Dan Gould

After hearing his first two singles, I wanted to find what he recorded for Fury afterwards. I found a "VG+" copy that turned out to have major flaws (no harm, he gave me a refund including shipping) and only afterwards did I discover the CD with Papa Lightfoot, and I was very glad I did (although Papa is something of an acquired taste). His final recording as a leader, Coming From The Old School on Electro-Fi, is excellent, too.

UP for Chuck.

And if there's any doubt, just let me highlight these two passages: There you go, Tim - its not the Welfare people declaring that the word of a psychic doesn't constitute evidence. Its the Board of Ed saying it. The Teacher and the Administration should have never acted. Period. End of discussion.

Everything I've been saying is laid out in that article. Case closed. Tim is wrong. Everyone else is right. Say good night, Gracie.

I'm watching the one Chris linked to right now ...

You never know, Paul. I'd say go for it - there have been other blues threads that have gotten a good reaction - Hans' list of essential blues recordings stands out. I'm sure people would be interested in a list of overlooked blues recordings. Have you got Anson Funderburgh & The Rockets with Sam Myers - Live at The Grand Emporium? They recorded a bunch of times together but now that I've heard it, I think its the Anson + Sam recording to have.

The similarity I'm pointing to is in the audiences, not the performers. Carlins' audiences liked the angry rants of his later years just as Clay attracted an audience that liked his misogynist character. It was a reaction to Al's comment that Carlin laughed at his audience. Both audiences liked what they got when they went to a show.

Perhaps - but perhaps not. We each might learn something. Differences can be good things. I've got six on Paul's list. But I know I'd dig his list of overlooked blues recordings - and probably have a much higher proportion.

Agreed. Ray, you can come back from the refreshment stand. I think Tim and I are officially dating now.

Al, I've felt that Carlin did get a little too caustic and bitter and psychotic towards the end, too, which is partly why I most preferred his always funny and spot-on riffs on language over his psychotic hatreds toward people. That is the Carlin I'll remember. And I never got the sense that he was laughing at his audience or in any sense making suckers out of them. His audience loved his rants, just like some people loved the Andrew Dice Clay character.

I like the way the Times wrapped up its obituary:

Alex, If you asked that question to me specifically previously, I apologize for not answering at the time. I did tell my friend about the sexualized behavior part of it, and his response was that it doesn't merit a closer look into her home life, on its face. Particularly with mainstreamed developmentally disabled kids, there is a good chance of her being influenced by her "peers". Your mentioning of the reporting things to superiors brings up something that Mike said that I didn't mention earlier. He said that typically those "up the line" will make the call on 'reasonable' vs 'unreasonable' and will stop the process on that basis. So a lot of the blame he apportioned goes to the administrators who didn't put an end to the investigation when they learned about the psychic's role in inspiring it.

Sad, sad news. A few years ago I picked up a five disc DVD set of his HBO shows. Will definitely put those on later today.

Paul, Interesting list - do you think it would be a good idea to modify your thread title to make it clear that other lists - big or small - are welcome? It actually makes me wonder whether this is an appropriate sub-forum addition - essentials, inessentials, and overlooked recordings worth listening to.

Pirates can score some runs and its at Pittsburgh, with no DH. The Yanks need to bring some pitching and score with Matsui or Damon or Giambi sitting.

I knew an ass like you would question the identity of my friend. He is the program head of the USF chapter of the Florida Inclusion Network in St. Pete - Mike Muldoon.

