If you found out one of your favorite DJ's were morally wrong........

[Basecore Boy]

Would you still go out to hear him play music.

Example: he likes child porn, he hates blacks, Jews etc.

[Ken1015]

Are you trying to reword the recent R. Kelly discussion? My answer is no, I'm not giving my money to support someone I find morally reprehensible.

[Basecore Boy]

Funny, because we defend DJ's on this board as if they know them personally. I wouldn't support them.

[Ron la Rock]

"he who is without sin cast the 1st stone"

[Basecore Boy]

Originally posted by Ron paizley:
"he who is without sin cast the 1st stone"That's a good one.

But, I won't support you if you do bad thangs. Sorry. I'm a bible carrying folk too, but I have to take some kind of stance.

[konbit]

No...I wouldn't support them. They would be hypocrites...because most house music is about spreading love. But, it also astouds me that some house fans support war, torture and violence over the love and peace the music teaches us.

[messiah]

Originally posted by konbit:
No...I wouldn't support them. They would be hypocrites...because most house music is about spreading love. But, it also astouds me that some house fans support war, torture and violence over the love and peace the music teaches us.Those type of people don't live the music. I.E., JAMIE LENNOX!!!!!!!!

[Jamie 3:26]

Man,I could care less what someone does in thier private lives.If it came to light,that's another story.There are fakes and phonies everywhere.

You yourself may be perceived as being a fake,a phony or whatever.

It's not a matter of someone else's morals when you ain't right yourself...

[Basecore Boy]

Originally posted by JAMIE 3:26:
Man,I could care less what someone does in thier private lives.If it came to light,that's another story.There are fakes and phonies everywhere.

You yourself may be perceived as being a fake,a phony or whatever.

It's not a matter of someone else's morals when you ain't right yourself...Ok, Jamie. Some people don't mind dancing with the devil. But, It won't be me, even though I may have something about me that I do wrong.

[flypitcher]

to put it another way can art be separated from the artist? good topic.

[Balactus]

i may be doing shit wrong in my life but i sure ain't beatin woman, sexin 16 yo's, or doing anything physically violent against anybody really so if i find out that my favorate dj is doing something like that i don't think i could continue supporting him. just my $.02

w

[Ron la Rock]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ron paizley:
"he who is without sin cast the 1st stone"That's a good one.

But, I won't support you if you do bad thangs. Sorry. I'm a bible carrying folk too, but I have to take some kind of stance.</font>[/QUOTE]I'm no bible totin type cat but come on people
no 1 is perfect. theres a time & place 4 everything
(oh those very phreeaaky thangz& who does not have a lil freak in em?)
I'm not joining the moral marjority here niether
consenting adults can do what ever they like
just
leave the small children (& house pets)alone
its up 2 your own judgement where the line is drawn
a persons work 4 the public is different than a persons private life

its not as simple as black or white

huh boy/ramblin

[Ron la Rock]

Originally posted by flypitcher:
to put it another way can art be separated from the artist? good topic.yes & no

check my reply in the R.kelly thread

[Basecore Boy]

People in the public is different than those private. Wrong is wrong.

[Koffy Brown]

we all fall short in the eyes of you know who

[Ron la Rock]

Originally posted by konbit:
No...I wouldn't support them. They would be hypocrites...because most house music is about spreading love. But, it also astouds me that some house fans support war, torture and violence over the love and peace the music teaches us.please tell me your kidding ?
I'm being honest, nor tryin 2 judge just tell me if your serious or not
? ? ?

[lyot]

Originally posted by konbit:
No...I wouldn't support them. They would be hypocrites...because most house music is about spreading love. But, it also astouds me that some house fans support war, torture and violence over the love and peace the music teaches us.i concurr fully to this statement of yours Konbit..TO ME (!), house is not about war, torture and violence and it's runs against the spirit of what I consider house ..This is my personal opinion, so please abstain from answers about "what house should be"..

peace

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by konbit:
No...I wouldn't support them. They would be hypocrites...because most house music is about spreading love. But, it also astouds me that some house fans support war, torture and violence over the love and peace the music teaches us.Really - so when recordings are bootlegged, producers steal from artists, older "famous" DJs use their influence to take advantage of up and comers, club owners rip off and exploit everyone, rampant drug abuse and overall elitism occurs, that's love as well? Wow!

