Canadian Music Creators Coalition
A new group of Canadian music artists have banded to protect Canadian music and their fans.
Members include Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Chantal Kreviazuk, Sum 41, Stars, Raine Maida (Our Lady Peace), Dave Bidini (Rheostatics), Billy Talent, John K. Samson (Weakerthans), Broken Social Scene, Sloan, Andrew Cash and Bob Wiseman (Co-founder Blue Rodeo).
The Montr?ɬal-based group had this to say in a policy paper released today:
Fans who share music are not thieves or pirates. Sharing music has been happening for decades. It is hypocritical for labels to sue fans for something that everyone in the music industry has done him or herself. New technologies may have changed the way that fans share music, but they have not changed the fact that sharing helps artists?ǨѢ careers.
Popularity: 5% [?]
[More Help]
I’m glad they’re artists and not lawyers, because clearly they don’t have a clue what makes someone a “thief” or “pirate.”
They also seem to think that it’s THEIR interests that copyright laws are protecting and that therefore their opinion is more important than the entities that buy their copyrights from them. If they had their way, apparently record companies would no longer be able to enforce the right to exclude others from copying copyrighted material. If that happened, then the companies would never buy anything from the artists in the first place. Then, rather than being rich whiners who criticize the law without understanding it, they’d just be poor troubadors singing for tips on street corners and never being able to sell a song to anyone, because they can just take it without buying.
26 Apr 2006 @ 14:03 | Permalink
Actually, they’re probably thinking that sharing/trading music gets their music heard by more people than otherwise, and therefore gets more people to their concerts, which is where they make all their money, anyway.
26 Apr 2006 @ 15:49 | Permalink
Yes, exactly. And it apparently doesn’t occur to them that others, who have already paid them for the copyrights in their creations, also have vital financial interests at stake. As long as the artists think THEY’RE benefiting, they don’t seem to care that the record companies are getting screwed.
26 Apr 2006 @ 17:20 | Permalink
“As long as the artists think THEY’RE benefiting, they don’t seem to care that the record companies are getting screwed.”
Hmmm, I highly doubt THAT is happening. Record companies do very very well.
26 Apr 2006 @ 17:22 | Permalink
If the artists are benefiting, the record companies are benefiting.
26 Apr 2006 @ 18:12 | Permalink
Even if nobody ever bought a single CD, record companies make back any investments they make in artists in residuals off of MTV, MuchMusic, TV commercials, and TV programming.
They do much better than break even currently – even with all the trading going on.
27 Apr 2006 @ 08:29 | Permalink
Oh yeah, I forgot radio in that list of residual profit makers…
27 Apr 2006 @ 08:31 | Permalink
The fact that record companies usually make money is beside the point. The fact that record companies may have sources of income other than CD sales is also beside the point. Record companies OWN the copyrights they buy. As the owners they have the right to exclude others from copying them. When people violate that right, and violate the law, by making unlawful copies, they harm the record companies. If this process ultimately benefits the artists, it still hurts the record companies. So it’s not true that if the artists benefit, the record companies benefit.
If you could produce convincing economic evidence to record companies showing that they would make more money by allowing copying, don’t you think the record companies would follow that course? They don’t follow the course because they, and all the economic and financial experts that advise them, don’t believe that copying will benefit them. It will harm them, the personal feelings of the artists notwithstanding.
27 Apr 2006 @ 14:03 | Permalink
Because after all, it’s all about making money, right?
The point these artists (and a couple of smaller record labels I know of) is that copying is part and parcel with the music experience.
If the whole distribution system wasn’t so incredibly driven by payola deals then artists would not have to go through the big companies and lose the rights to their material.
Artists would love to have an outlet for distribution which didn’t require their selling their souls to the record companies, but the sad reality is that if you ever want your material to reach a large audience, the artists have very few choices.
It’s funny how the smaller record companies, who ostensibly operate closer to the break-even point than the larger companies and with, therefore, more to lose, are some of the biggest proponents of file sharing and alternative distribution routes.
The whole music copyright issue is about maintaining the status quo; an oligopoly of large souless companies.
27 Apr 2006 @ 14:15 | Permalink
Rick said it.
In my younger years I contemplated sseriously pursuing a singing career and would have if being a wife and mum wasn’t a bigger draw. But the research I did then and discovered, was basically what Rick says.