If you believe that this reasonable suspicion [which is the secondary issue according to the law where a "known" incident takes priority over reasonable suspicion] is the end all to be all, IDENTIFY the "known" incident then. There is none. An autistic child exhibiting sexual behavior is NOT EVIDENCE OF ABUSE. It might be - but it is not evidence IN AND OF ITSELF. SO, we are back to the psychic, and the reasonableness of that allegation. Wrong again you contemptible moronic fool. Read again what I said. My friend has a MASTER'S degree in Special Education, with a specialization in Autism. HE SAYS that your support of this referral is absolutely ludicrous, and that THE LAW does NOT require that such an allegation be reported - even though fools like you aren't smart enough to recognize what a REASONABLE SUSPICION is and isn't. Furthermore, I make no reference to the people on this board. My friend sent off this news article to ALL of his SPECIAL ED colleagues. The responses NOW are EIGHTEEN to ONE that the word of a psychic does not trigger the "mandated" reporting. I'll keep you informed as my friend continues to receive responses. He expects a much greater response on Monday when more people see their work email accounts. Who knows - he might find that he knows two Special Ed PROFESSIONALS who regard this referral as legally mandated. So, you might find the final numbers something like 75 to 2. There's hope yet, Timmy. And the TA has a degree in what again...? Maybe your "friend" could renumerate on that point as well, eh? Apples and oranges, big boy. WHAT THE FUCK??????? You talk about two teachers who "know" that this is the proper course of action, I give you over a dozen people, Special Ed specialists, who say that the word of a psychic is no word at all, that no report is required by law. And you say "the TA has a degree in what again" and "apples and oranges"? Only the CA schools could hire someone as breathtakingly stupid as you. And you have a good evening, too. Just remember to stop walking while chewing gum. Its safer that way.

My brother is a Vandy graduate and has been talking up Price as long as I can remember, it seems. It would really kill him if Price makes the difference in the Rays going to the playoffs and the Yanks staying home. Meantime, what an insane game at Fenway. I was brooding throughout as it looked like Piniero of all people was going to shut down the Sox and complete a pathetic three game sweep at the hands of the Cards. Then in the eighth, Crisp hit a fly to center that Ankiel misjudged a bit and then fell flat on his back trying to back up for it, and Crisp wound up at third, and scored the tying run on a Lugo sac fly. Then Lady Luck smiled again as with two outs and Pedroia at first, he was called safe on a SB attempt, where he easily could have been called out. Back to back walks and the Sox had the lead, with Papelbon coming in. I was actually in the middle of posting this summary when it all fell in on Paps. Two outs via K, and suddenly he gives up the first walk of the year at Fenway. He goes back to business, gets to two strikes, and can't put away the hitter. A splitter doesn't split, it short hops the CF fence, and we've got a tied game. I was certain when they put in Okajima that the game was lost. It wasn't. I was certain that when Ellsbury hit a leadoff double, the game was won. It wasn't. I was certain when Mike Lowell hit a leadoff double, the game was won. It wasn't. I was certain that when Pedroia hit a leadoff double, the game was won. It wasn't. But when Lowell lined one off the Monster and was held to a single, I said to my wife, maybe the key is not hitting a leadoff double. Maybe a leadoff single is what will do it. And a moment later, Youkilis hit his second homer of the day. Thank God.

If you believe that this reasonable suspicion [which is the secondary issue according to the law where a "known" incident takes priority over reasonable suspicion] is the end all to be all, IDENTIFY the "known" incident then. There is none. An autistic child exhibiting sexual behavior is NOT EVIDENCE OF ABUSE. It might be - but it is not evidence IN AND OF ITSELF. SO, we are back to the psychic, and the reasonableness of that allegation. Wrong again you contemptible moronic fool. Read again what I said. My friend has a MASTER'S degree in Special Education, with a specialization in Autism. HE SAYS that your support of this referral is absolutely ludicrous, and that THE LAW does NOT require that such an allegation be reported - even though fools like you aren't smart enough to recognize what a REASONABLE SUSPICION is and isn't. Furthermore, I make no reference to the people on this board. My friend sent off this news article to ALL of his SPECIAL ED colleagues. The responses NOW are EIGHTEEN to ONE that the word of a psychic does not trigger the "mandated" reporting. I'll keep you informed as my friend continues to receive responses. He expects a much greater response on Monday when more people see their work email accounts. Who knows - he might find that he knows two Special Ed PROFESSIONALS who regard this referral as legally mandated. So, you might find the final numbers something like 75 to 2. There's hope yet, Timmy.

