socks

I've always liked 7-Up, then and now and all measurable points inbetween. It's one of a short list of lifelong consistencies that anchor me to reality and provide a means of authenticating my existence. It's really the only beverage appropriate for humans, after water. A glass of ice cold 7-Up is like a pinch on the brain - am I here? Yes. Is it now? Has to be. Seriously, highly recommended.

News - virgin birth? Not entirely related but interesting.

Martin Dreadnaught - more oddness....

The Beatles, sounding like the Beatles. (some bad editing but thought it was worth it)Nowhere Man. :) Munich

Aaaah. I was thinking how that verse goes - "see through a glass darkly". That might be a two-way good there. We might actually benefit from a little 45-filter sunscreen for these skins we have now. Still, it's always nice to see the sun out in a clear sky.

"Love your neighbor as yourself" would be a high standard, a "golden rule". It's a legitmate question - if I love myself, I won't want someone else to take advantage of me. If I love my neighbor the same way, what does that mean? I've read it just really means to treat others the way I'd like to be treated. Be fair, because I've like to be fair. Be caring, I'd like to be cared for. Etc. So does it mean to love someone else if they steal from me? Love them anyway, let them back in my house for dinner andif they steal from me, love them anyway. Be the Love Dude. Come on back in, I love ya. I don't think it means that, nope. Loving someone else that way wouldn't be fair, honest, caring, to them or myself. In fact, I don't think it refers specifically to every kind of situation . It's a commandment yes, as to how to treat others. A moral standard, a guide, a reference point. It asks the question "how would I feel about this? How would I like to be treated? How would I react? What would I get from this deal I'm offering?" To "love" someone else would mean to respond appropriately. How would letting someone else continue in harmful behavior be a loving act for anyone involved? God's act of love toward mankind by the sacrifice of His son Jesus Christ seems to be the Gold Standard of Love in this kind of religious discussion amongst us Christians. As if to say, our love, if we're going to love as Jesus taught and God wants, will always ignore or forgive and forget and allow for any kind of action, anything that happens and that's what God "sending' Jesus Christ means. That's the way it sounds a lot of the time. Hmmm...first things first - God hasn't ignored our "sin". Not at all. It's been dealt with in a very complex and long term plan of action. There's no ignorance or allowance. Because it WASN'T allowed, something had to be done. To love as God has would mean that harmful behavior would be taken seriously and handled. It's what Jesus Christ died for. Forgiven by God, through Christ - what's that mean? That the harmful behavior is okay now, all cleaned up, go ahead and do whatever, allow whatever, God will take care of it all in good time? No, I think it would mean to handle it, deal with it, stop it, prevent it, etc. How we handle our affairs between us can apply "agape" as 1 Cor. 13 states, with all of it's qualities and recommendations, and be perfectly right and just in not bringing harm to ourselves, others, or allowing it when we can prevent it. Love is strong, consistent, forbearing, considerate of others and what they need, as well as ourselves. When we live that way, we'll be a big help to those who need help, including ourselves I would think.

