socks

Chet Atkins "Copper Kettle".

That would be unkind. The melodies, as noted in the youtube.com sample, are identical. Differences in inflection are minor, so minor they could be considered performance nuances. Written out, the portions noted are the same, the intervals note to note identical. Likewise the chord accompaniement uses the same approach to produce the sound of each. Pretty much everyone agrees to the similarity, although I've read on some blogs and boards comments by Coldplay fans (not that you are Notawayfer) that the songs aren't anything alike. That's legitimate from a certain viewpoint and gets into the definition of what a "song" actually is to the listener, but doesn't work from musical standards. But for copyright purposes a "song" is a melody with chordal accompaniement. The chords have some relevance because it produces the harmonic context for the melody. In theory I guess (and all of this can be debated from many different perspectives) a melody could be placed against different chords and by achieving a different context or "sound" be "different" as a "song", even though the intervals are still the same. From a musical and pure listening standpoint, there could be some merit to differentiating a song for copyright purposes that way. Coldplay's chords are the same as Satch's which is one of the strongest definers for the overall "song" similarity. But to have a "song" there has to be a melody - and again that's a loose term - some instrumental songs, particularly guitar or piano pieces, are more exercises in fingerpicking and fingering techniques, and the "song" is really the string of chords and changes with the melody very loosely contained in them. Satriani's different from many instrumental guitarists in that he emphasises composition in his recordings - they aren't strings of chords where he just jams over them and displays a technique or effect - a lot of guitarists do that, as does he on some stuff. But he typically produces some songs with solid melodies and arrangements. An acid "user" test for a song is - can you hum the melody? Can it be remembered? In both CP"s and JS's pieces, the answer would be yes. Anyhoo - Coldplay's response is a little tinny to my ears. They're hugely popular recording artists but I doubt anyone would put them in the same league as Satch, musically. Which doesn't have anything to do really with the music market. If people like a song, they like it regardless of how advanced the music is and that's as it should be. Which is one of the reasons I do like Satriani - he writes things that are in his genre that don't have to scream "I'm the greatest guitarist in the WORLD". He does lots of different things, given his real interest is to explore and advance guitar.

So if I trust and obey - wait!! Indeed - "I've gone from one side of the flag pole to the other." You 'n' me both, friend. A) The heart. The heart to give. God loves a cheerful giver and certainly will take care of all his children. No matter what they are doing, service in sharing the good news, or a chef at McDonalds. So with that heart to do God's will is where God will bless, not starting a business in God's Word which includes "requiring" a return from those you give to. I use the imagery of "every Thom, Dick, and Harriet that wants to", setting up shop and hanging out a shingle reading "Ye Olde God's Stuff" and taking all comers. There's no applicaton process (that everyone agrees on) other than the items you note so well - Basically anyone can say "God called me, I work for God". That hardly means that 1. someone does, 2. someone is "called" VS volunteering (which is what nearly everyone is expected to do anyway - it's a "family") and/or 3. "Pay me, I"m woikin' here", and that they're doing valid work. If it were a blank sheet of paper, I'd ask first - what's the reason "we", the church, exists? What's the inherent essence of our relationship that causes us to be together, relate, and have any interest in each other at all? What's our "reason" for being? Uno digito - "sonship" - the familial relationship of children and a Father. (MA MA!! MA MAA!) That's the best imagery, metaphor or comparison we have to start from, I think. That's the "system", the organizational model we have to fashion our efforts, as we're describe that we ARE children, in a family. Rather than forge some stamped out orthodoxy for conducting ourselves or build an artificial heirarchy based on a few verses from the bible, I think we (the family Church) have an opportunity everyday and everywhere to develop ways of working together and functioning that are LIVING and breathing, dynamic and full of the elegant growth and change that God and Christ have exhibited in our past and that we have promised in our future.