Hmmm...I guess George H. W. Bush killed the scene like those millions of Middle Easterners.

Whatever. :rolleyes:

[ March 06, 2003, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Bold Soul ]

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by Ashaki:
we all fall short in the eyes of you know whoAl Sharpton?

[konbit]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
No...I wouldn't support them. They would be hypocrites...because most house music is about spreading love. But, it also astouds me that some house fans support war, torture and violence over the love and peace the music teaches us.Really - so when recordings are bootlegged, producers steal from artists, older "famous" DJs use their influence to take advantage of up and comers, rampant drug abuse and overall elitism occurs, that's love as well.

Hmmm...I guess George H. W. Bush killed the scene like those millions of Middle Easterners.

Whatever. :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]Hahaha!! I was really just trying to make a point to Basecore...but i think he missed it.

Would I support a rapist DJ? No. Why? Because I try not to support people who are THAT immoral.

The issues you brought up are a lot blurrier when it comes to morality. Is a bootleg evil? I think not (though I do not buy bootlegs of house artists). Drugs....nope.

I think that if you look at my statements, I'm pretty consistent. Ideologically, I do actually believe in the lyrics and sentiments of house music. And I do find that there is a level of hypocracy between others who claim to, but then support things that are totally contrary to those sentiments.

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by konbit:
Hahaha!! I was really just trying to make a point to Basecore...but i think he missed it. You can add me to that list.


Originally posted by konbit:
Would I support a rapist DJ? No. Why? Because I try not to support people who are THAT immoral.Immoral? Morals are SUBJECTIVE and perceptory in nature. I consider bootlegging immoral. You don't. Who wins?


Originally posted by konbit:
The issues you brought up are a lot blurrier when it comes to morality. Is a bootleg evil? I think not (though I do not buy bootlegs of house artists). Drugs....nope.Again - bootlegging is only a blurry moral issue to BOOTLEGGERS. Human beings blur that which they want blurred in order to free themselves of self-judgement. Read a little Nietzsche or Jung. Or Mother Goose, for that matter.


Originally posted by konbit:
I think that if you look at my statements, I'm pretty consistent. Ideologically, I do actually believe in the lyrics and sentiments of house music. And I do find that there is a level of hypocracy between others who claim to, but then support things that are totally contrary to those sentiments.In this sentence, you indicate a STANDARD based on an ideology that you perceive house music embodies. If that ideology isn't shared, your standard for judgement does not hold up to the arguement.

Again - whatever. :rolleyes: The only consistency I see in your statements are that you don't debate on fair grounds. Perception is onerous and cannot be argued. Only a shared perception based on FACTS and not SUPERLATIVES can be a suitable platform for debate.

12 Grade Rhetoric class was good for something.

[ March 06, 2003, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Bold Soul ]

[surreal]

I wouldn't. http://deephousepage.com/smilies/nono.gif


Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Would you still go out to hear him play music.

Example: he likes child porn, he hates blacks, Jews etc.

[konbit]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
[qbYou can add me to that list.[/qb]The list of those who don't get the p[oint...or the list of those trying to prove a point to Basscore?


Originally posted by Bold Soul:
Immoral? Morals are SUBJECTIVE and perceptory in nature. I consider bootlegging immoral. You don't. Who wins?Yep, they are subjective. I gave you my view...I'm not going to claim some sort of superior system of morality than you.


Originally posted by Bold Soul:
Again - bootlegging is only a blurry moral issue to BOOTLEGGERS. Human beings blur that which they want blurred in order to free themselves of self-judgement. Read a little Nietzsche or Jung. Or Mother Goose, for that matter. Ummm...getting a little combative, eh? First, I am not a bootlegger, and I find bootlegging a living artists' work wrong in most cases. However, if you do a white label rmx of Brandi...I probably don't care, since the artist will prolly end up profiting more (even the major labels have begun to see it this way). But, yes, i agree, that straight up bootlegging of somebody else's work is 100% wrong. That was why it is blurry.