Shifra, I may need some darning! I dunno. I discuss the topic with at least referencing and reverencing the biblical information and trying to wrap around that. At the same time, I have to look at life and try to understand that with the respect it deserves. When the two don't seem to match I'm not prone to immediately throw the one out over the other. Some things are simple to do that with on face value. Others aren't. The discourse T-Bone notes between Jesus and Peter seems to reference that question Shifra. That's good stuff T-Bone, thanks. In most commentaries it's noted that Peter had denied Jesus, the "Denials", not long before this. When Jesus asks him "do you love me", and he answers yes, I do love you - that language is pretty straightforward in English. So Jesus says "then feed My sheep". So it reads like an equal/same thing. If you do, since you do, then feed my sheep. But we know that Peter had skipped on Jesus when push came to shove despite the fact he'd told Him earlier that he'd be willing to die for Him. At the time I think it's safe to assume that Peter had every reason to remember everything he'd seen and heard Jesus do, teach. But when it came down to it he was afraid he would get hauled off too and so he lied to save his own skin. Seems kinda low, but in the same situation would anyone of us do anything different? We might like to think we would, but would we? And if so, why? I think that record can be looked at as a perfect example of how life really goes for people - we know what we know, we think, but when we are put in the situation where we have to give something for it, what are we ready to give? If Peter had not denied he knew Jesus, it wouldn't have changed anything as to what was going to happen to Jesus. It tells us - what? That Peter wasn't willing to risk his life so he lied and split. Peter couldn't have very well said "Oh yes, Jesus. I love you, you know that, I'd do anything for you". If he even said "I have the deepest feelings for you, you're my friend, we have a bond that's deep", what would that have really meant? Not much based on his earlier actions. If Peter was honest at that point, he knew his "love" for Jesus was well, short of what he'd aspire to. Still Jesus says "then feed my sheep". Do the work, get busy, you're needed. It's amazing Jesus didn't snort and throw a fish at him and say "Since WHEN???!!!" Who'd want someone like Peter representing them, at that point. Who'd know what he'd do next? But they weren't talking on a level of setting a day to go golfing. There was more going on here and Peter was face to face with reality, with a capital "R". I see the record as Jesus knowing what Peter really was, that would come forth in time (as it did) and allowing him the forgiveness without throwing it back at him. In fact the record may be more about forgiveness and actual love and friendship between Jesus and Peter than anything else. Love wasn't going to get to first base without forgiveness. I see this relating to your question Shifra, in that the call to "love" by Jesus wasn't imposed on Peter, He didn't take their friendship and nail him and demand an unswerving committment before He'd even talk to him. He simply said fine, you love me, then join me and do the work. We're moving on here, today. Let's go. He accepted what Peter had to offer. gotta end, this is way too long as it is, but I'm sure there's a lot more.

More love stuff, from the following link: Many Christians are ignorant as to the utter relevance of phileo love, and its strength and equality with the other more frequent rendering of love (agape) in the New Testament. In fact, it is the ignorance and lack of phileo love that is the missing piece of a fragmented Christian church, unable to attain the kind of character they think can come by agape. This article and the one following it has interesting points to make. I think it states pretty close to what I've come to in terms of a biblical understanding of the love/love topic. My wife and I were talking about this last night and it was a lot of fun. Along the lines of what you said T-Lady would be that phileo and agape in the bible describe aspects of the same thing. The above two articles state it better than I could. The actual definition of the two words are almost identical. Meaning comes from usage. As they're used in the bible it's impossible to conclude that the two words point to two completely different kinds of love, one based on a physical albeit "good" kind (potentially) and another a "spiritual" kind. Both words are used in both contexts and don't discriminate between physical/spiritual. Rather they describe an intent, an action taken and the why and how of it and could be used of God, Jesus, mankind, feelings and actions and either good or bad. When one record seems to make that differentiaton ("Peter do you agape me?"...."Yes, I phileo you") the intent of both have to be considered to get the correct understanding I think. Certainly keeping in mind that while Jesus taught some things more than once and from different angles, His followers understanding was in process. IMO the so-called "difference" between these two words is highly over stated. They've been used by a lot of Christain teachers as a short-hand method to define man and God, good and bad, good and best, emotional and logical, physical and spiritual, etc. etc. The two words aside, the ideas behind the two words that are found as they're used in the bible is where the good stuff is. It's no wonder the concept of "love" can be a struggle as it permeates everything we do, who we are and how we view ourselves and the world. The bible records people, events, history. 2 words does not a bible make.

