socks

Any organization has to know it's purpose, it's reason for being, for organizing. Once you understand that, I'd expect the rest would come easy, good or bad.

Hi Rottiegrrl! Forgiveness is a great topic, many different angles and views to it. I've enjoyed reading these posts! Sin - it does have a bearing on forgiveness it seems, as the "sins" we commit in this life so very very often are towards one another. Couple verses for bible fans, that I think could shed some light: Romans 2:6 ...(God) "Who will render to every man according to his deeds:") Gal. 6:7 ..."Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Soooo...here, and in other places, there's rendering and reaping, according to what a person does. And we don't all do the same things, of course. Now, I'm thinking that when I do something wrong, bad, "sin", then what's really happening? Depends, doesn't it? On what it is I actually do. Just as with the good that I would do. If I took something basic like the "10 commandments", I have things I should do and not do. A lie is one kind of thing, stealing another, murder another. I'm supposed to put God first, love God, so doing that is a good thing, not doing that is a bad thing, a "sin". But they're not all the same kind of thing, with the same kind of result. It would be safe to say I think that the rendering, the reaping from each would specifically be different. I think they'd be the same in one way - that to do wrong or disobey any of them would be a "sin", they're all the same in that regard, they're all a "sin" if I don't do what's commanded. They're all different though in that they deal with different things. One takes another's life, one takes another's belongings. Stuff can be restored or replaced. Life can't. There's a big difference there. So I don't think all sin can be viewed the same, in God's eyes anymore than it can be in our eyes. What is reaped from them is different. When we do the right thing, the reaping is different. How that relates to forgiveness is significant in that we can see that God has forgiven all sin, through Christ. So all sins, whatever they're degree, can be forgiven through Christ. But I don't think that means that all of the sins themselves are now the same. It means that they can all be forgiven through the effort of another, Christ. The mere fact it's not accomplished by human effort tells me that there are levels, as there are certainly some things that would be difficult to forgive, but others not. That range of forgiveness that we see is mind boggling I think because of that very thing.

I guess all points of discussion are open, now - Mark. "The Doctrinal Forum".... AIDS and other diseases that can be transimitted through sexual activity brings an interesting topic to the front actually, as the Catholic priesthood has seemed to attract it's fair share of homosexual men to it's ranks. I'm kind of picking at the inner conflicts I see there, sorting through the personal side of the Church of Rome, and the people that join the orders and their leadership roles in the church... As an organization the RCC attracts it's people, and the people are who they are, do what they do, become what they become. The RCC condemns homosexuality. Yet is seems homosexual men do join the priesthood. Perhaps expecting to change? I don't know. Expecting to be who they are and carry on? I don't know. Then we see the continual exposing of child molestation by priests, I guess both homosexual and hetero, or perhaps "bi-sexual". Which makes a kind of bizzare tragic irony, as they've chosen a lifestyle that gives up marriage, the sacrament the RCC has that recognizes and blesses sexual activity in marriage, and families. So despite the fact that humans are indeed creatures with a sexual component, they deliberately choose to deny expression through the sacrament, and lead a life that "gives that up", as means of pursuing a greater calling and personal purpose they feel compelled to work towards. And that in and of itself isn't completely unusual - people of all stripes, certainly religious people, see denial of various kinds as a means to attain greater insight and relationship with "the divine" within themselves. So I or someone else may not see that as a life we'd choose, but we're not the ones choosing it. Within our American society if there are no laws broken, people are free to pursue their lives as they see fit - at least within the norms of what's acceptable let's say. (we know some things are perfectly legal and yet not acceptable and get treated much differently by society) So - okay...within that I see some conflicts - -The homosexuals who choose a church that condemns that lifestyle. -Those who choose a kind of greater committment in the church that specifically restricts sexual activity -The fact that amongst that body of people they are assigned a role of leadership and trust within the church, knowing full well that they're in conflict with the faith they're signing on to uphold and defend. And for the Church itself - -How it handles and doesn't handle the question of homosexuality in the religious orders ("don't ask don't tell"...? doesn't seem to work if that's it, as the Church has doctrine on it) -Does and doesn't handle the problems like child molestation committed by both homo and hetero sexuals -Allows little or no outside intervention or access to information about any of it Those things - the conflicts of the people involved, and the Church that has a system that allows for it - are big question marks for me. There's clear deception involved. As is the way the Church has limited access to information about the people and how it's handling them - despite the fact that their very own membership is at risk and effected by all decsions it makes in these issues. Conspiracy theorists are going to fueled by what can be described as a "secret" society of men and women who are governed solely by their own people and who have these kinds of personal internal conflicts, at least the way I see it.

