I seen you at a Christmas party.

An' I's still there. But tomorry, off ter grammaw's.

Hey, you got the card! Great!

Ah. It's been there for a while, I've been waiting. Yep, turnabout - after stumbling across myself looking out from your website for the bejillionth time, I struck back. Do you remember when it was taken?

I've seen a few pictures of you in your header - I don't know if I could get all four, though. Is there money involved?

J.

Is it from the last-night-of-Sked collection? I've been trying to ID it by the background, but the laptop's LCD display ain't great for detail. It's not from House On The Rock, is it? (Some of my best header shots were taken there; how could that one of me have been?)

''Is there money involved?'' you ask. What in this life doesn't have money involved? But that's rhetorical. What I will do is send you a cardboard Earthlink promo CD jacket with a Screamin' Jay Hawkins CD hidden in it if you can figure out which four header shots have me in them. (Valid for Jeremy only, since I actually already promised it to him and I don't have access to a CD burner to make more.)

Yep, I believe it was taken in the band room at the Entry on the night those four (five) rock 'n' rolling boys rode off into the sunset.

Let me work on the header stock...

Toy Piano?

http://minorkeys.com

(via boingboing.net)

I think you saw him on 'To Tell the Truth.' He loaned the hat with the horns to one of the impostors, which backfired. All the judges thought it was too far out there to belong the real guy.

"Times, they are'a'changin'."

I guess they already have, several times since nineteen fifty-whatever. Of course, everyone's painted on smile (pa-rum pum pum pum) was reassuring, pleasant.

Yes this is a fake. What is amazing is the number of authors that have referenced this article (as if it were authentic). Although it is a fake it certainly does reflect the culture portrayed in the media at this time.

I could tell it was a fake when it got into that line of not complaining when your huband stays out all night.

It has to be a fake - but we all had quite some fun discussing it - how would men react if they were to meet a woman acting like suggested in that article!

"Once you have both retired to the bedroom, prepare yourself for bed as promptly as possible. Whilst feminine hygiene is of the utmost importance your tired husband does not want to queue for the bathroom, as he would have to do for his train. But remember to look your best when going to bed. Try to achieve a look that is welcoming without being obvious. If you need to apply face-cream or hair-rollers wait until he is asleep as this can be shocking to a man last thing at night. When it comes to the possibility of intimate relations with your husband it is important to remember your marriage vows and in particular your commitment to obey him. If he feels that he needs to sleep immediately, then so be it. In all things be lead by your husband's wishes; do not pressure him in any way to stimulate intimacy. Should your husband suggest congress then accede humbly all the while being mindful that a man's satisfaction is more important than a woman's. When he reaches his moment of fulfillment a small moan from yourself is encouraging to him and quite sufficient to indicate any enjoyment that you may have had. Should your husband suggest any of the more unusual practices be obedient and uncomplaining but register any reluctance by remaining silent. It is likely that your husband will then fall promptly asleep so adjust your clothing, freshen up and apply your night time face and hair care products. You may then set the alarm so that you can arise shortly before him in the morning. This will enable you to have his morning cup of tea ready when he awakes."

Who cares if this is a fake? If more women respected and made an effort for their husband, perhaps the divorce rate would not be so high. Why do we have to make such a joke out of making an effort for our marriage partner & paying attention to the little details in life which show we care?

Never read the book, but I have read the Scriptures. More than likely most of the book does not match the truth in the Scriptures. In that way the feminists and other assorted men haters can justifiably ridicule the ideal woman outline in the Scriptures.

'Charm is decietful and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the lord shall be praised. Give her the product of her hands , and let her works be praised in the gates.' Prov 31:30-31

You mean silicon implants, collagen injections and desiner jeans aren't important? Sorry, they are only important if you don't follow the Scriptures. If you follow man's accumulated wisdom on how to please/keep a man then you had better keep your appointment for that plastic surgery, because younger and more beautiful women keep popping up every day and you just get one day older and droopier.

"For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands. Thus Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened." 1 Pet 3:5-6

What would frighten modern women? Not having all these important women with careers look down on you because you want to be a submissive wife who raises her husband's children and provides a good home. How evil this thinking is in modern society.

"You've come a long ways, Baby!" They just forgot to tell you that you were going backwards instead of forwards.