Well well well...30 again? Congratulations! :)

Just read a piece in the S.F. Chronicle where George Martin is quoted as saying that the mono version of the album is the one to hear. That original recording, which does exist but I guess isn't in release, has the best representation of how they recorded and mixed it in 4 track. The stereo release was done by engineers. That use of 4 track is probably the biggest achievement of the recording he felt. There was something about how 500 bucks worth of digital recording equipment today on a PC could do 100 times more than what they had. Guess you gotta have the skills to go with it, mad skills. J-Iams, you gotta go into your Wayback machine to remember that all the Airplane had to do was show up and you had drug references. :biglaugh: In a way, not to digress, the Airplane and the Dead and some of the other west coast bands of that era were more like studio products than others, like the Beatles, who were actually a gig-ready band with a solid rock rhythm section, reasonable chops, vocal strength and ideas based on a history of learning and performing music of many different styles. So they were able to put tunes together with arrangments they could perform, at least for a few years. The Airplane on the other hand....well, they did sound okay on their recordings but live? Only saw them twice, once their first year or so, and once later on a bill with some others bands I wanted to hear. While it was clear they had some decent musicianship and Slick was a babe, they had trouble playing at the same time, it seemed. Basically, a trainwreck. They did represent the ideal of the San Francisco hippie drug mentality though along with the Dead who, despite having two drummers couldn't keep steady time for more than 2 minutes. If Hart would have taken up castanets and left the percussion to Kreutzman they would have sounded a 100 per cent better, IMO. But... 40 years????!!! Seems so long ago...just like it was Yesterday!

Cool tune, Exdartha. They'll love it I'm sure. what a great idea, and at 75 years, it'll be Take yer hankies! Love your neighbor like your love yourself. Love your neighbor with an unconditional love that expects nothing in return. Are they the same? Different? God is called a "Father" in the bible. He's a parent, with children by that view. (Can I have the car tonight Daaaad? Not till you clean up that room!!) Isn't being a parent one of the most universally accepted examples of "unconditional" love that there is? The mother who loves their child no matter what and for no other reason than they're her child? A father who's proud of his daughter or son, no matter what they pursue in life, but just becuz they're his kids? If we know how to ask things of our parents and believe they won't give us bad in return when we do, how much more God as a Father? The comparison uses the depth of love of a parent for their children as a way to understand God. Parents don't always know the right thing to do all the time, but even with that they can do good by their children. Jesus taught in Matthew 7 For which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him! So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets. If unconditional love isn't possible, how can a parent love their child just as much today as at any time, despite what they may or may not do? I would want to be loved that way - for who I am and who I want to be, even when I'm not at my best. Is that really that unusual in life? That impossible to imagine? Two people love. One "has spirit". One has no "spirit". Is the love still love? If not, what is it? Soup?

I'm glad you liked that Pond, I did too. Couple other thoughts - I was at the funeral of a friend of ours Dad. My wife's known the family since she was about 5, and has been friends with one daughter all her life. In fact, it's through that daughter and her then-boyfriend that we met, when we were ourselves but wee teen-tykes. I knew her Dad somewhat, lightly, always liked him. He was active and healthy all his life and died with a rich legacy. Which mostly consisted of his family and friends, and he had many. At the funeral I found out a lot about him I didn't know. One of the most interesting was that he had been at Pearl Harbor, and survived the direct attack. There were a few others that came to the funeral, and one spoke and talked a bit about his friend. Everyone there had a memory of him, a story or more. Pretty much what he did most of his life was work, raise his family and their home in Alameda, California, and do things for other people. He had a great sense of humor, always ribbing people. Never talked about the war or what happened, or what he'd done. But he was remembered by so many people it was literally amazing. The waiter at the restaurant he went to a lot, the stores he shopped at. If you needed help doing anything, he was the guy who showed up early and left late. One thing his friend from the service said that stuck with me was that when they got out and came back home, they were just thankful to be alive and didn't want to waste a day of what they had left. Her Dad characterized that feeling I think. When I think of agape, I think of him. He was Catholic, sent his kids to the nearby Catholic school, but apparently never went to church that anyone remembered, at least not with any regularity. His lifestyle may have been driven by points of faith, but if they were they were private, ones he felt and believed in his heart. He certainly would have been the last person you'd hear any kind of preaching from. Mostly he seemed to have been driven by his experience at Pearl Harbor and making it through alive. He was committed to using the time he had to live and work and do things for people. And I gotta say, by the sounds of it he probably would have been embarrassed that all these people were crying over his passing. What struck me that day was what was in the room when people were together, the funeral, later at the home. Granted it was an emotional event but there was a tangible feeling of "good", of someone who was as solidly good a human being as you could sketch out. Not saintly but just....good. Right. Despite the fact he would have surely scoffed at such a statment, it was undeniably the legacy he left behind and it was something that was sticky for want of a better word, it left it's mark on you having been exposed to it in a concentrated dose like that. I wanted to just go out and do something, anything. Open the door for you, give you a ride, give you a hand. And then beat it and go do somethiing else. Obviously it had an effect on me, to remember it so vividly as I do. I can remember it like warm wind, moving through the air around us. Wind goes where it does, and I see the love of God in that way, moving and finding it's way here and there. I know this proves nothing, which is fine - I'm not looking to do that. But events like this are what stamp "the truth" in my brain over and over. Someone like this man would have never talked about "love", and it almost seemed odd to use that word, but it seemed that's what everyone remembered about him. What he did with his life, anyone could do. When these years go by and stack up like logs, it's easier to see at the end what they finally made, I guess.