Now that this thread has been placed in the Doctrinal Forum-I guess I'll make a confession... Father, it's been well, it's been at least a few hours since my last confession. These are my sins... Until a few minutes ago, I had no idea what "jack chick" meant. I've been puzzling over it lo these many posts. For a minute I had an impure thought too, about what a "Jack Chick" might be like or do. I figured it might be a kind of "chick" thing, like being a guy-chick. I was confused. And so I thought bad things. I did this 5 times. For my penanace, I looked up the phrase, and now - I know. It's not what I thought. Anyone else not know? Am I the last person on the earth who doesn't? If not, here's some information.

Really? Wow, there goes my memory then. Is this the Fishing Lightweight reel board....? :biglaugh:

Linda Zster reminded me on the other ROA thread, that the ROA 72 was in Sidney. 73 was at the Way Nash, as those that followed. Sometime shortly after, and I can't place the years, I recall a meeting after the Rock where Craig spoke. He was talking about the Rock and different stuff - might have been the first year after Emporia opened and he was the Corps Coordinator, can't remember exactly. Anyway, I remember this distinctly - he had held a couple meetings at this one ROA for incoming and outgoing Corps, during the day. He was excited about that, and noted that while the Rock was a great time for fun and fellowship, it was also a great time to get some things done, get "some work" done, dernit", words to that effect. (this was when he still knew a few curse words he didn't use in public) He went on about how it didn't have to be all "play" time, but "we" could have meetings, people could come to meetings. (which I guess to him meant to listen to him) I remember looking at my wife and thinking "uh oh". But we didn't think at the time the ROA could become some long string of pre-planned snooze-fests of listening to someone rattle on about who-knows-what. Having everyone together once a year, or those that came, could have some benefits along these lines, but since everyone didn't come, or for the whole thing, it wouldn't do to make it a mandatory "meeting", to host other uh, important meetings. It was supposed to be a kind of get-together-celebratory event, initially. Buuuuut, that changed, and the very next year after Craig discovered it's meeting value, there were more. And then more. And more. Everyone and their uncle wanted to plan some kind of little tea-fest or meeting. Spontaneity was reduced, and with everyone "working' on something or other, there was little time for a lot of people to wander around, meeting others. The opportunity for self-discovery was reduced if you have to follow a schedule of planned meetings and events. Avoiding the uninspiring goo-roos of Meeting World became something of an art. That's all what I liked the least.

Another thought on the instrument choice too is - the musician makes the music, not the instrument. Not in conflict with your posts dmiller, as I know you are more than aware of that. But over the years I've known one guitarist after another who chases the guitars instead of the music. Buys whatever so-and-so has or had and expects to get that sound, but can't play or produce the sound or anything near it and won't put in the work to get the technique or the sound. But oh, they feel they've got "it" down now, because they spent the money. I think it's true, the musician's effort on the instrument goes further than simply having the "right" one. We've got some local Bluegrass and Jazz pickers I've seen who thwack away on their Martins and old Gibosn L-5 electrics and just can't "do it" but they've got the right box for sure, the Roland or old Ampeg amp, the thick picks, etc. etc. I think of electric guitarists like Roy Buchanan, and his old Telecaster. If I described his various sounds in words, a Telecaster probably wouldn't be the guitar that would come to mind. Tele's make people think of twicky country sounds, yet Buchanan got a myriad of sounds out of his. They're often used for seemingly disparate styles, jazz, country, rock. But RB got everything he got out of a Tele and a Fender Vibro Reverb amp on 10 with a little reverb. Other than that it was all in his hands and musical knowledge, getting so often what "wasn't there' to begin with. Anymore musicians don't always do that, they can buy the stuff and "be there" right out of the gate, equipment wise. But ya gotta do the work.