27 Apr 2006 @ 14:39 | Permalink
When you engage in commerce, yes, it’s about money. Record companies buy copyrights so they can profit from them. They don’t buy them so they can teach the world to sing in perfect harmony, or so they can put daisies in everyone’s rifles. They also don’t buy them because they feel really altruistic and would like to help out a bunch of singers who, without them, would be panhandling. They buy them to make money. They have a legal right to try to make money with the copyrights they buy. They enforce their legal rights, and in your eyes, that makes them “soulless.”
Let’s just eliminate copyrights altogether and allow everyone to share as much as they want. Then there won’t be any record companies, and there won’t be any record deals for artists, and thre won’t be any recordings to share. A perfect world, right?
27 Apr 2006 @ 15:19 | Permalink
If you seriously believe that sharing benefits record companies, then small labels that allow more sharing will prosper more and big companies that suppress sharing will lose out and the market will punish and reward accordingly. So if the record companies are going to do worse by suppressing sharing, let them. If other record companies are going to do better by allowing sharing, let them. But let’s not tell copyright owners they don’t have a right to decide this question for themselves, or deny that breaking the law makes one a criminal.
If these artists really prefer to do business with record companies that allow sharing, they should do so. If they prefer to start their own record companies and allow sharing, they should do that.
27 Apr 2006 @ 15:46 | Permalink
First of all I don’t listen to any of the artists in the original post so they can bond together to ban fans all they want and it won’t affect me.
Secondly, if artists would make an entire album that I could like then I would be more then happy to buy their cd’s. I refuse to spend 25 bucks or more on a cd that ends up only having 3-4 really good songs on it.
If the artists are going to start banning this sharing then the actors will have to do the same for their fans that download movies off the net. No matter what they think they can control, the bottom line is people will do what they can to get the most music/entertainment/movie for the least amount of movies. There is no such thing as a fool proof method to stop “stealing” music or movies. There will always be someone smarter and faster to hack through and system anyone else puts u.
27 Apr 2006 @ 22:21 | Permalink
Sally, it’s not the artists who are going to “start banning.” It’s the artists who are telling the record companies they should stop trying to protect their own financial interests, because the artists may benefit if they stop.
28 Apr 2006 @ 06:30 | Permalink
oops I thank you ltbugaf for correcting me. I did indeed misread the post. So if the artists have that much problem with their labels just change lables …sounds pretty simple to me. The record companies can’t ban something the artists don’t agree to. And if it is in their contract then they should have read their contracts better before they signed it.
28 Apr 2006 @ 08:31 | Permalink
Well, it’s not quite that simple Mum. Theey often have contracts they are tied into for a certain period of time. When they become more estabnlished and gain more control over their careers it’s easier to change labels or create their own. Besides that they are willing to signa little too much away initially just to get a chance.
28 Apr 2006 @ 08:44 | Permalink
What if a choir director takes a piece of music, makes copies of it and gives it to the choir members to sing, should the church pay royalities to the author of the music?
What if after hearing the song, several people who heard the song go to Desert Book and purchase cd’s, would this change things? Should the church still pay for the unlicensed use of the song?
There are other items that can fit into this same type of situtation. For example, I expect you may have seen the receipe for Neiman Marcus cookies. Why buy them when you can now make them? Suppose you were in a Neiman Marcus store, would you be tempted to buy the Neiman Marcus cookie just to see if yours tasted the same? Would you have even known about their cookie with the illegal receipe?
The bands – is this a way for people to know about them?
If you were on a jury – how would you vote?
28 Apr 2006 @ 21:24 | Permalink
“and thre [sic] won’t be any recordings to share. A perfect world, right?”
Wrong.
There are thousands of non-record company recordings being created yearly.
Artists can support themselves (and are often forced to) by touring.
The copyright and sale of their recordings is mostly profit for the record company anyway.
The problem is that record companies are so incestuously linked to commercial radio, that artists struggle to gain recognition without the aid of these companies.
It’s a clear choice between artistic integrity and whoring yourself out in order to get *something* heard by the masses.
These poor starting bands are often forced to sign over rights to creations just to get in the door. It’s a clear case of the companies taking advantage of the struggling artist.
Not that all performers feel this way. Many performers have bought into the whole corporate infrastructure of the music industry and have received plenty of compensation for it.
There’s nothing wrong with music sharing. Artists are looking to share their music. That’s why they perform it. The name of the game is to get people to listen to your creations – music sharing is just one more way to do it.