Well, Mr. Marx, thank you. There's plenty of amazement to go around, friend. Tryinig to define agape, or to discuss it as we are, or were. Or would if we could get the right rock band name for the Iam's, is still interesting. I think (yikes! hold on, don't be skeered anyone, there will be bible verses) even still that agape describes an attitude a person has when they do something, and it has to do with their motive, their intent. first and foremost it's what we do and why we do it. It's physical, spiritual and both of the above. And to put it in a phrase, "good is where you find it". I believe that agape-stuff is happening all the time, everywhere, all around us. Jesus Himself taught this with the parable of the Good Samaritan who showed love to his neighbor, but wasn't someone that any of the people He was teaching would have expected to be able to love, agape, the way they did. He seemed to deliberately use one of the least likely relationships to illustrate "love". I'm sure if there's been Q and A, someone would have asked "how could that guy love for real, with any legitmacy? He's a Samaritan. Those guys don't stand for the one true God. Not like we do, everyone knows that". But even those in the record, at least the way it's written, took the lesson at face value. I would pose that the point wasn't to show "see, sometimes and every once in awhile, there's an exceptional situation like this, who woulda thunk it", but to simply teach that that's the way it happens. Accepted, unaccepted, members, non-members, those we expect it from and those we don't. Anyone, everyone, can tap into and act according to the standard of His Father and He Himself, Jesus. The heart of the individual stamps what they do with "agape", not the observer. JOHN 15:9-12 (RSV) _____________________________________________________________ 9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. 11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. 12 This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. I found an interesting site doing some browsing on this topic. It was something I'd heard years ago in part, in the Way, believe it or not. This link below covers a list of the Commandments of Jesus He had quite a few of them actually, and they do form an image of what a follower would act like. Good advice or bad?

