porcy62

On that much we can agree. I do NOT drive a fuel efficient car, but I DO have a valid reason. I live on an unmaintained road and have an interstate commute. There are times of the year where 4WD is not an option, but a very distinct necessity. That said, when I see some tool driving around in a Suburban with a child in the last seat and the rest of it empty, it rather irritates me. Cell phones can go the way of the Edsel and I'd not shed a tear. We have more common ground than I realized -- my apologies. No need to apologize. I just watched at TV a research about farming and agriculture. Basically one third of CO2 global emission comes from intensive (and chemical) agriculture. It's quite complex to explain, but, chemical agents used as fertilizers contribute to augment CO2 emissions, at the same time packing, moving and preserve foods increase CO2 emission, I mean that if you want strawberries or asparagus out of season it will cost to you one hundred more then the price the farmers get. (basically you're paying for transport and packaging, not for food). In this system for farmers is more profitable to grown up out seasoned stuff for export, rather then vegetables and fruits for internal market, unless they bypass the big distribution and the global market. The absurd thing is that farmers harvest green tomatoes, that lack all the vitamins and the stuff that makes tomato a healthy food, because all these depens on the fact that you got them only if tomatoes ripen naturally. In one world: big corporates will not save us, we have to learn and adopt better behaviors.

Chet Baker Quartet, Live Sessions, Mosaic.

Not so much. It's a pretty theory, but it's like pregnancy -- each attempt is not a guarantee. Unfortunately, I still have a brother-in-law to prove my point. I'm not sure I follow your point. I think the situation you describe is highly unhealthy. I also am against smoking in public places where my enjoyment is affected. If a smoker is comfortable risking the life of their child, I think that's a larger problem. If s/he cannot go long enough without a butt to not slowly kill her/his child, I don't think that polluting the air I have to breath is an acceptable alternative any more than I think it's okay for parents with children to ruin my dining experience. As has been pointed out, we all make choices. If your screaming brats or cigarette smoke is a detriment to my enjoyment in a public space, my choice is to call you on it. My point is that if you drive a useless gas guzzler instead of a low emission vehicle just because you enjoy and can afford it (like a BMW X5 or a Hummer) YOU are damaging my health and I can't call you on it. So if the problem is only personal annoyance, I'd add cell phones conversations and lots of bad behavior, if the problem is pollution I'd add gaz guzzlers and all the behaviors that contribute to it, like plastic bags, etc. Lots of these behaviors could be changed with the very same minimum effort a smoker put in avoiding smoking in public places. That's it. Plain and simple.

Let me add that I am happy that oil price is skyrocketing, it will force lots of people toward a more enviromental friendly behavior even if they didn't give a damn about it, and force automotive industry in the same way.

It depends on mileage obviously, for sure a guy who drives his BMW X5 60 minutes to and from work every day is definitely guzzling a lot more gas than the guy with the Yaris. If you wanna kill yourself you can use your car, (even a Yaris) and a hose and you're done in 50 minutes, if you wanna kill yourself with passive smoking you'll take 30 years, just to have an idea of the different level of risk for health. So I found contradictory ban smoking in open places like square and allow Ford F150. For the very same reason I found contradictory ban marijuna and allow cigarette and alcohol. Have you ever been in front of a school with hundred of cars, mother or father at wheel? Do you really think that the twice a day concentration of pollution in that small area is less harmful for children then passive smoking?

Correct, but I trade MY health when I drive MY motorbike or I smoke. I've got nothing back when gaz guzzlers packed my neighbourghood in traffic jam. Where's the trading in this case? So why ban smoking in public places and allow Ferrari, BMW, Mercedes and Hummer in the city center? I mean health is health and the effects of car's pollution are proved. You have the same very same right I have to drive your own veichle, but specific for emission should be more restrictive.

Well, car's pollution is more then an "annoying behavior", it's a health risk and I don't think that pollution taxes are enough. I mean that I don't think that you have any right to pose my health at risk because you can afford it. Let's say that I can pay 2000 $ of taxes per years for smoking my damn fags in public places, would it be OK for you? Same for industrial plants, let's say that they will cover your health insurance when you or your children got cancers because of them, is it a free society? Welcome to the free world. Yes... if smokers all paid sufficiently high fees for the privilege of smoking in public to cover the health damage they cause to those around them when smoking in public, then I think that would be a reasonable compromise. The same with pollution taxes etc etc. Guy Actually smokers do it, if you consider the government's high taxes on tobacco, at least over here. BTW we pay a lot of taxes on gasoline too. The point is that it's not enough for public health and enviroment. It might be questionable if one agree to trade his health with money. Personally I don't.