30 Apr 2006 @ 09:08 | Permalink
No songwriter can ever make a cent for writing a song unless someone is required to pay for the privilege of using his song. If copyright protections are taken away, then anyone who wants to can take the song without paying for it.
30 Apr 2006 @ 17:27 | Permalink
“There are thousands of non-record company recordings being created yearly.”
Yes. Many of them are illegal. That’s why the people who own the copyright to the originals try to enforce their rights.
“Artists can support themselves (and are often forced to) by touring.”
And if there were not copyright protections, then touring is the ONLY way they could EVER make money. And anyone who wanted to could come in and record the concerts, then sell DVDs and pay the artists nothing.
“Artists are looking to share their music. That’s why they perform it.” If they’re just looking to SHARE it, then they can sing for free. However, I strongly suspect most of them want to do more than share. Most of them want to be PAID for their creations. And without copyrights, they never will be.
30 Apr 2006 @ 17:36 | Permalink
I’m also still waiting for someone to explain how breaking the law makes someone “not a criminal.”
30 Apr 2006 @ 17:57 | Permalink
Newsflash:
It’s not all about making money for many of the bands/performers.
It’s about being heard.
When was the last time you heard someone say,”I want to be rich when I grow up, so I’m going to be a musician”?
It’s about the music.
FYI, the thousands of recordings I’m talking about are not illegal. They are the product of small studios and home studios. Places when creativity reigns and artistic integrity is the order of the day.
Your strong suspicions are misguided; most musicians and singers perform because they’re artists and enjoy it. They’d be doing it if they never got paid.
Also, just in case you didn’t know, file sharing is *not* illegal in Canada, so nobody is breaking any laws north of the 49.
1 May 2006 @ 08:15 | Permalink
What Rick said. File sharing is legal in Canada.
And being a singer myself, I can personally attest to this. Yes, it is nice to make money with your music, but the primary focus for most (not all, I am sure), is being able to share your music. It truly is.
1 May 2006 @ 08:48 | Permalink
“Most musicians and singers perform because they’re artists and enjoy it.”
Then they should go and hold free concerts or sing on street corners, rather than make record deals. Seeking record contracts is not “about the music.” It’s about getting a shot at fame and money. And having made a contract with a record company, they shouldn’t try to suppress the company’s right to make money for itself.
Any musician who would be doing it even if he never got paid should go ahead and do it without getting paid. If, on the other hand, they are also seeking money, they shouldn’t vilify the people who are doing the same. Music is a product. You can give it away or you can sell it. The musicians in this coalition aren’t giving it away; they’re selling it, and so are the big, bad, soulless record companies that make their careers possible.
1 May 2006 @ 10:15 | Permalink
“Seeking record contracts is not ‘about the music.’”
It is if you think having a contract would offer better distribution of your music.
1 May 2006 @ 10:21 | Permalink
Kim, show me just ONE record contract by ANY of the artists mentioned above that isn’t trying to make money for the performers.
If someone isn’t out to make money and just wants to share the beauty of his creation, then all he has to do is waive his copyrights and dedicate the work to the public domain. Then, if they want, the record companies can pick it up for free and sell cds by the millions.
1 May 2006 @ 10:26 | Permalink
The singer that wants maximum sharing can put his own performances on the web and invite any and all to share them for free. Some do this.
1 May 2006 @ 10:27 | Permalink
Show me just ONE record contract by ANY of the artists mentioned above that is trying to make money for the performers.
1 May 2006 @ 10:28 | Permalink
“The singer that wants maximum sharing can put his own performances on the web and invite any and all to share them for free.”
How does that maximise sharing more so than advertising, distributing to radio stations and music video stations, and organising concerts?
1 May 2006 @ 10:29 | Permalink
EVERY one of them calls for a portion of the record sales to go to the performers. That’s why Sony is being sued over the question of which percentage of profits is to be paid to the artists. There would be no contracts if the artists weren’t trying to be paid.
But apparently when a performer wants to be paid, that’s good, and when a businessman wants to be paid, that’s evil.
1 May 2006 @ 10:33 | Permalink
Kim, you already showed us a contract that tries to make money for the performers, in your “Speaking of Stealing Music” post.
1 May 2006 @ 10:38 | Permalink
ltbugaf
Check out:
http://www.worldonfire.ca/
It’s not all about money
1 May 2006 @ 10:39 | Permalink
Sorry, I declined to install the “Active X” control on my computer for the purpose of checking out the “world on fire” site.
