Blue Train

Found a new online store which was posted on a Peter Brotzmann FB. They seem to have out of print stuff. Some stuff on vinyl that I didn't even know were reissued. Take for example Brotzmann's The Nearer the Bone, The Sweeter the Meat. I thought it was out of print, but they have a vinyl copy of it A never before released Globe Unity disc. http://catalyticsound.com/ 5 pages of vinyl. Many of which I didn't even know were released on vinyl. http://catalyticsound.com/product-category/vinyl/ Even a list of tour dates. http://catalyticsound.com/tour-dates/

Hoax, or pre-reality? I think it's the first time someone died soon after a hoax was started about them. At least I can't remember another instance.

Just a few days ago there was one of those hoax internet things about him being dead. So, a lot of people still think it's a hoax, but it's unfortunately real this time. https://thedoors.com/news http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rkd4a7 Be well,

His grandfather would have been 88 today. His grandmother 79 on the 28th. The fire that would result in his grandmother's death was started 4 days after her 63rd birrthday.

Oops, you posted this while I was typing. But yes, I agree 100%. What bugs me is that many older persons (I'm 66 by the way) don't - or don't want to - see the convenience of a more modern way of living than they were used to. Just an example - I live in an apartment building with quite a few people who are older than I am and they refuse to use a computer for even the simplest things, making life harder for themselves. Their excuse: I'm too old for that kind of thing; they don't even try... In the entire history of mankind....there are always people like that. Why at this point does it bother anyone?

At this point the only reason I have money on me is to pay at places that I know only accept money....or, to give it to someone I can see really needs it.

.

Since you don't do FB. There is at least http://epistrophyarts.tumblr.com/

haha

Same simple mindedned thinking. "Responsabile" drinkers and guns.

I don't know anything about the laws in MA, but in the places I've lived, if you refuse to take the BAC test, you lose your license period, so you've got a few too many ifs there. Ah. I see; you're new in this country. Never mind. Every state now has "implied consent" laws for anyone that gets a DL. You can legally refuse to be tested, but you're also going to get punished in one way or another for refusing. Have to laugh at the 2nd.

May 31st @ 8 pm Peter Brötzmann and Joe McPhee Waller Creek School Auditorium (719 E. 41st Austin, 78751)

I have seen him 8 times. As a result of the last three times I either saw, or bought tickets....I am not sure about seeing him with whomever at this point. Having said that. I really have never understood why he had a group of people that he seemed to play to down to at times. Like he didn't want to embarrass them. P.S. Sonnymmon for Two with Ornette Coleman. EN FUEGO! Not saying it was the best perofmance I have seen involving either of them....but come on. My age and Sonny Rollins and Ornette Coleman together. If they were just warming up....

FTW!

I honestly don't understand your response to what I posted. Under what circumstances will a "perfectly innocent person" be "rousted by the police"? The "ifs" I posited aren't a justification, but an argument against the likelihood that what you fear will happen. The issue is 0.05 equals drunk driving. I'm saying that is just not true. I seriously fail to see how one glass of wine or one beer equals a DUI. Just my thoughts. All but one. ONE person in the entire population of America...really? I honestly don't understand your response to what I posted. Under what circumstances will a "perfectly innocent person" be "rousted by the police"? The "ifs" I posited aren't a justification, but an argument against the likelihood that what you fear will happen. A person with alcohol on his breath. This 0.05 gives the police even more control over our lives and precludes any REAL reasoning relative to detaining a person for hours even if he is innocent.The "ifs" are predicated on the police deciding if the alcohol on your breath means they can detain you for hours while they figure it all out. The responsible drinker is now a criminal. The police gain WAY too much power over people who drive a car. TBH, I am not sure why that is a mystery. I call that tyranny. You guys call that controlling DUIs. A 0.05 is NOT a stone, sloppy drunk. What you guys are advocating for is a police state. I object. I rest my case.

Just my thoughts. All but one.

FTW!^IInfinity symbol

I don't take anyone into account who has a single beer in the 8th inning for multiple reasons. First off...at best they're looking at 20 minutes before the game is over. Then, if they're lucky....another 30-45 minutes to get to their car and get out of the parking lot. If they're somehow arrested...another 2-5 hours before their urine/blood is tested. It's not the breathalyzer that matters but their urine/blood that results in it going further. This also forgets the fact of the all that goes into a field sobriety test before they even get to the point of using a breathalyzer.

You went from the whole numbers thing and .08 wasn't drunk to .05 is a "responsbile drinker? A single drink less makes somone a "responsible drinker",,,,and that's if they could do a urine/blood test right there and then when initally arrested. You keep forgetting the part about how many hours after the fact they're actually tested to confirm they're considered legally drunk.

Drunk drivers...by the time they're tested and still are considred legally drunk.....they really shouldn't be driving from the start. That's keeping in mind we're talking about a single drink between .08 and .05 no matter how obese anyone happens to be and they're not binge drinking.

As in, "Blue Collar" (and I really hate how you keep generalizing this to defend what you like.) ...had/have lower standards? You like Steve Miller. Others don't. À chacun son goût. This isn't a poor/rich conversation.

How long before Pat Boone, or Kenny G are mentioned? À chacun son goût.

:tup On a more serious note, though, reports over here had it today that a NEWBORN child in a maternity unit in Poland was diagnosed with an alcohol level of 0.45!!! (no, not 0.045 - really 0.45!) This because the mother who had collapsed SLOPPY DRUNK in public had to be rushed to the hospital to have the child delivered in an emergency before more serious damage was done. The poor newborn is still in critical condition, though. Wonder if that "mother" has a driver's license and whatever she might have been up to at other occasions .. On the actual subject, beats me how ANYBODY can make enjoying themselves at whatever party or public event depend on gulping down alcoholic beverages. Is that really THAT necessary? Can't these characters loosen up and enjoy themselves without resorting to "little helpers" like that? And what's this thing about ruining club/restaurant business? Are there that many who feel they are being sneered at for being "weaklings" if they limit themselves to soft drinks or whatever non-alcoholic stuff whenevery they have to drive? Maybe a reevaluation of the company they're keeping might be in order, then ... Well, restaurants do make money off of the food and beverages they sell. I don't think a BAC of 0.08 will make anyone stone, sloppy drunk. My problem is with this one-size-fits-all determination of what is called DUI. Who said anything about "stone, sloppy drunk"? By that point....it's a miracle anyone isn't in an accident that doesn't result in their, and/or other's deaths. Do you understand the difference between being impaired and legally drunk?....and once again.... by the time they finally test someone however many hours later and they're still 0.08....they were way above 0.8 when they were initally arrested?

True. But at some point reality of restaurants losing business needs to set in along with personal responsibility of the consumer. Personally, if I drink I simply do not drive. Period. But if a guy has a beer at the ballpark, suddenly he's a DUI just because he hits an arbitrary number? Police will take it to mean anybody with alcohol on their breath needs to be run in or given a sobriety test irrespective of the ability to drive a vehicle. It happens with far too much regularity here in California and I have a real problem with that. One beer won't register as a DUI for anyone....unless they drank the beer minutes before. Even if they're arrested....there is still Urine/Blood tests to confirm things...by the time they're tested it's hours later. As in, by that time.....the person in question was way over the legal limit when they were first arrested if they still register @ 0.8. Of course, this doesn't even bring up the difference between being impaired and legally considerd drunk