Hmmm...that's good stuff TAO. I'd add - Pauls states his case in Chap. 9, and validates his position from a couple standpoints - the temple and the Levites, God's "ordaining" of it, and a kind of natural logic - but there's limits to that and frankly, I don't think that "Paul" accuractely states the case for it in such a way as to make it a "doctrine". (as it's so often imposed) Now - this smacks of some kind of heinous accusation - that "The Word of God" has error in it. That "Paul taught something wrong". But the presentation in Chap. 9 doesn't stack up if it's used as a fully vested doctrinal position for earning a living from the church of God that one serves IMO, from a broader view of the bible. It can be done, but it must be done carefully and - my term - "probably" only works in those cases where you have a personnae fitting "Pauls", or very close to it. The "flock" that's referred to is a metaphor - God "owns" the flock, although we are in fact now God's "children" but we can keep the flock metaphor as long as we recognize and deal with it's limitations - Christ is the "Good Shepherd", He who has cared for the flock of God and brought it safely "home" to the "owner". Christ is therefore the earner of wages, if there's any to be given. We are the sheep - we're the ones being cared for by Christ and God. (We, as children and fellow brethren to Jesus Christ are collectively a family. We're also referred to in subsets as a "temple", "tabernacles", and members of a body.) That comparison has nothing to do with what God, in Christ, has done. It deals with what we, choose to do (for whomever). The natural logic of being paid reasonably for work well done doesn't require a spiritual platform, it's simply common sense in any social system or structure. In God's "family" sharing and exchange has it's place. Paul wants to compare temple service with "Christian" service - I'm not sure that's a completely reasonable comparison - which is why I think the presentation in Cor. 9 also covers the fact that the writer himself doesn't impose these requirements upon himself But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel. The necessity of writing this to the Corinthians was erroneously attributed to their being an unbelieving church, by the Way Nash, however a little investigation shows that the record speaks and stands for itself - the author was passionate about what he did and was going to fulfill his calling as cleanly as he was able to. Threshing "in hope" and partaking "of hope" together - whast's that mean? The hope of a meal and a paycheck? There's more to it than that, I hope. Obviously, the exchange for labor and service applies today, but it's essential to note how carefully Paul deals with the entire topic and in fact, doesn't impose his argument on the church as "doctrine". I don't believe the overall context provides that reason the Way gave for this - that they were "unbelieving". I think it's simply an ethical conclusion that the author came to that best served his understanding of his calling and those he served.

The never ending twisting and turning of language to accomodate requirements that would otherwise inhibit or restricts the ability to properly collect and keep money is an example of the duplicitous machinations religious societies, clubs and organizations formulate and execute. On Sunday they all work for a heavenly Boss whose ways are higher and mysterious. On Monday they do temp work for other agencies with clearer directives. Thus at the Way, a charge, plain and simple is variously: A donation. (of a set amount) A gift. (of a set amount) A free-will offering. (see above) A minimum required donation. (ditto) More is fine. Less? No. It's a charge, for a business service and product, when you "give" a "mininimum required donation" out of "love" for a "class" and the materials that come with it. You're buying the information and the materials, with whatever use restrictions come with them. I do that at Borders when I buy a book, or Safeway when I buy food. I pay, it's mine, I was charged and paid for the business processes, products and profit margin that the charge covers. It's exactly what the Way does with it's "class". Calling it anything else is transparent BS. IMO. :)

Thanks Mr. P-Tucket. All things been e-quilled, I'd have to accept Joe's reporting on his trying to settle out of court and get some recognition from Coldplay for the song(s). What's really captured my attention on it is - well, kind of ironic. Many years ago, when JN was working it's last year or so, I wrote a song that contained the opening chords and figure - it was a little slower, with a finger picking and rhythm part played against each other but the sound is very similar - it hits a G (Gmaj7) then to an F#m7, and second time through resolves to a B. I used open strings, high E and B, droning agains't the chord triads, played on the lower strings. At the time that's all I could do with it and it sounded nice, I like the way it forms a kind of "round" and can be played over and over, and where the B takes it to a 5th of the key of E there's a lot of room for improvising over it (which Satch does the deal with on his song of course) - because you can improvise in several keys, E, A, F#min, B, Gmaj - there's a lot of nice possibilities. I ended up writing just two lines for the theme, and that's sat there for what - almost 30 years. "If this were the start, the beginning again, I'd start it all over with you". I wrote them for my wife. I had no idea until reading that what his inspiration was for that song. I will say that combination of chords is difficult to know what to do with - I never really resolved it. It's really been in the back of mind as some sort of a counterpoint to a marriage, always a work in progress. It was funny at the time because I couldn't get where to take it next, a G - A felt right, etc. etc. - Lisa L. was on the tour with us at that time, a "Take a Stand" caravan trip or two, and at one point after I'd strummed it another 100 times, she commented "yeah, that's the kind of thing you like to hear over and over ... and over again..." She was making the point - is that it? I still fiddle with it, and it's odd how much it has the "feel" of Satch's tune. I've been pondering whether to post this, but figured now it was too close to comfort to not - because it does go to show that music may always be a combination of something that's come before, as I'm sure virtually every combination of every tone set has been done at one time or another. Cest la vie, 'ey? Truth may be stranger than fiction. :) I think they both did a good job with it.