I would expect that 99% of of the people will be offended by what I wrote. The truth is offensive to people who live lies.
So go back to your abuse, short-term, unfulfilling and meaningless relationships.
I'll keep looking for a Prov 31 wife.

An unworthy servant of the one true God,

Terry Dean, Nemmers

Personally, I disagree with the last couple of comments. But I also respect the fact that they chose not to hide behind abject anonymity. They both signed their comments - probably with their real names - and, in Terry's case, included an email address as well. Good on ya both for having at least some measure of the courage of your convictions.

However, I think Janet may have missed some things completely in her reading of the original text. Does she really think that what her husband has to say is always just plain more important that anything she ever has on her mind? Is she really not going to complain if he starts staying out all night? Does she really think that she has no right to question his judgement under any circumstance? Poor Janet.

I absolutely agree with her statement, "If more women respected and made an effort for their husband, perhaps the divorce rate would not be so high." I don't understand, though, why she left out the other part: That if more men respected and made an effort for their wives, that would also lower the divorce rate.

As for Terry: I hardly know where to begin. What I do know is that anything I have to say is going to be a waste of time and breath on him. His mind is already made up; and he obviously doesn't have an understanding of how sinister things can be for women underneath his misspelled christian-fundamentalist platitudes.

I grew up through 12 years of private religious school; religion classes every day; chapel three times a week; church and Sunday school every Sunday; two years of confirmation classes on Saturdays. I've had a lot of exposure to the bible, and consequently it's very hard for me to take it literally.

There's some good stuff in there, sure! I've never found any religion that wasn't rooted in good stuff - initially, at least.

There's an illustrative collection of biblical inconsistencies, absurdities, obscenities and atrocities at the Closet Atheist site. (Don't get me wrong - there are atheists who are every bit as annoying as some religious fundamentalists.) All of the listings there are linked to the pertinent texts at biblegateway. Some of them are weak and smack of axe-grinding, but a lot of them are significant.

Thus ends my ad hominem attack.

One last parting shot (which I fully expect to be removed or edited). I thank the mysterious person who complimented me on my leaving my name, however, they forgot to leave theirs (Luke 6: 41-42) so I will just have to call her, "Missy" (for mysterious). Missy, I think you meant to say "His mind is already made up, and he obviously doesn't have an understanding of how sinister things can be for a woman underneath his ***misspelled**** (Don't you mean misplaced, Missy?) fundamentalist-christian platitudes."

Since you are the expert on the Scriptures after your 12 years please explain why you couldn't realize that what your teachers were teaching and what was written in the Scriptures were two different things (Acts 17:10-11)? I saw people who slept through 4 years of school and now those people are called doctors. Just because you put in your time doesn't mean you know anything about the Scriptures.

You had your opportunity to explain "the sinister" to me but instead you took us on a wild goose chase trying to sound profound. May have fooled the superficial people who would believe that "Fascinating Womanhood" (both for and against) was straight out of the Scriptures.

By the way these are not my doctrines but God's doctrines. The Scriptures talk about the proper hierachy for men and women. It goes as such: God ( the head), Christ, man and then woman ( 1 Corinthians 11:3). Now you understand why the feminists hate God and godly men because God has seen fit to place women under the charge of godly men, not the effeminate men or women haters that prey on the women of today.
I guess if you would rather have the ungodly men then don't complain how they treat/abuse you. You could seek a godly husband. God commands His godly men to honor their wives: You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. 1 Peter 3:7

If you would read the Scriptures you would see that 99% of the churches (including your PRIVATE school) don't match the definition of Christianity. Since you didn't understand the Scriptures, then you wouldn't be able to spot the fakes. That is why they have experts appraise diamonds because they know and understand diamonds and hence can determine which is valuble and which is fake. The imposters of Christianity are the ones who steal from their parish, are adulterers, child molesters or just the plain liars about the Scriptures (1 Cor 6: 9-11). Now you know why Missy is seeking foreign gods because the fakes taught nothing about the One True God. That is why Missy is so unhappy in life and her relationships with men. The more she follows the doctrines of men the more unhappy she becomes. Yet pride prevents her from admitting her error and seeking God. You see Missy worships the false god "I". "I" is found at the beginning of idol and in the middle of pride.