Love the Martin/Gibson discussion dmiller. Two things come to mind - sound and playability. Sound - Martin's got the sound, no question about it. Generally louder than most Gibson models, brighter. Some of the big Gibson's have a deeper richer tone, although not as loud. Another element is the scale length of the necks, the length of the neck itself. Was looking for a good explanation for those of us who might not be familiar with scale length - here's something: Scale length influences both the sound and the feel of a guitar. A longer scale results in higher string tension, often giving a guitar more volume and punch than a short-scale instrument. However, the higher tension also makes the guitar a little harder to play, and the wider spacing between the frets necessitates longer reaches. If you use a lot of lowered tunings, you might find that the strings get a little too floppy on a short-scale guitar. It's a good idea to play a few guitars with varying scale lengths so you can see for yourself how these differences feel and sound. Ultimately though, it's important to remember that scale length is an integral part of an instrument's inherent sound. If you find yourself preferring the sound of one of the guitars you mentioned, scale length could be the reason. Between the different brands and models, the scale length will definitely contribute to how one guitar will seem more playable over another to any one player. Players with long fingers, large hands may find a long scale neck more comfortable. The shape of the neck, how it rests in the hand is another. Like for me, while I like the sound of a Martin, and a shorter scale neck on any guitar will be more comfortable, the shape of the neck is a factor. Martin has had the "V" and "modified V" shape, which at times feels foreign, uncomfortable. Yet it gives a different kind of efficiency with that shape, less wood filling the palm's "pocket". For me, the instrument of choice is always a balance of all of these elements, plus others, like body size. Dreadnought is good for a big sound - but it's a big guitar and requires a longer reach around and over the body - both the big Gibsons and Martins present that condition. I find a very stylized approach to playing, like Bluegrass or even say, metal "shredding" can adjust to many different body sizes, but less so on neck styles - because the right hand and arm tends to remain fixed. The left hand needs are different than the right, so where body size might not matter as much, neck components will. For me the instrument of choice has to often accept some things that are ideal over other's that aren't, but I tend towards using the one(s) most playable for me, that I can do what I need and like to do on them, and from there I try to get the sound out of them I want. A short scale smaller body instrument is ideal for me, but has some limitations. So I have to adapt, either to get the sound or to the instrument. The right instrument for the right person - that should be the slogan for our next successful Politician in the White House.

Thanks Mark. Mirrors do interesting things. Conspiracy - no. I doubt the Church has a record kept of how many times you've confessed to having an impure thought, as even with today's technology, space is an issue. And if they did, I suspect there's a priest who's got them stashed under his bed for personal review. You're taking this to another place, one that is of no interest to me at all. What I'm talking about - and let's not push this into a flagrant attempt to amp up my statements to include Hitler, Communisum or fetuses, 'kay? - Are two simple things - privacy, the common sense protection of one's personal information And evaulating the real worth of doing what you suggest. In the linked document you gave, it stated 7. It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection. Which begs the question - if the Church continues to entertain a reality that recognizes the essence of baptism establishing an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection - why bother? What does it really accomplish? As a personal statement there could be some value - I would weigh in against it if it requires - The publication of personal information about myself and my family in order to establish the validity of my claim to defect. There's no conspiritorial aspect to protecting one's own personal data. Deliberately putting it into the hands of strangers, and in your scenario of submission - strangers who the person considers it necessary to sever relations formally with - Makes no sense to me. Give people you disagree with, strongly, and who you don't trust - personal information about yourself, who you are, where you are, as well as your family... I can't be the only person who sees an incredible dichotomy there, a conflict of interests. Or maybe I am. But I simply don't see how a person who feels this way would do this - And yes, given the record of the R.C.C. there's no way I'd do it or advise anyone to do it, which is why I'm weighing in. I'd suggest the same for any situation that had similar inherent conflicts, and in general suggest that people use wisdom with anyone when sharing their personal information and data.