However, the fact that someone has chosen to distribute some music in a way that isn’t about money is beside the point. Songwriters and performers sell or license their copyrights to record companies because they want the record companies to pay them. Otherwise they would give away the copyrights, rather than sell them. Music distribution systems exist because there are companies that engage in the commerce of distrubuting music. But there are alternatives. If musicians really don’t want money, they can offer their compositions and their performances (both of which have copyright protection unless it’s waived) for free.
In #29, Kim asks how such systems do more to maximize distribution than the commercial means that record companies engage in. The short answer is that advertising, distributing to radio stations and music video stations, and organizing concerts, all cost a lot of money, whereas unrestricted file sharing on the web is virtually free. The reason record companies and performers advertise, distribute and organize concerts is that they want to make money. If unrestricted file sharing were legal, then record companies would cease engaging in advertising and distribution. They would also cease to exist.
1 May 2006 @ 11:38 | Permalink
Of course, we haven’t even taken into account the fact that recording technologies have come into existence in the first place because people wanted to make money. There would be no CDs, no MP3s, not even any LPs, without the financial incentives created by intellectual property protection. You can bet your Avril Lavigne collection that Thomas Edison’s labs would never have produced a phonograph without the hope of making money off the invention.
1 May 2006 @ 11:41 | Permalink
“I declined to install the “Active X” control on my computer for the purpose of checking out the “world on fire” site.”
I used Firefox just fine to view it, and it doesn’t even use Active X.
“The short answer is that advertising, distributing to radio stations and music video stations, and organizing concerts, all cost a lot of money, whereas unrestricted file sharing on the web is virtually free.”
I asked how it maximises distribution, not how it maximises the revenue to profit ratio.
1 May 2006 @ 11:49 | Permalink
“I used Firefox just fine to view it, and it doesn’t even use Active X.”
Bully for you.
“I asked how it maximises distribution, not how it maximises the revenue to profit ratio.”
It maximizes distribution because anyone can have it, any time, virtually for free. And no one is going to use the other systems without expecting to be paid for it, and therefore charging consumers.
1 May 2006 @ 11:56 | Permalink
“It maximizes distribution because anyone can have it, any time, virtually for free. And no one is going to use the other systems without expecting to be paid for it, and therefore charging consumers.”
Right, just like how Linux is so unpopular, right?
1 May 2006 @ 12:08 | Permalink
Really? I thought Linux was used by a lot of people. And the makers of Linux are free to distribute their product for nothing if they so choose. The makers of Microsoft Windows are also free to charge for access to their product.
This means, of course, that Linux is virtuous and Microsoft is soulless, right?
1 May 2006 @ 13:00 | Permalink
It means that free distribution does not always amount to maximising distribution.
1 May 2006 @ 13:14 | Permalink
Maybe that’s because the people who have something that very large numbers of people will want have a tendency to charge for it, rather than give it away. That way, they can make money—the soulless jerks!
1 May 2006 @ 13:21 | Permalink
I keep hearing that for the musicians, it’s not all about the money. But it’s not the musicians’ rights that are being violated when people make illegal copies of intellectual products such as song recordings. It’s the rights of the companies that sell those recordings. They make their money (and pay their mortgages and buy their groceries and send their kids to college) by paying musicians for their songs and performances, turning them into recordings, and selling them at what they hope will be a profit. Then the musicians say, “WE don’t mind if people don’t pay the record company. Shame on you, you mean old record company!” But it doesn’t really matter much whether the musicians mind. Their interests and their rights are usually not the ones being violated by so-called “sharing.”
Now, Rick has raised the issue of whether the musicians are having their interests violated by the negotiating tactics of record companies. That’s a question worth asking and trying to answer. But it has little or no relevance to the issue of illegal copying. In the main, the artists aren’t the ones being harmed—directly, at any rate—by “sharing.” In some cases, they may benefit from it—to the detriment of record companies. So it’s not terribly surprising that they have few objections to sharing. They don’t mind watching someone else’s rights violated, while their own financial interests are sometimes furthered.
1 May 2006 @ 14:01 | Permalink
Once again file sharing or “illegal copying” as you call it is not illegal in Canada.
1 May 2006 @ 14:04 | Permalink
What are the artists protesting in their policy paper? United States law?