In many respects yes. Some of the best people I've known in my life were people in the Way. For many years I felt it was a good way to go. Not always the best, but reaonable on many different counts. That word "reasonable" was and is important to me. If there's reasonable progress, good work I can do, solvable problems and a common desire to work together, a lot can be done. I haven't found that life has a magic wand anywhere that waves over everything and makes it ideal. Work is required, effort, investment of mind and body. That's standard running op', IMO. There was a brick wall at the end of the tunnel though for me. Fortunately I rerouted. Nearly everyone I know did, or has over time. It's for the best.

Don't try too hard Leafy, it's not worth it, trust me. "Twigs" were supposedly self-propelled and self-bossing. "In cooperation with the next exofficio level of the Way Tree". This was, in fact, the way it was described for many years. Exofficio is an interesting term. Applied in the Way it meant another level into the organization, a person who wasn't a full time hire or appointee to that position. Another volunteer, someone who held a position of oversight. Twig to Branch, usually is as far as that got. Area and higher ranks were generally assigned positions, salaried "staff" of the Way. "Official" positions. Twigs quickly became non-self-governing when the Way Nash HQ started calling all the shots from the "next official level" in the Way tree. "elders" and "leaders" were appointed to all levels, "self-governing" or not. Classes were on "concurrent" schedules. Class minimums for student sign ups were enforced. Twig Abundant Sharings were reported and monitored. Twig teaching schedules eventually were governed in many areas. Themes and topics cycled through the fellowships at the same time. Fellowship "orders of service" were established to insure that all the right things were being done. Many areas regulated the numbers of times a "twig" was to meet a week. Etc. Etc. Etc. This gestapo-like "cooperation" was anything but. It was a regulated, governed, restrictive system that weakened trust and promoted egotism.

Thanks, Rocky! I guess that's why I'm committed. Doesn't matter if it was a nickel or a dollar, it's the principle of the t'ing right? He that is faithful in the least will be faithful in much. He that is unfaithfuler in a little will be unfaithfuler in the most. He that is scrooed in the least wil be scrooed in the much. (translated from the Bohemian version = "coming and going you're getting it where suns aren't shining but the moons are full")

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, we all seem to be agreeing that the cost of office supplies and certain other operational costs related to it's formal "outreach program" would have been appropriately subsidized by the Way Nash, the recipient of all donations, charges and otherwise collected monies that those outreach programs generated. (cus if it was diverted elsewhere, you were officially designated as "stealing from God" who apparently lived in Shelby County Ohio) Le'see.....would that include STAMPS? I say stamps go in that category. Call me crazy, please, but I think stamps would have been included. Looking back. In retrospect. In hindsight. Rear view 20-20, yeah. I would.

M lady - those do-lang's have always caught my ear. Oh to be a fly on the wall in that session... "oo-oo-oo-ooo ooo ooooh.....oo-oo-" No, try doo doo... "doo doo doo doooo do doooh...do do-" No, try- "Dang it! Make up your mind!" Yeah, that's it....do dang do dang do dang... "Do yang, do lang do dang....how's THAT!" Perfect!!! Do lang! That's it!!! And history was made...?

:) Though the road be narrow May the path be clear The hills be low The sun be bright The view be grand...

I'm outta practice. I posted a "coldplay meets the alien" copyright infringement post - in Open. Sleepy fingers!