The RC church is one of the most powerful organizations in the world. Putting your name on a list like that - that's the last thing I'd recommend anyone of sound mind to do. From a personal risk management standpoint, it's like putting a bullseye on your back. I recommend anyone even considering doing something like this - don't, regardless of where you stand with the church. If you've left, you've left, to whatever degree or purpose. I say, leave it at that. Nothing's gained by doing this, that I can see.

WOW burgers, nothing like a good burger. Breakfast, in New Bremen, forget the name of the cafe, but it was on the main drag, went there a lot for breakfast and lunch over the years. All the nice people. Meeting new people from all over the country, and some other countries too. Finding times here and there to help people. Playing music. The Way Orchestra. Staying up late, drinking java and talking, jamming, visiting. Family Tables. The coffeehouses. The last year we went we took an RV, and that was nice. Our kids were little, we really enjoyed the trip there and back that year. (it was 86, and due to Extreme Weird Conditions we pulled off grounds for the actual ROAges, and plugged in at friends in New Knoxville, and that was fun too) Different jobs that I did - B.P., Meal Tent, Way Prod. The year locals tried to chase my car one night, late. I swung around on Shelby Auglaize road, about half way down to New Bremen and blocked the road and chased them away. It was fun. The very first ROA was at a Winter Youth Advance - 70, 71? That was a lot of fun, as I recall.

D-35's are nice dmiller! Great guitar. That's illuminating on the sound difference. Good information. Another point on the pickguard - at this point the guitar's "original", as is. Pickguards have always bespuddled me - they really don't do much - unless you're Richie Havens I guess. Or Willie. I'm not an acoustic whacker strummer but I've played my Takamine archtop for 20 + years, and only have the lightest marks where the pickguard would be. I just figure it's normal wear, part of the aging of the instrument. I've never quite grasped the need to protect the wood at that spot, although the pickguard could be a design feature I guess, part of the look. But usually it's just a tweezey "tortoise shell" or black plastic anyway. If anyone asks you can always say yeah, you wear through a pickguard a year, more or less. I've got an old Ibanez solid body that's endures some serious hmmm, mod's. Modifications have left it rather weathered, but extremely playable. It does one thing, one sound well and that's it. I playt it every now and then, the neck has little finish on it anymore, but its' wide neck is the only one I like to do some stuff on so I leave it as is. Nice chair too!

For the record - When I win the Lottery... You guys're toast.

Some law and order round here wouldn't hurt, that's for sure. Citizen's arrest...

(excusing the non-credited "Filter" quote...) Can we review the time sequence on this again? I'm like, uh a little messed up on the "when's". If I can get that straight it will go a long way towards gettin' the what's and where's. I finally got the "who". Thanks, in advance, fondly.

Yah. they think that your early ending was all wrong for the most part they're right, but look how they all got strung that's why i say hey man, nice shot good shot man that's why i say hey man, nice shot good shot, man hey man nice goin hey man have fun nice shot :biglaugh:

Mickey Rat! Sorry, I keep editing. I edit, therefore I am!