1 May 2006 @ 14:42 | Permalink
yes
1 May 2006 @ 15:32 | Permalink
In which case, the term “illegal copying” is absolutely accurate.
1 May 2006 @ 16:55 | Permalink
… not if they’re copying it in Canada.
2 May 2006 @ 08:24 | Permalink
look at those industry execs backpedal
God bless Stephen Page. Well, not just Stephen. Fronted by the PR mugshot of Stephen Page, the group includes Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Chantal Kreviazuk, Sum 41, Stars, Raine Maida (Our Lady Peace), Dave Bidini (Rheostatics), B…
2 May 2006 @ 08:52 | Permalink
Well, Rick, as near as I can tell, the issue being raised in the position paper is that of suing and prosecuting copiers in the US. So once again, you’re wasting your time trying to portray the term “illegal copying” as inaccurate.
2 May 2006 @ 09:15 | Permalink
Ummmm…
Did you actually read the paper?
It’s completely about *possible* Canadian reforms to copyright law, and the entire paper is slanted to a Canadian point of view.
2 May 2006 @ 09:40 | Permalink
Rick, previously you said the artists were protesting United States law, and now you tell me they’re looking to reform Canadian law. You said that “sharing” isn’t illegal in Canada, but you also say that the coalition wants to reform the Canadian law so that fans won’t be persecuted for sharing. I’m sure you can see why I’m a bit confused. Are they trying to reform US law, or Candian law? If “sharing” is already legal in Canada, then why are they arguing that it should be made legal?
I scanned the position paper and read sections, but didn’t read it in its entirety.
2 May 2006 @ 09:49 | Permalink
They use US law as an example of what they don’t want…
They are positioning themselves so that suggested legislative changes do not go into effect.
2 May 2006 @ 10:06 | Permalink
It will be interesting to see how the Canadian recording industry fares over the ensuing years and decades if they get their wishes. It seems to me the artists are exchanging their long-term interests for their short-term interests.
If copying is allowed at will, it’s hard to see why people would buy a cd or a download from the record company. If there’s nothing wrong with making copies and not paying the record company for them, I fail to see why it would be wrong for MTV, MuchMusic, TV commercials, and TV programs to use them without paying. And if those revenue sources are taken from record companies, it’s hard to see how there will be any big, mean, soulless record companies for singers to sign contracts with.
2 May 2006 @ 10:14 | Permalink
It is impressive, though, how generous these performers are—with someone else’s money and someone else’s rights.
2 May 2006 @ 10:16 | Permalink
“And if those revenue sources are taken from record companies, it’s hard to see how there will be any big, mean, soulless record companies for singers to sign contracts with.”
…and somehow you make this sound like a *bad* thing.
2 May 2006 @ 10:28 | Permalink
No, not at all. Who needs a recording industry? Canada can just have free music for all. Songwriters and singers can all go and get accounting degrees or build chairs for a living. (Do they still manufacture things in Canada? We’ve stopped in the U.S.) Or, they can sing on street corners for tips.
2 May 2006 @ 10:36 | Permalink
I guess the thousands of people who work for the record companies will have to find new work, too. But that shouldn’t be a problem, right? Maybe they can hire on for voyages to the Arctic and kill baby seals.
2 May 2006 @ 10:45 | Permalink
…because those are the only two alternatives, right?
The status quo, or absolutely no record industry at all.
Killing baby seals? I mean really.
If you want to talk about senseless killing perhaps we should start another war on terror thread.
2 May 2006 @ 10:54 | Permalink
As to the disappearance of the recording industry, I’m just trying to follow the logical chain of events that would probably occur if copyright protections are done away with. Are there other possibilities? Probably.
As to the killing of baby seals, I just figured that since record companies are so evil, the people who work there would want to find similarly evil employment. It wouldn’t have to be killing seals. It could be, say, child prostitution or slavery.
2 May 2006 @ 11:29 | Permalink
How about answering this question – Forget the part about it being legal or illegal – Is it morally correct to copy another person’s project? What would Jesus say about it?
3 May 2006 @ 20:30 | Permalink
Killing of Baby Seals – Is that a Canadian thing? Do you have too many seals? Do you eat the meat or just simply sell the baby seal coats for money? Any difference between Canadians and Music Compnaies? hum?
Of course we have our own crazy killing hobbies. We have rattle snake hunts. We don’t hunt baby seals, I mean we don’t club to death baby seals.
Veal is quite tasty – Is baby seal meat like veal? Might be a good sport if it is.