(rubbing eyes - I thoght I was putting this in the "guitar" thread - late night fingers I guess) It is similar, LindaZ, agreed. I think the intent will come into play here. Coldplay will probably benefit from the "George Harrison" effect - although not everyone likes their music they're recognized as nice humans and decent enough for a rock band anyway. I doubt the verdict could be anything but hand the bags of money over. CP won't hurt for it, I think you're right. :) "Hound Dog" is a great example, waysider. Chuck Berry's another. (name any Berry tune). Joe's distinguished himself as a passionate player, more than a shredder, but a writer and performer. He uses his bank of effects creatively to serve his music. He's enough of a fan of guitar to enjoy ripping hot molten guitar riffs of his own writing, with glee. Seeing him live it's obvious he enjoys playing as much as he enjoys knowing his audience enjoys it. He's a nice combination of serious-business 800 lb playing and fun. Coldplay's kind of a hoot. Chris Martin's charismatic, to say the least. The rest of the band is a punch out affair, but they seem to be a happy combination of music and song. They're not really my thing but I was surprised how much I enjoyed them live. Again, Harrison's verdict sounds about right here, and I wonder how Coldplay will approach it? Best of all worlds to me - Coldplay performs the song at the Grammy's and Joe joins them for a round of "Viva!" :) That would be cool.

Thanks. I think we're seeing - the two are related. Adultery is a justifiable cause for divorce. What's being upheld is the joining in marriage, the "two being made one". We could ponder the meaning of that - "as" one or "one". It appears more the latter in it's essence but I can see there are levels where the comparison of two joining as one would be appropriate too. To place the adultery in a list like this could be viewed very simply in the context of all of the laws and rules of the O.T. Divorce isn't wrong (breaking the rule of law), when there's cause. It's not the ideal outcome in a marriage, but it reflects conditions. It doesn't seem as though divorce is required in the laws in the event of adultery - but I doubt that if that condition persisted there'd be much reason for the marriage to continue as if nothing was wrong anymore than if other conditions reflected other things being wrong. Adultery's probably dealt with specifically in relation to divorce because it deals specifically with the committment between the people. As if to say "stand up straight". And then "Don't slouch". It could be assumed that also includes a host of other related positions that aren't "standing up straight". Other expections would be assumed the same way - because there's no "divorce" related instructions to not harm a spouse in other ways isn't an implicit allowance that it would be okay. It's common sense, to me. Rumrunner's post covers that. But - I have heard and read that things like abusive conditions aren't as deeply serious "spiritually" as adultery. It's kind of wiggled around, apparently because all of the possible variations of what can go wrong in a relationship between two people aren't spelled out in a commandment. Which is just stupid IMO.

Klaatu barada nikto.

Joe Satriani has sued the band Coldplay for copying his song "If I Could Fly" in their tune "Viva la Vida". Joe's a guitarist. Coldplay's an English band, mega hit-sters. Joe's well known amongst the guitar world, gets a fair amount of radio play and has had music in TV commercials. He's been a teach to a number of well known rock guitarists, Kirk Hammet of Metallica amongst others. Coldplay is well, Coldplay, known worldwide and up for a mess o' Grammy's next year.I've seen them both, Joe a couple, Coldplay once with the Wife. I like them both. Here's an example from Youtube that compares the two. The point is well made, methinks. What do you think? (World peace won't be thwarted either way this goes, I'm sure, but it's an interesting sitch) Satriani AKA "The Alien" - "If I Could Fly"...

John, the distrust is probably more general than anything. Plus, you could get a pretty good argument going here if you were giving away 100 dollar bills. You didn't make a bad impression IMO. The fact you were part of putting up Trancenet.net and helped get No Way Out going should be of interest to those who feel this kind of web posting environment is helpful.

That's the rub, ain't it, opera? Oi. Cest la vie.