I left in '86. A point of historical clarification : "Takit" - the last year Joyful Noise was on the road, we were doing the second year of the Take a Stand caravan. It still had life in it but was getting routine, to a certain extent. The years up to an including that one were some of the most exciting and rewarding years of my life. But then I was young, and that was the life I was living. :) One conversation we had on "the bus" early that year was with Vince and the rest of us, and we were all realizing I think how routine the ministry had become. Things seemed to be happening by rote, expectations were spelled out and everyone was going on their merry way in what was starting to look a lot like what everyone said they didn't want - "church", at it's worst. Most of us had come into the ministry through music, back "in the day" of the late '60's, some of us had come from active careers as musicians of various stripe. We'd seen the initial growth of the Way as something we'd grown up into and through. It had been a "youth" explosion but one that if you were part you lived through, rather than observed. So, looking back we were pondering where we'd come from, where we were and where we were going. One of the things I remember Vince saying that clarified it perfectly was describing how Way fellowships had become. "Is this what's going to happen for the rest of my life, every week I go over to your house and drink coffee and eat cookies, sing some songs, read the bible? Is that it?" and he threw some cookies over the table, which started a minor food fight. The Take a Stand Caravans had started by "accident", and were the result of different things we'd been doing. At one point we realized that we wanted to go out, hit the road and "do something", not sit around doing the same old thing. Try some ideas out, get face to face with people. So the "TASC"s formed out of that. During that year we had a lot of conversations about what to do next, musically. Back on the bus, we talked about how ideas got into the mainstream of culture and were popularized into language, words and terms. Vince was going on about "taking it to the top", trying to excel, "be your best". Not just taking what "the world" dished out, daring to be different, claiming your own vision and 'taking it". What would that look like musically, what kind of music could be done behind that, "taking it". Brian B threw out the name "Take It" - he said "You keep saying take it, taking it to the top. Why not call the band "Take It". Everyone riffed on that for awhile and it got stored away. Names were thrown around, who, what, where, when and it began to take form. Takit is a whole nother story in and of itself. I think music was sort of in the Way's genes, given how the ministry had grown from the culture of the 60's and all of the people of that era. Buuuuut - at the time it happened it was "real", a product of the people and who they were. Over time we all change, and our culture grows around us, with us, in us. A very small percentage of the ideas and vision that was abounding in so many people at that time ever got going, or off the ground. Politics prevailed, in the end. But there were some very good people and some very interesting things that did poke through.

That's some low down stringage, Invisible Dan! I've tried a C tuning, dropping to C below the low E, too-makes for some low rumblies. C - G - D - G - C - E Lalo Schifrin, look out!

Well, it's my, our, pleasure! Egi! I hope I bring no long term discomfort Hamm! Being a Christian, I view life in a spiritual context. My beliefs are whacky by some standards, perfectly acceptable by others, moderately misguided but benign by still others. None of us have to go far to find someone ready to fill our pockets with cafeteria chits, give us a nametag and welcome us into heaven. Or clear a spot on the grill and baste us for He ll. Way-Time proved one thing about the average religious order - it's always better to be a Newbie. When you're new, you're courted and cuddled and loved like it's always the First Date and your sponsor hasn't gotten to 3rd base in a year. Make mistakes, it's forgiven - you're new, you're still learning. Wander off for awhile and come back - you're Home! and welcomed with hugs and kisses. Get a few months down the line - the shine wears off. Now "You Know", time's been invested, money spent, dinner's and endless hours of chit-chat invested in talking about what actually interests you. It's time to put up or shut up, get with the program and see that they've got needs too. And one of them is to see that some of the stuff is sticking, that you're worth the time and effort they've put in to convert you. Into whatever it is they have built as their Ideal Person Who Believes. But as some of us have seen, there's another way, a better way, a different way. A middle ground out on the vast expanses of the extreme terrain of faith.

A great story! True? Okay, I'll take you at your word. Now - I have to say, and this may tweak a tail or two - but while it does tend to sound a tad overdrawn the story does remind me of some people I'd meet here and there over the years while in the Way. I hope none of them post on this board, as I don't mean to be insulting. But - in the absence of common sense (or the temporary disconnect from same) the resulting void will get filled with something, whatever's around. And I have found people will do this kind of thing. I think it has more to do with the people than anything from the bible they'd been taught. They're just not all that smart. So they could look at "Mineral Spirits" and think "GASP!" what's that mean???? Because they're just tweezed anyway. Or a painting of people on a wall, say - "They're looking at me - that's - there's just something wrong with that painting, it's just wrong!" And it has to come down off the wall because they're creeped out. Which says more about the person getting creeped than the painting. Now, I'm sure there's even completely reasonable people on GS who think paintings can be possessed, but at this point most would agree that sometimes we just don't like some paintings. And they creep us out. And it's not a spiritual thing, in the painting itself. Some paintings are weird, strange, a waste of canvas and oil. But if you're sure the eyes are following you, really following you, around the room you may need to do more than take the painting down. I once heard a perfectly normal and otherwise sound guy talk about a music concert he'd gone to and how he'd noticed that the stage had a set of markings on it that appeared to be a series of triangles and the performers always moved around them, at different times different ways. He felt it was a "spiritiual" symbol that they were invoking. I explained they were probably lighting marks, so the performers would know the areas they should stand in or near for the lighting on different songs. That explanation isn't as exciting as the pagan symbol interpretation of course. He preferred that there was somethin' goin' on. Anyhoo - not to digress too far. The next 4 stories should be interesting!