No, as I've explained to you, and other people here have explained to you, and a Special Ed teacher has stated, the word of a psychic does not constitute the reasonable suspicion that the law requires. Just because you think that every allegation, regardless of the source, must be reported, doesn't mean that is true. My friend, who runs the same risk that you do when confronted by a claim, has the brains to recognize that the claims of a psychic have no meaning and should not be responded to. And by the way, he's now had a chance to send out an email to his Special Ed colleagues. So far the responses are running 10-0 against you and in favor of a rational reaction to the claims of a psychic - rational meaning that no response is mandated by law.

WRONG. THAT is how it started. Reading comprhension skill, apparently, is not your forte Dan, eh? All of the information and the allegations came from the TA to the teacher. Re-read the article, Dan. Then go back to abusing somebody else. So what are you stupid enough to assert? That because the psychic is one stepped removed from the source of the accusation, its appropriate to launch a full investigation? You're a freaking loon is what you are.

Happy birthday and may your team hang around long enough to at least keep the Yankees out of the playoffs. Aw hell, it will probably be the Red Sox that miss out. I'll try not to hold it against you. :party:

WRONG. THAT is how it started.

Speaking of abuse.... Go back and read the article, Dan. The person making the report was a teacher assistant. A non-credentialed person with little or no college education. Obviously, not a terribly bright individual either. You want to gang up on somebody, fire up on her. The teacher and the administration were only following the chain of command set down by the law which governs our required response to an allegation of abuse. This is easy to understand, Dan. We aren't building a rocketship here, OK? No, only to a foolish person like you. The T.A. reported what her psychic said - and the first thing the teacher should have asked is, does this constitute a reasonable suspicion? No, it does not. "Case" closed, and sign up the T.A. for James Randi's email list. In your opinion, Dan. Not in the opinion of the law. The TA was the first contact for this incident, not the teacher. The teacher, by law, correctly followed legal procedure which she is required, by law, to do. It is not our call to make after the TA has determined this is a situation in need of the attention of CPS. Once the allegation is made we must report on it. Period. End of discussion. Game over. A psychic, however idiotic we may think she is or the people who consult them are, is still a living, breathing, thinking human being. On that level and on that level alone, however shaky her evidence is, we are still required to report the allegation. A game board, tea and a child's toy are things, Dan; inanimate objects.They by themselves cannot talk or think or see or reason, OK? I thought you said this was a serious question. You don't like the law then write up a petition to change it on the next election ballot. Until then, you can go get your teaching credential, get a teaching position job and ignore all the allegations of child abuse you want. People like Alexander and myself will obey the laws of our land until a better way comes along to change how it's done now. Understand? You still refuse to answer the question: What does "reasonable" mean in the statute? What constitutes "reasonable" and "unreasonable" suspicions? "Reasonable" suspicions come from living, breathing, thinking psychics? And "unreasonable" ones come from a game board, tea leaves and a child's toy? Why was "reasonable" inserted into the language of the statute? Its time for you to simply tell the truth: As a matter of policy, teachers are told that "reasonable" has no meaning. The statute is to be interpreted as if "reasonable suspicion" has the meaning of "any suspicion". Just tell the truth: that is how the statute is interpreted. Not to protect children but to protect your own job. Otherwise, tell us what "reasonable" and "unreasonable" suspicions are. That's the letter of the law! What does it mean? Tell us. Once agian you are pleading the case for the defense here, Dan. If you don't know what a reasonable suspicion is, how in God's name can you expect anyone to be able to reach an exact, definable and agreed upon definition? This is why we are required to report it, Dan...to let the experts handle the situation and either support or negate it. [ta-da] You really are spectacularly idiotic, aren't you? You are required to report REASONABLE suspicions. That means that you must make an A PRIORI judgment about the reasonableness of what has been alleged. Therefore you need guidance on what constitutes reasonable. Or, you need to use your native intelligence (Timothy, you are excused for obvious reasons) to determine whether the claims of a PSYCHIC are "reasonable" allegations. As my friend, who has more experience with special ed kids than you will ever have, stated, the claims of a psychic are not reasonable and ought not to be acted upon.

Well if I'm right that Dice-K is hurt, the good news is that Buchholz is starting to throw well at Pawtucket. I think he threw a five or six inning shutout last start.