This has been a good read. I look at modern Christian religion as being a "dance with the one you brung" state of affairs. It's the product of 100's of years of development, more if I consider how the larger world of religious influences are incorporated into what we have today. My own sense is that "true Christianity" doesn't have any overhead. There's no vehicle to keep running and no capital investment to manage. It is what it is, and it's not a system with a life span or parts that need to be replaced. It's really a relationship that, over time, grows and fills life. The gospel of Jesus Christ doesn't take up space in the same way that physical products do - the "religion" of the relationship with Jesus Christ and God, and the vessel that receives and contains it in life are the only components involved. Paul in the epistle of Corinthians describes this better than I can - (2 Corinthians 3:1-6) Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you? Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. The end result testifies to the process that produced it. I feel that the church Jesus Christ came to start was never intended to be an organization, nor an entity requiring financing or support, in the same ways that the Old Testament temple and rites and rituals required them or similar organizations and societies that are started for other reasons require them. We have teaching ministries - all they do is teach. Teach teach teach. Teach new stuff, reteach the old stuff, plan for teaching more stuff next year to remind everyone how good the old stuff was. At some point, that's enough. But it's never enough. Goes on forever. Teach teach teach. It's part of the modern religious culture and tradition. It's okay but it's not what Christ started, IMO. Is there a "cost"? I suppose in monetary terms, yes there would always be some. But nothing like what we have today. Books are books, CD's are CD's. They cost money, if you want them, you buy them. I buy them. Stuff - I like stuff. Stuff costs money. Stuff comes and goes. There'll be different stuff tomorrow, better stuff, updated enhanced stuff. We're going to want it, maybe need it. We should pay for it. But here we are and it is what it is. My concerns have nothing to do with money itself. I like money, in fact if anyone has a little extra and has been blessed by anything I've written, hey - let's dance. Send it right away to "boyhowdyaintthatsocksomething@homefortheholidays.com". I'll be your huckleberry. :)

"Practical error always leads to doctrinal error"... Pretty much a useless proverb, if it can be called even that. Practice makes perfect would be far more correct and succinct, IMO. Keep doing something, right or wrong, and you have a decent shot at becoming reasonably facile in whatever it is you're trying to do. Either good at doing it well or good at doing it badly. I guess he meant that if what you do is wrong by the standard of the Word, and you do it long enough - and you LIKE it, then you'll formulate a corresponding belief or doctrine out of it. Or just give up and accept it for what it is and take that. He would know. It's not a statement that really stands up to any scrutiny or hmmm, practical application IMO, whoever said it. Pack those nuts up warm and snug, it's getting cold!!

That's what ticks me off, Lifted Up - the criticism that it's been too long and it's too late to register a complaint and tell ones own side of the story. You were around, you can speak to the times and places. If the question these hairpins ask is - Why so long to tell it? The answer's simple - Because that's how long it took before she was ready to tell it. Get over it, read it, ignore it but geez - these people don't seem to understand they end up with egg on their face and worse in their pants when they show such low IQ and HQ. The answer's simple to understand unless someone's an idiot or just a jerk. Either way most others will realize that a person's account of events yesterday or 30 years ago deserves to be heard.

You mean He's not a rich blonde Italian with a southern drawl that shoots from the hip and keeps it re-al? :blink: Normalizing the relationship is what you want to do - normal meaning it has some authenticity and relationship to who you all really are, not just who they are and what they impose on you. I always try really hard to get along with others and maintain some civility and dignity so as not to embarrass them or myself. But there are limits. Not sure what you have at stake, so I could see keeping a moderate distance and looking for opportunity to help them make the evolutionary jump from Religious Neanderthal to Considerate Christian. But if you can't, I see nothing wrong with telling them to back off or butt out, or both. Or you could just give them free tickets the next The Trinity Singers come to town.

Weeeeell, if it was me, I'd suggest they talk to the person who said it and unleash their bounty of good will and biblical research on them instead of whining to me . But that's just me.

That's the one potato. ck is on the case, it seems. There's a ck the elder, and the younger. I think I have the name right, hope so. The poster here claimed to be the offspring of a former member of the Way, and if memory serves the younger may have been himself at one time, I guess by virtue of being in the family, dunno, it was never quite clear exactly what was going on. The "Rev." may be the parent, or the child, dunno. Either way, they're grammar's the same. It always appeared partly a scam, so the point could be moot. To get a refresher on ck, try THIS illuminating doctrinal treatise. Not to digress into off topic discussion on "ck", but a simple review of the words written by that poster will put that Amazon review into context. Not that it matters, it has no effect on Kristen's book or account, at all. Nothing written on Amazon by either of those people has anything to do with what's actually written in her book, so it's really not a review as much as it is an opinion but not of the material in the book - nothing's noted specifically as being true or untrue, nothing specific challenged and no alternate version or explanation of "the truth" is given in opposition to what's written. It's simply stated that it's not true and fiction. Typical.