it go unanswered. I urge anyone - ANYONE - who thinks that things are going wrong, that looks in despair at the crumbling world around them, that finds only vacuous shallowness in most of today's art and entertainment, that senses contradictions all around them, that is pissed off when the rave they are at gets shut down - you are not alone. If this reaches even one person that takes it seriously and discovers a world opened up to them - then it is all worth it, worth my time and energy to have sent this out - - ideas that do not propagate die with the person who held them. If you wish to examine these issues further, the following are recommended: Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged - deals with all these issues in general detail. Her master work. Ayn Rand - The Fountainhead - more specific, deals primarily with the productive man vs. the non-productive man. Leonard Peikoff - Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand - the definitive, hierarchical text. Leonard Peikoff - The Ominous Parallels - details the rise, and philsophical causes, of Nazi Germany and the philosophical parallels in America today. Excellent book. Ayn Rand - We The Living - her most autobiographical work, details life (if you can call it that) in Soviet Russia. Read this if you want to see how well socialism works in practice. And a fantastic reference is The Ayn Rand Lexicon - edited by Harry Binswanger. Compilation of Rand quotes on given subjects, arranged in hierarchical order (abstract/general comments on concept first, to concrete/specific last), and original source given. T $ # Need help using (or leaving) this mailing list? # Send the command "info orb" to majordomo@lists.xmission.com. # To post, email orb@lists.xmission.com; replies go to original sender. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 12:27:47 +0100 From: Matt.Skinner@skanska.co.uk Subject: (orb) Badorb & B-Sides Whoever it was that questioned the first three Badorb 12"s being on the OAA - - Bob1 and Bob3 are on there. Whoever it was that asked what they were like - Don't be buying them expecting to hear the "orb" [whatever that is]....more sort of leftfield Techno tracks. I can imagine a few people might dismiss them on first listen. Not exactly commercial [is that a bad thing or a good thing?]. Bob2 appears to be the same track on both sides [just a slightly different mix]. Of the three, Bob1 is definately the best IMO. I think it was Chris who mentioned Ghost Dancing being the next single. I would imagine that all you'd get on the B-Sides would be different mixes or alternative edits....The Orb aren't exactly reknown for "doing" B-Sides. You probably won't hear the v1/2 tracks such as Ralf, Jam, Yungle [best one off any Cydonia version], Freely Wheely on any B-Sides. Bicycles & Tricycles will probably never be released. Shame, but there are obvious reasons why they won't be released. # Need help using (or leaving) this mailing list? # Send the command "info orb" to majordomo@lists.xmission.com. # To post, email orb@lists.xmission.com; replies go to original sender. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 14:24:18 +0200 (CEST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Christoph=20Kluxen?= Subject: (orb) badorb-question Hi, I dontwant to get it from the OAA and I dont want to talk about Cydonia V2 at the moment. I did post that days ago,my problem is,that I dont have a credit card,so: Are there any people who have the same problem? Could anyone order that for me? I dont have question like is it good enough to buy,cause its the label from the orb. And if all people get it as Mp3 or something else,there will be no Badorblabel tomorrow, I think thats a shame!! Cy, Christoph from Germany __________________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de # Need help using (or leaving) this mailing list? # Send the command "info orb" to majordomo@lists.xmission.com. # To post, email orb@lists.xmission.com; replies go to original sender. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 09:32:10 -0400 From: "Reverend djbluE (Chromatest)" Subject: (orb) (OT) mouse on mars, NYC I guess it's july 3rd. forget the venue... micah, you going? anybody else gonna be there? I'll be there. email me if anybody wants to meet up. - -ben # Need help using (or leaving) this mailing list? # Send the command "info orb" to majordomo@lists.xmission.com. # To post, email orb@lists.xmission.com; replies go to original sender. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001 10:59:05 -0500 From: Brian Subject: Re: (orb) Cydonia v2 -- jam on yer honey - continued While I believe everyone is entitled to his own opinion, I have to point out how quickly those who disagree with either me, Tim, or Vince are willing to jump on us for our opinions. It's amazing how many people on this list spout "tolerance", and then proceed to jump down the throats of anyone who doesn't agree with them. This is, after all, a forum for discussion, not a UN meeting-styled shouting match. :) >> Hrm. Well I suppose an argument could be made (i wont do it, I >> will fail) that music sort of does just happen. :) Anyone know the source >> of every song on the planet? :) Every song I have written has been a product of my mind. I have consciously created something; every knob-tweak, every note, every nuance