Finally, I would like to thank Missy for the blessing. What blessing you ask? The blessing from painting me with the same brush as the fakes:
Blessed are you when men hate you, and osctracize you, and cast insults at you, and spurn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man. Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for in the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets. Luke 6: 22-23

These words will come to mind at the time of your next broken relationship.

So ends the lesson (final posting) from an unworthy servant of the One True God,

Terry Dean, Nemmers

Your comments won't be removed or edited, as you seemed to hope they would be. I think that there's always going to be plenty that offends you enough to fuel the fires of your smug self-satisfaction, no matter how narrowly blindered your field of vision is. You don't need to bait me so crassly.

Me? I'm the mysterious person you called "Missy." I'm the person you said is "so unhappy in life and her relationships with men." This is my website - which is why I sign my comments as "your host" - and I did forget to dispense with that jocular tradition and use my name... which is not a secret. My name is Mark Piepkorn; same last name as renowned Christian scholar Carl Piepkorn. No relation, though... it's just the supreme being showing you a little of that famous sense of humor. And for what it's worth, I'm happily married to a woman I don't subjugate.

Although "misplaced" is also apropos, as you suggest, I wrote "misspelled" and that's what I meant. You read the bible literally; try giving me the same courtesy. And try using a spellchecker, too; it's easy, and maybe it'll help the people you're trying to reach take you a little more seriously.

You might also try to tone down your heavy-handed self-righteousness. You were utterly off base about me, yet you spoke with complete conviction... as if you knew everything about me, when in fact your most basic assumptions were entirely wrong. You fell terribly short in that particular leap of faith. In the face of such egregious error, why would anyone think you know what you're talking about on any topic?

You wrote, about me: "Since you are the expert on the Scriptures..." Uh-uh. Unlike you, I'm not trying to pass myself off as an expert. I was relating the primary basis of my relevant experience and knowledge. And I'm not trying to say that I know the mind of anybody's god, as you claim you do by your words. That absolutely stuns me. Doesn't that make you that very thing? Is that what you think you are? God?

How many sects of Christianity are there? How many of them base their beliefs on the Christian bible? How is it that you presume to have a stronger link to the mind and heart of divinity than anybody else? Why do you think that you're in a position to judge others - particularly when it's expressly forbidden by your faith?

You wrote, "If you would read the Scriptures you would see that 99% of the churches (including your PRIVATE school) don't match the definition of Christianity."

Bad news, Terry: you haven't done anything to show me that you match the definition of Christianity, either.

Terry wrote, "You see Missy worships the false god 'I'. 'I' is found at the beginning of idol and in the middle of pride." Terry's point, hardly worthy of ridicule to begin with, is quickly obscured when it's noted that "I" is also the first letter in the transliteration of the name Jehova from its original Hebrew. Holy men of God spake and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Some translators, though, use JHVH, while still others use YHVH.

Uh-oh... you mean the Christian bible wasn't originally written in English? You mean to tell me it was written by about 50 different people over more than 1500 years (starting more than a thousand years before the Christian era) in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek? That there's only one original biblical book actually extant, and biblical scholars acknowledge that some English-language bibles are translations of translations of revisions of revisions of revisions of material often rooted in centuries-old oral tradition? Well, good thing there's never been any errors in any of those goings-on. Uh-oh, you mean there's been errors in translations? Well, that doesn't mean anything because it's not the words on the page that are important, it's the... uh-oh, that negates just about everything Terry's said. Nuts.

You might be surprised to know that I toured the country for five months looking for the right place to live. I visited 26 states and around a hundred cities or so and Albuquerque was my favorite. I moved here six months ago from Boston and would never go back. Sorry you find it depressing.

Incidentally, there is a pile of weirdess behind the Aztec including at least one tree with several teddy bears nailed to it. This is a very idiosyncratic town.

Merry Christmas 2U2i, Bono & fellows and purple guy and improvised scratchy doggy and myself.

Ah, the little button from 2i - Minneapolis basically free jazz sax band, possibly the onlyest ever - with the foot-in-its-ear haiku dog.

What's this Bono thing? The Barney thing?

Happy holidays nonetheless to them too.