Music companies – Supply and demand.
3 May 2006 @ 20:37 | Permalink
Bill, I’m not even Canadian, so I don’t think I can answer that. I was just trying to think of a really heinous line of work. (As far as I know, if and when seals are killed by non-natives, it’s generally done for the fur rather than the meat.)
4 May 2006 @ 03:59 | Permalink
Bill
Canadians do not hunt baby seals. There is a First Nations tribe that participates in a seal hunt, but this is not a “Canadian practice”.
And before jumping on that bandwagon, it might be good to research it.
4 May 2006 @ 04:14 | Permalink
I had no idea my joking reference to seal killing would touch off such interest. I guess I should have chosen something different, such as “go to work for Snidely Whiplash and Simon Lagree.”
4 May 2006 @ 05:12 | Permalink
Well, I should say not ALL Canadians kill baby seals. Or seals period. Or eat them, or anything. Let’s just say it most certainly isn’t a Canadian sport. Hockey is. And Lacrosse. And Curling. And a lot of other sports.
4 May 2006 @ 05:52 | Permalink
So, there’s no danger of the “seal club” becoming a winter Olympic event?
4 May 2006 @ 10:11 | Permalink
…not unless the figure skaters are willing to clear the ice first.
4 May 2006 @ 11:20 | Permalink
Wouldn’t it be more challenging and entertaining if both events had to take place simultaneously?
In fact, the combined event idea could work for all kinds of Olympic events: Think of the possibilities:
Basketball and pole vaulting
Archery and the 100-meter run
Water polo and shot put
It’s endless…
4 May 2006 @ 12:57 | Permalink
I watched a program on cable TV and it was about killing baby seals for their white fur. I did not see anyone that looked like a First Nation to me. They looked very English to me.
Maybe Canada could host a SPECIAL OLYMPICS and the game could be cricket and the ball could be Baby Seals. You have it all – English looking men with bats hitting Baby Seals and making money. Pro Sports way to go. Just think of the TV rights something like this would generate. It could come on right after WWF or Ultimate Fighter.
All kidding aside – Why would Canada allow something so gross to happen year after year? The USA abolished Bull fighting, Cock Fighting, Dog Fights. The killing of Baby Seals for their white coats is about the worst thing I have seen in my life.
Side note – I understand the Canadian Army has like 5 helicopters and only 4 of them work. Is this correct?
7 May 2006 @ 15:33 | Permalink
It is illegal to hunt harp seals while their coats are still white.
“I understand the Canadian Army has like 5 helicopters and only 4 of them work.”
It may be. The Air Force, on the other hand, has 85 Griffons, 28 Sikorskys, 15 Cormorants, 14 Jet Rangers and 28 Sea Kings.
7 May 2006 @ 15:40 | Permalink
Is it still true that the Canadian Defence Forces are united? I know they went back to using three uniforms a few years ago, but I thought the united force was still a reality, so that you don’t really join the army, the navy, or the air force anymore, but just join the defence forces and wear the uniform that’s most relevant to your duty. If I’m right, then any aircraft that belongs to the air force also belongs to the army, and the navy.
7 May 2006 @ 17:06 | Permalink
Their website seems to indicate separate forces.
7 May 2006 @ 18:04 | Permalink
This thread is getting WAY off topic, but I thought I would join in the fun.
I don’t get what all the fuss is about the seal hunt. I hope that nobody who complains about it eats beef, chicken, or tuna. Oh, and I hope they don’t wear leather either.
How is killing a seal any different than killing any other animal for food or clothing. I mean, I guess seals are much more cute than cattle, but the concept is the same. Is it only okay to kill ugly animals?
Am I missing some aspect of the controversy?
7 May 2006 @ 18:46 | Permalink
It’s baby seals they are talking about.
Actually, I am a vegetarian myself (19 years of veggieness) so I don’t eat beef, chicken or tuna or any meat. Ew. Hate the stuff. As far as leather, well, I am not a vegan, so yes, I do wear leather. Except not a leather jacket or leather pants, ew.
7 May 2006 @ 19:08 | Permalink
Though I’ve never yet owned a pair of leather pants (yikes! chafing!), I’ve never felt inclined to say “ew” as I don my leather jacket. Do you know what makes it seem less acceptable to you than other uses of leather?
28 May 2006 @ 16:19 | Permalink
They look ugly.