of my songs are intentional, and are put there BY ME. Anyone who waves his hands about mystically and claims that music "just happens" is entirely nuts. Nothing - -- NOTHING -- JUST HAPPENS. Alex does not just sit in a room and hum, while his keyboards and turntables magically crank out some song. From the song's inception to its completion, Alex is consciously making adjustments, changing passages, recreating, altering, making better his music. HIS MUSIC. HIS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. >> right to gather their own food. Food is not property, its fuel for the >> body... Why does everyone always think property is some physical land bounded by invisible lines upon which you reside? Property is anything OWNED OR POSSESSED, which is: my food, my car, my house, my songs, my computer, my thoughts, my writings, my rants, my raves, my arguments, my intellectual property. Food is something for which one must work. When one works for something, then that something becomes HIS PROPERTY. Thank you, Tim, for suggesting these WONDERFUL philosophical works: Ayn Rand - Atlas Shrugged - My Favorite Ayn Rand - The Fountainhead Leonard Peikoff - Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand Leonard Peikoff - The Ominous Parallels - Excellent book. Ayn Rand - We The Living - Socialism doesn't work. Read this and see why. These are just some of the books. Try Anthem, too. You'll see what your wonderful socialism gets you there too. :) Nice to see someone else with some good philosophy in their heads, eh, Vince? :D - - Brian PS: If you're going to scream and shout and be crazy, don't bother flaming me. Just delete it. If you want to calmly and intellectually discuss this, please feel free to email me. I like philosophical discussion. I don't like shouting matches. :) # Need help using (or leaving) this mailing list? # Send the command "info orb" to majordomo@lists.xmission.com. # To post, email orb@lists.xmission.com; replies go to original sender. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 23 Jun 101 11:59:22 -0400 (EDT) From: babylon@egenius.org Subject: Re: (orb) Cydonia v2 -- jam on yer honey * * Well I would counter that by saying that there has yet to be a *real implementation in the real world of socialism, as defined and *intended by those who thought it up. * Socialism was really first discribed in a book named Utopia by Thomas More. *think all of the socialist nations). The problem is that this group of *people decides, at some point, that THEY THEMSELVES would be able to *govern the country better and basically just takes over because THEY were *the ones spearheading the social change. Socialism (pure socialism) as a political ideal was never decided on by the people and then subverted by a few. It was always brought forth by a few who then used it as a way to mobilize the average citizens into an army with which to overthrow the current government in that country. It was always a tool to bring someone who was not in power, into power. That power was never handed down peacefully. That power was never used to bring prosperity to the average citizen. The citizens only involvement in it was as a tool to be used by the leaders to get into power. Look at all of the instances around the world and you will see this. Western Europe's limited Socialism is really the only instance of socialist government brought about by social conscience. All other instances are dictatorships. This really isn't unique to socialism though. Democracy was also used by an intelligent group of elite to overthrow governments that they did not have power in. Look at the US. Being governed by a King, led a group of people of intelligence and no power, to come together a use the concept of democracy to cause the common people to follow a revolt against the King. When the King was pushed out of the governance of the US, those elite few became the leaders. They were the wealthy land owners with the right to vote. Things have changed since then, and probably the common citizens life was better without the King, but it was not just everyone doing the right thing. It was a way for a smart man with no power to gain power by overthrowing the current government. * * Socialism, in the way the people who thought it up intended, is a *situation where all the people in a society come to a moral realization *that allowing the vast majority of wealth to fall into the hands of a *small population (as it enevitably does in a capitolistic society, eg: *General Electric, Bill Gates, etc) is wrong! I don't think this means *(could be wrong, as usual) that nobody should have possesions per se, but *rather that the human race has to at some point start thinking more like *one macro0-organism; that the suffering of one person might as well be *yours, and why not prevent it in any way you can. This is in direct *opposition to the capitolistic idea of 'if you managed to make that money *then you have the right to do with it whatever you want, as you see fit' *Socialism says that you need to think of others, beyond just their *capability to help you produce more money. A few things are being misused here. 1. When money goes to General Electric, it does not just go to a small group. It goes to all of the employees, and all of the owners (ie shareholders) which is a very large group of people. And of course the money spent by those people is the money earned by ma and pa at their corner store. It a capitolist view. The economy is a big circular system of money which in each part of it's cycle a different person earns his keep and prosperity from the same money. 