Part of living in a free society means that we put up with "annoying behavior" like cell phone conversations in public places, people driving useless gas guzzler cars*** and eating Chilean strawberries wherever the hell they want to. I don't think smoking in closed spaces is equivalent to any of those since it does actually poses a health risk. Guy ***Let me add that I'm all for carbon and/or pollution taxes. Well, car's pollution is more then an "annoying behavior", it's a health risk and I don't think that pollution taxes are enough. Gas guzzler cars should be banned exactly like cigarettes, period. I mean that I don't think that you have any right to pose my health at risk because you can afford it. Let's say that I can pay 2000 $ of taxes per years for smoking my damn fags in public places, would it be OK for you? Same for industrial plants, let's say that they will cover your health insurance when you or your children got cancers because of them, is it a free society? Welcome to the free world. I agree that cell phone is an "annoying behavior". Eating strawberries out of season is an "ignorant behavior". You're free to be stupid and annoying in a free society, at the same time a free society should be able to educate itself and its citizens in order to survive beyond the abstract concept of "freedom" and the more pragmatic concept of "profit". Basically I think the biggest problems are coming from the short term perspective of the market and politic, enviroment is a long term investment, citizens (stock holders in an economic perspective) want gain NOW, it would be up to ruling classes, politicians, (CEO) whatever you want to call them, at the end the citizens themselves, to think in long terms. So they could quit some stupid and annoying behavior (and give some of their freedoms up) in order have long term benefits, like a clean and safe enviroment. WTF am I the only one here who read John Locke and Thomas Hobbes?

Probably trying to score those elusive Sun Ra albums on Horo. Unsuccessfully I think. I've got few Horos and they aren't such easy to find even for a roman rat like me.

...and I thought that only porno actors and baseball players take forbidden stuff.

About actors loving music, I saw an interview with Matt Dillon, he carried a bunch of vinyls he just bought somewhere in Rome. He said that digging in the shelves of old records stores around the world was one of the joy of travelling. Nice guy.

Porcy, I absolutely agree, the early titles with 'matte' label sound superb too (like the shiny ones). And keep in mind that first pressings of the 'four digit' titles (9101 - ...) always have matte labels. By the way, if you ever find promo copies of the 'four logo' issues, buy them (white label, no mentioning of 'product of ABC Paramount Records'). I have a couple of these, they sound incredible! Agree, I've got some of those like Shepp' Mama To Tight. Great sound! In general I look for WLP and Review Copy: some sort of warranty as early pressings, expecially with rock records, wich are usually pressed in millions. You may loose the cover's art, because of the time strip paste on it, but excellent sound. I've got dozens of Dylan, Santana, Lou Reed, Zappa, etc. and they worth the search, sonically speaking.

Of course, gold is also a haven during uncertain times. I've decided to combine the two and build the extension of my house out of some of these gold "bricks" laying around: Nice, my suggestion is to double check foundations, otherwise the precious house would sink in the ground like Titanic.

House pricing has stopped over here, but not really falling. IMHO until world stock markets are so uncertain, and depressed, 'brick' as we call investing in houses and real estates, is still regarded as secure investment. Lots of people retreat from financial market, funds are really down at the moment, and put money into 'brick'.

Thanks. After a random check on my Impulse! it happens that I have very few 'shiny' label, but later 'four logos' reissues. They sounds OK and I paid generally 50/60 $ for them so I presume it should be fine.

General "rule" is: - first pressings of A-1 - A-90 (?) should have labels with shiny - instead of matte - surface. - labels of first 20 - 25 (?) titles should have "A Product Of AM-PAR Record Corp." printed on the bottom of the label. Later labels have "A product of ABC Paramount Records Inc." Perhaps Michel has more precise information? So 'matte' labels are the early reissues before the new ABC Paramount label, right? No, i have nothing more to add ! Yes, Porcy, in other words, the "matte" label is the "last generation" of the original label design (4 logos). Or the "first reprint generation" still with original label design . After that you have the "impulse logo on top" design. In any case, you can avoid the french impulse pressings "gravure universelle" : bad pressings in general. Covers are US originals anyway. You can use them to upgrade... Thanks! I presume that it works both for stereo and mono, right?