28 May 2006 @ 16:20 | Permalink
Bill, I’m just going to assume that in #68 you used the term “special Olympics” as a generic term meaning, a set of games outside the usual Olympiad, and that you weren’t talking about Special Olympics, which is a worldwide organization hosting athletic events for the developmentally disabled. I really, really, really hope that’s what you meant.
28 May 2006 @ 16:22 | Permalink
pants I mean. Well, I am not too fond of leather jackets either, but ok, it’s fashion. I was a teenager of the 80’s and there was far too much leather wearing at that point than my (as the definition was then) alternative self could handle. Of course alternative in the 80s is not the same as alternative now. Keep that in mind. But I don’t know, leather shoes are ok, leather purses only marginally better, but leather clothes, just NOT my bag.
28 May 2006 @ 16:22 | Permalink
Oh, Mary, I’m so disappointed. You really think my brown leather bomber jacket looks ugly? I know you haven’t seen mine, but just think back to those World War II movies and picture what the pilots wore.
28 May 2006 @ 16:23 | Permalink
bomber jackets are ok. other leather jackets not ok. i think the only reason though, is because of Top Gun.
leather pants are just GROSS. though they should be worn when riding motorcycles for safety reasons, and that is only when they are acceptable.
28 May 2006 @ 16:25 | Permalink
Oh, no, not TOP GUN! If I think any more about that movie, I’ll have to throw my jacket away and never touch it again (right after I finish some self-induced vomiting). :)
28 May 2006 @ 16:26 | Permalink
Oh no…now I’ve given away my weakness. Picture me sitting in a room tied to a chair with a single bulb shining above my head, while Rick, Bill and SteveEM stand around me shouting “TOP GUN! TOP GUN! TOP GUN! Confess now, or we show another clip!”
28 May 2006 @ 16:27 | Permalink
well, it wasn’t my favoruite movie, but tom cruise, before he became a dweeb, looked kind of cute (though this was before my husband became the sexiest man alive.
hey i am right, aren’t i? well i mean the other person who said you are air force. hehe
28 May 2006 @ 16:30 | Permalink
Interesting idea. I suppose I might be in the Air Force. I guess it depends on whether, in the previous comments that led to to this thought, I was being truthful. It also depends on whether I’m a current or just a former member of the Air Force. Then, too, there’s the issue of whether I might be in the Air Force reserve or the Air National Guard and hold a completely different job outside of military service. Or, I may just be very good at misleading you about my job. Have fun.
28 May 2006 @ 16:39 | Permalink
We’d have to reconcile it with all the amazing discoveries that Bill has made about me…
I wonder if it’s possible to be an unemployed, right-wing, Communist member of the Taliban and still serve in the Air Force.
Or maybe I just fantasize about being in the Air Force.
Or maybe “Air Force” is a code phrase I’m using to tip off my buddies in Al Qaeda and the Taliban for our next move.
I’m sure Bill will have it all figured out for us soon.
28 May 2006 @ 16:42 | Permalink
It doesn’t matter, we are jsut speculating.
You aren’t in the Taliban. They are just a tad more fanatical.
28 May 2006 @ 18:02 | Permalink
(Gee…I notice you didn’t say anything about not being in al Qaeda…. :o )
28 May 2006 @ 18:27 | Permalink
that either.
28 May 2006 @ 18:58 | Permalink
Well, we’ll have to see what Bill (a.k.a., The Oracle) has to say about that. I don’t think he’ll like being contradicted—that must mean you’re not open to the truth. :)
28 May 2006 @ 19:13 | Permalink
I’m still trying to figure out when I became a nemesis on par with Bill to ltbugaf…
29 May 2006 @ 11:45 | Permalink
I don’t know when. But since reading your question, I’ve tried (relying on memory alone) to think when was the last time you responded to one of my posts with anything but contempt. I still haven’t come up with one.
30 May 2006 @ 19:13 | Permalink
(I guess “one of my comments” would be a more accurate way to put it since I don’t really do “posts” here.
30 May 2006 @ 19:38 | Permalink
After careful analysis the best I could come up with was http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/05/21/emergency-preparedness/#comment-10072
Posted on 29 May 2006
Althought the set of all things that are not contempt does include ignoring you, but it’s kind of hard to link to a post where I didn’t respond…
31 May 2006 @ 11:42 | Permalink
Ah. Hadn’t read that one.
1 Jun 2006 @ 18:47 | Permalink