2. Capitolist theory does not say I have my money, I made it, and I don't care about other peoples' suffering. It is worthless shitty people who say that and feel that way. But those people exist in every form of economy and government. Just because China is Communist, it does not mean you will see people sharing their bread with the poor person in the street. It is a matter of personal conscience. Hopefully we have enough people of conscience in our society to overcome those without it, but it is not just a by product of Capitolism. In fact there is far more charity in the US then in any other country, which is a matter of conscience and probably related to the fact that there are more people with disposable income to share. I won't argue whether it is also true that we have more people who need charity. * * Socialism is not supposed to be implemented by a few, thats why *its never worked. In order for PURE socialism to occur, an entire society *has to have a shift in beliefs all at once to realize that everyone has *just as much right to wealth as anyone else. Or something. * Pure Socialism will never work because we are human. Unfortunately that means that we have many flaws. For pure socialism to work all people would have to be altruistic, and that just is not going to happen. Because of our nature someone will always be trying to take advantage of the system. Maybe they will be trying to be a leader, with all of the power and prestige that comes with it. Or else they will just be trying to get something without having to do their own work for the common good. And then there is always theft. Even if we classify all of the human flaws as "ills" or psychological problems that are not faults of the person but just uncontrollable urges, those very urges can destroy the whole system. That was the downfall of the Communist system in most countrys. The fact that they were not pure socialist states. They were dictaroships. The dictator and his chosen cadre were above the rest of the masses. They had cars, houses, money, and planes. The common person did not prosper from his own work, but he could see someone else prospering. (This is were the most heard arguement comes in.) Why does someone want to work so hard when he is not getting enough food? And how hard can you work when you are tired? It is a giant mix of many things, but it always comes together the same way, even in different countries, cultures, histories, and philosophies. It went the same way in Russia, Asia, and South America. Imagine how socialism may have worked in the former Soviet Union if they did not have to spend most of their money on a defense budget? They may have had enough food to feed the people and motivation to prosper. However they had to have a defense budget to ward off any threats to their military dictatorship. The government was not worried about doing the right thing for each and every citizen. The government was worried about keeping itself in power. It is the same way in China today. It is not a socialist government with a socialist economic system. It is a dictatorship government with a socialist economic system. Utopia (pure socialism) can only occur if we can overcome all of the flaws of being human. * I mean for example, I think the US should have socialized *medicine. Its a crime that we don't (we are the only industrialized nation *that doesn't). And we use capitolist rhetoric to justify not having it. * Personally I am a fan of Socialist Medecine as well. In fact I think the US medical system is worse then just capitilist. Our medical system has many flaws that are just unimaginable. It is impossible to fathom how some of these flaws could become cemented in legislation if it weren't for morally corrupt people beholden to self interest. However all is not cheery in Socialized medicine. I cannot speak for everyone in countries all over the world. However I can say that none of my freinds in other countries in particularly happy with the medical systems in their countries, this includes Canada, Australia, and England. Most of my Swedish friends are content with their system. Their common complaints involve lack of doctors leading to multiweek delays to get an appointment, and difficulty in getting medications that they need. Socialized medicine also does not have the push to discover new cures and procedures that capitilist US medicine does. (However I really don't think this should be the case, or needs to be the case. It just is the case currently). The US system also leads to extortionist prices for medicine. For extortionist practices lead by Health care Insurance organizations. For lawsuits over mistakes by doctors. For doctors lying and covering up mistakes to avoid those lawsuits. It is all a mess, once again brought about by the flaws of being human. # Need help using (or leaving) this mailing list? # Send the command "info orb" to majordomo@lists.xmission.com. # To post, email orb@lists.xmission.com; replies go to original sender. ------------------------------ End of orb-digest V2 #481 *************************