There are two, related, answers to that, as far as I'm concerned. The first is that everyone should, and does, as far as I know, decide what risks, personal and third party, they're prepared to put up with in their life. There is no such thing as risk free living. I am moderately unhappy contributing to people's passive smoking - though they also have options they can exercise, such as get the fuck out. MG And yet before smoking bans came into force, there were large numbers of employees who really didn't have the same rights to remove themselves from the premises, and it is debatable how many reasonable alternatives there are for workers who wish to avoid smoke. Smoke free coffee shops started doing pretty well in the 1990s but smoke free bars usually failed if their competitors allowed smoking. Even further back, if the boss wanted to smoke, well there was smoking in the office, and on the train, even in airplanes at one point (talk about inflicting your choices/freedoms on others). Personally I find it tragic that adults smoke in homes with children (again those with almost no rights) and the logical conclusion is that one day it will be considered child endangerment to smoke around children. (Probably about the same time that the RealID finally gets switched on.) By and large, society decides, from time to time, what kind of behaviour is acceptable in public. People who don't like that, have to put up with it - note the thread about the guy on the commuter train. And, as you note, it's only recently that there have been smoking bans. These happened first, as I recall, in workplaces (I'm talking about Britain, of course), where you note correctly that choice is most limited. But I was actually avoiding smoking near others well before that. And I haven't smoked indoors at home for more than thirty years. MG As smoker I have to say that I welcomed the smoking bans in public places, it's a form of respect for not smoking people. Nedless to say that I don't smoke in private closed places with children around, and I ask before lit a cigar or a cigarette even at my home. At the same time I would like to see banned a lot of dangerous and annoying behavior like cell phones conversation in public places, driving useless gaz guzzler car (or eating Chilean strawberries in december in Chicago, London or Rome, that means ton of useless pollution for transport of stoopid fruit that you could eat in season). In other words I respect non-smokers and their health, I would like the same respect back, I mean you don't like my cigarette and I don't like your polluting SUV in my neighbourhood.

Not necessarly, if it's so revolutionary it might well reduce solid things and their transport, in this sense we could even spare energy. I like your optimism, porcy. You should be in politics ! Yeah, but italian politic is boring, unless you're Berlusconi. Actually I am taking a lot of steroids, my future plan is win a couple of Mr. Olympia Prizes, make a lot of money with stupid movies, marry a Kennedy and then run for Nevada governor's seat. I have already secured discount prices for prostitutes when I'll be in the office. Is it prostitution legal in Nevada, isn't it? How about that? Or maybe I could run for mr. Mosley's seat, I suspect it will be soon free.

General "rule" is: - first pressings of A-1 - A-90 (?) should have labels with shiny - instead of matte - surface. - labels of first 20 - 25 (?) titles should have "A Product Of AM-PAR Record Corp." printed on the bottom of the label. Later labels have "A product of ABC Paramount Records Inc." Perhaps Michel has more precise information? So 'matte' labels are the early reissues before the new ABC Paramount label, right?

It is a bit like Kind Of Blue: not a rare record at all, but there is such high demand that it always fetches rather high prices. I have seen 100's of copies of A Love Supreme or Ballads being sold on eBay the last couple of years; they never sell below $100-150, though. Having said that, it is not so easy to find decent copies of real first pressings (shiny label; "Ampar" imprint on the bottom of label) of the first couple of Coltranes on Impulse! Absolutely right, and this detail is rarely (if ever) mentionned in Impulse descriptions. I have Am-Par on the back of cover, not on labels) Details please.

Actually most of my original Impulse! are stereo, I always paid less then 100 $, often much less, for them. One of the reason for mono, in my case at least, is that I have a mono cartridge, that minimize the wear of the records and maximize the punch, whatever SH could say of Y cord.

I presume it' s a rethoric question so I'll give you a rethoric answer. Why does psychiatry exist? Why do people commit suicide? Why are depressed, psycotichc, maniac, obsessive people out there? Why do people kill other people? Why does people need to compare every remastered cd of the same title like Dracula's Curse forever and ever? Why do we spend huge amount of money on an original BN pressing? Why have we got such huge collection of music that we will never have enough time to fully appreciate? The answer? We are human being. A step beyond, or backward, big apes.

What the pack should say is "I'm stupid." That it's written down on the t-shirt we wear when we buy cigarette. No harm, I see it only when I stumble into a mirror. Is it written backwards, like the word "Ambulance" on the front, so people can read it in their rear view mirrors? MG Exactly.

What the pack should say is "I'm stupid." That it's written down on the t-shirt we wear when we buy cigarette. No harm, I see it only when I stumble into a mirror.

NO!