Chas, I'm really enjoying ITunes - for all the same reasons, it's a great way to get everything in one place. I'm kind of slow to get synched up, but when I do, it's all good. And Garageband is equally friendly, I've only tested it, not having a Mac I don't have it. Liked it a lot. - InvisibleDan, wondered are you using standard tuning? (E A D G B E)

Greets techmike! Dan is down in Southern California. FG 160's are nice guitars! Good idea to hold on to that one. Super glue for callousing - hmmmm...I've heard of that, but never done it deliberately. Washing your hands softens the fingertips, so if you ever see a solo guitarist with dirty hands, they've probably experienced that and realized they'd rather play dirty. In so many words. At one time I did try Super Glue on a thumbnail that cracked and it held fine. I evolved away from using nails over time.

I like "The Decade of Deliverance" ...insert banjo pickin' - do dee doodee doodee doodee doooo.... "You shore do have a purdy mouth..." "Come on boy, squeal! Yeee hawwww!" do dee doodee doodee doodee doooo.... "How come he didn't have his vest on?...how come he wasn't wearin' one?".... do doo doo doodee doodee doooooo.... "What happened after that last decade? I don't remember nothin'....." do doodee doodee doooooo.... "NOTHIN'!"

Avoid the rush - submit now and get monogrammed kneepads!

Hard work - it's a tough job, but someone's got to do it.

Sweeeeet I-Dan. Kudos. Nice looking. What kind of string gauges are you going with? Chas, how do you like ITunes? I'm guessing you like it. I do, it's really the first program I've fully embraced for listening to and organizing music.

Answers.com definition of brainwash - 1. Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs. 2. The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation. I think O-Man's correct about Christianity, if not other religions, especially the American versions. All of the crap about following people, doing what they say because they're "leadership" and all of that - that's the part that's lukewarm spew-wash. I respect others and what they try to do. But the basic message of Christianity is to follow Jesus Christ - by choice. Everyone is called, some respond. Those who do open themselves up to change their beliefs and lifestyle to a new one. The beauty of that system to me is - people answer to a personal "savior", and God is considered a "Father". The relationship is familial. But I was never afraid of being a GS, as it came to be called. I do think that the fundamental things I believed, learned in the Way, made me more of an individual and not less. I probably resisted some things, accounting for why I did some things, not others. The things I liked, that seemed right for me, I pursued. Some of the other stuff went along with it, but I think that's true of anything you "join", like a church. The Way was very pushy about getting into everything, and for years I thought the natural evolution would flow away from that as we tried things and learned, but it didn't. So when I determined to leave the Way I was prepared for it. In fact I realized that it felt completely normal and right to make a decision like that. I had come to really not like how the Way was conducting it's business and what was expected, so it was relatively easy to make the basic decision and then start to figure out what I wanted to do. We prayed about it, thought about it, talked to others and that was that. Compared to what others say that might sound impossible, crazy talk. Dunno.

I haven't Chas. I've done a couple albums, and that was fun. I had to break them up into cuts, to keep the size manageable. How are you going to do it? I went direct in - the D.I. method worked, and then I went back and cleaned up the cuts a little, the "zzzsssszzz" at the beginning and end. I liked Big Country, definitely brings back the 80's! Seems like - the bass player was about to go into the Pretenders, and chose Big Country. He does some nice playing on that tune. They got compared to U2, and although they had the same kind of power to their sound they seemed different to me, a little more musical, melodic. "Peace in Our Time" is another cool tune of theirs. Those Scottish can kick some butz.