Bono & fellows = U2

purple guy = Prince (due to 2U)

improvised scratchy doggy = you are correct, sir. I recently bought a reunion CD, yes. It is true.

myself = i

um . . . = 2i

What did you think of Rufus Harley, the world's first jazz bagpipe player?

Um, it's not directly about the Entry, but isn't this good enough?

And, no, she didn't sing hardly nuthin' older than two albums ago.

The 1st Ave site is so... clean. So danceteria.

I remember the old 7th St Entry; when the stage - on the other side of the room from where it's been for the last many years - was an even tinier, sadder thing than it is now. That was before the little tall tables and matching chairs, before the floor was tiered, before the stream of self-consciously-''underground'' murals. If I remember right, it was before Goofy's Upper Deck closed.

I was looking for a website that evoked that sense of the spirit of the place for me.

Somebody famous - I think it was Lydon - said, talking about the Replacements, that there was ''an element of danger'' in all their records. He said it in the latter days before maniac Bobby was kicked out of the band. For me, Bobby's guitar was the Replacements. Sure, there was Westerberg's songwriting... but it was that sloppy dumbfuck guitar, ''hotter than a urinary tract infection,'' that really did it to me.

And that's how I think of the Entry. That's how it was when I first got to know it... seeming somehow riskier and less ''legitimate,'' more urgent and vital. (Which by no means diminishes the times I had and bands I saw there after the remodel, which constitute the great preponderance of my 7th St Entry experiences.)

THAT's why you're doing this! To gain warmth from the mental image of me spitting whatever's in my mouth at the moment all over my monitor when I stumble across whatever incredibly funny thing you've put up on your site!

J.

She's cute... in a Whooville sort of way...

A need to share information, express yourself, be appreciated. A compulsion...

"An artist is someone who produces things that people don't need but that he - for some reason - thinks it would be a good idea to give them." Warhol

Y'know...I think it has something to do with my appearance depending on your existence or something like that.

Besides which, Warhol - referring to kitschy paintings like the big-eyed children - also said something like "They can't be bad, they must be good, or else they wouldn't sell so many."

I think that's relevant in a way I'm not sure I can explain.

I don't mean that quote in terms this *website*, just in terms of the 'blog revolution'...

At risk of covering myself with blood and running screaming toward a polar bear I'll say you do it because of the chicks; chicks love these blog things.

I know I'm in it for the chicks. If I wanted intelligent discourse, I would have either stayed in rock and roll or a small animal veterinarian.

Matters not why. In the words of many long-forgotten spokespersons, "Just do it."

That wasn't Rodrigo, it was Babel Fish. (via Spanish)

Italian:

To attend I pray until that the toletta is not made flow. The handle will often have need jiggled because it continues to work. Thanks.

Portuguese:

It waits please until the toilet is to be even done. Frequent the fist will need jiggled because it is remained to function. It thanks it.

Japanese:

Until it is the washroom to be done and to washed away wait. Being to continue to move, the steering wheel needs the jiggled frequently. You appreciate in you and are it is.

Korean:

The toilet does and until the work which emits wait please. Running ci flag because of height the handle will do in jiggled necessity at any time. It will be extensive, thank.

Still hearing chickens? Are you having NM flashbacks? Should I call a doctor?

I dont hear chickens.

I see dumb people.

Poor Nostra... What a sad, sad life you must have down there in Texas to be awake and on the internet at 4:00 in the morning calling people stupid when you "dont" even know how to work an apostrophe.

You came to look at the photos of the Schifferstadt Architectural Museum (probably from a link in an email you received from the CREST strawbale list) and you blew right through those. From there you connected into the stream of archived posts at potkettleblack, following them forward one by one: 22 seconds... next! 16 seconds... next! 14 seconds... next! So much time spent reading and comprehending.

And then even after you paused to make your comment, you didn't leave; you kept going self-righteously up through the rest of the entries.

But perhaps I'm missing the point of what you said. Maybe you were making a social commentary using the persona of Nostradamus, whose M.O. was clairvoyance and not clairaudience, saying that modern university life looks stupid from his centuries-ago perspective. Maybe it's something even much more clever than that. But somehow I just "dont" think so.

(It's just hard not to feel bad for people who have such a low opinion of themselves that they lash out anonymously. And this particular chickenshit didn't even read the Eating Death post, and so missed a brother-in-arms.)