Innerstin' A la, now you've got me thinking. That reminded me of our kids, when they were very young. Our son Jesse had his own words for things when he started to converse. "Botch" (my spellings here) was "banana". "Geezoo" was "give me" or "I want that". There were many I don't remember, but they were both pretty active for awhile. Jennifer would say "yama" and I think it meant "Yeah!" And her best one, although based on the real word was "sweetyheart" for "sweetheart. Your daughter says you're her "sweetyheart" and you know what she means. Is that similar? I've read kids all do that, not sure. One of my fav philoso-reads is Henri Bergson, who wrote "The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend". When we see something, we comprehend to the degree we're able. When we hear something, we hear, it's similar I think but in a different way. We hear things and can understand them, regardless of whether we understand what's being played, or how. There's a point of communication there, and one that can expand the more we come to know what we're listening to. But the ear hears, regardless of whether we know what we're hearing. Like words - the words may not have definition but when we hear them we do get a sense of what's being said. The power of words may have to do with that - the meaning and bearing of the speaker and listener. It goes beyond belief...I think, but to some degree what we infuse into words gives them power. Is it the same with sound, music? I'm not sure. I know a great deal of religious and philo-thought has developed around "art for arts sake". Lots. - like Walter Pater, (late 1800's) I was just reading, really developed the critical analysis of art as a means to expanding one's understanding. I guess - I know when I hear Portugese it's like hearing some wonderful language of sounds and beautiful stuff. They could be saying the garbage stinks and is full of rats heads, and it would sound great.

Wow, if this thread keeps going long enough it's going to be the "hello" thread!

Another ingredient of King Crimson and that first album is the quest people have had as to the "Real Meaning" behind it, the music, the name, etc. I have a long dissertation I won't subject y'all to on the values of music compared to the values of say, words. Short version - a word means whatever we understand it to mean, as we're taught and use it. The inflection and articulation of the word - the "tone of voice" and expression gives it additional meaning. Without knowing what a word means though it's just a sound - "table" might as well be "glakatish" without some understanding or way of illustrating what table means. Whereas music - is a full expression in and of itself - the sound is what it is. The sound of a word and how it's spoken can in fact define it to a great degree. On paper, moreso. If you read "glakatish" you need context to try and get a feel for what it means - a single unknown word on it's own - what does it really mean? Words and music - what do they mean? A lot of that is determined by what we invest in them, infuse them with. Just thoughts. Doink.

Beautiful Evan! Proud Poppa! Love the headstock. What are the woods used? The top looks very nice. Moody Blues-posted on seeing them a couple times over the last few years, and they're as good today as ever, better in some ways through these ears now that technology has caught up to the music. King Crimson - that's a good take on them waysider, agree. They brought forth the "progressive rock" stuff, a curse in lesser hands. But they did have some good music over the years and have a strong following. Robert Fripp is the main ingredient in the band it seems, and has done different things with it over the years. Every once in awhile I'll read about a new configuration he's put together. And I remember back in the 80's he did an interview where he was focused on getting "small and mobile" he called it, interesting considering where KC all started. Gotta buzz - be back later, y'all! Good stuff.

For something completely different - not exactly a guitar based tune, but the guitar player on the original was Robert Fripp and Greg Lake, bass. Try this - King Crimson ..... "In the Court of the Crimson King" Aaaah...if you remember the original, the title alone says it all. This isn't the original KC, and Robert Fripp isn't on guitar - but this version of the group does an amazing rendition of it here, I think. I was surprised to find it browsing around for some Fripp. The guitar on the original album was good, interesting although it was the whole ensemble sound and the songs (20th Century Schizoid Man, I Talk to the Wind) and the arrangements that were great I thought. And the chorus on this tune was just a mind melder, really invoking a a medieval and timeless 'ancient' sound perfectly. "The purple piper plays his tune, the choir softly sings...." :)

With ASM power, all things are possible Brother Strange! :)

Great theme, cowgirl! "Misty" - many versions but my favorite is Johnny Mathis. "Chances Are" - same, Mathis. "Wonderful Wonderful" - Mathis. Okay, anything Mathis has recorded, pret' near. 2nd that on "You Send Me", Sam Cooke "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" - Judy Garland, would qualify to me by virtue of 'vibe', alone. "When I Fall in Love", Nat King Cole's version is a classic, although the Letterman's version is killah too. "I Only Have Eyes for You" - The Flamingoes version, definitely the classic. Sinatra's version, not bad. "As Time Goes By" - take your pick on the versions, great tune. "Georgie On My Mind" - Ray Charles