Originally posted by Bold Soul:
In this sentence, you indicate a STANDARD based on an ideology that you perceive house music embodies. If that ideology isn't shared, your standard for judgement does not hold up to the arguement.

Again - whatever. :rolleyes: The only consistency I see in your statements are that you don't debate on fair grounds. Perception is onerous and cannot be argued. Only a shared perception based on FACTS and not SUPERLATIVES can be a suitable platform for debate.

12 Grade Rhetoric class was good for something.I think that the ideals I think house music embodies are pretty clear. i think you are beginning to argue for argument's sake.

Please, elaborate on these unfair grounds. I could easily accuse you of the same. You build up plenty of straw men. And...as much as you love facts, there are plenty of topics that have few facts (morality, for example), but are still worthy of debate. Also, your "word of the day," SUPERLATIVES, is beginning to make you look desperate for a platform.

I made it well past 12th grade.

[konbit]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:

12 Grade Rhetoric class was good for something.Oh...and...attacking my intellgence (with no basis in the FACTS that you so love to accuse others of not knowing), really does not make for good debate, either.

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:

12 Grade Rhetoric class was good for something.Oh...and...attacking my intellgence (with no basis in the FACTS that you so love to accuse others of not knowing), really does not make for good debate, either.</font>[/QUOTE]It on!

I'm not attacking your intelligence. Simply your baseless arguements. If you make ASSERTIONS that don't have any ground in AGREEMENT, how are you to be debated with? It isn't possible - and that is my point. If you are going to run around the board making assertions of right and wrong and character out of your own personal views, seek CONSENSUS prior to admonishing those who don't agree with you.

I'm jumping all over the things you say because you have hit folks who don't agree with you over the head with your soft bat of "morality" in quite a few posts - me included.

I observe no moral base in debates but I do emply what I understand as an ETHICAL base. I don't criticize without presenting an opposing view, I don't carry dialog out of context and I certainly don't extract "morals" out of personal preference in order to point the finger.

Your serve.

[ March 06, 2003, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Bold Soul ]

[konbit]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:

12 Grade Rhetoric class was good for something.Oh...and...attacking my intellgence (with no basis in the FACTS that you so love to accuse others of not knowing), really does not make for good debate, either.</font>[/QUOTE]It on!

I'm not attacking your intelligence. Simply your baseless arguements. If you make ASSERTIONS that don't have any ground in AGREEMENT, how are you to be debated with?

I'm all over the things you say because you have hit folks who don't agree with you over the head with your soft bat of "morality" in quite a few posts - me included.

I observe no moral base in debates but I do emply what I understand as an ETHICAL base. I don't criticize without presenting an opposing view, I don't carry dialog out of context and I certainly don't extract "morals" out of personal preference in order to point the finger.

Your serve.</font>[/QUOTE]You're going to have me at star member status in no time...

First, refering to my education is questioning my intellegence.

Second, I think I gave pretty reasonable answers to all your rebuttles.

Third...please, show me this "soft bat of morality." I do not argue froom a moral position. I argue from a logical position, based on historic facts.

Finally...i don't criticize without presenting an opposing view, I don't carry dialog out of context and I certainly don't extract "morals" out of personal preference in order to point the finger either...what's your point.

Have you visited my solve the cause, not the symptom thread?

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:

12 Grade Rhetoric class was good for something.Oh...and...attacking my intellgence (with no basis in the FACTS that you so love to accuse others of not knowing), really does not make for good debate, either.</font>[/QUOTE]It on!

I'm not attacking your intelligence. Simply your baseless arguements. If you make ASSERTIONS that don't have any ground in AGREEMENT, how are you to be debated with?

I'm all over the things you say because you have hit folks who don't agree with you over the head with your soft bat of "morality" in quite a few posts - me included.

I observe no moral base in debates but I do emply what I understand as an ETHICAL base. I don't criticize without presenting an opposing view, I don't carry dialog out of context and I certainly don't extract "morals" out of personal preference in order to point the finger.

Your serve.</font>[/QUOTE]You're going to have me at star member status in no time...

First, refering to my education is questioning my intellegence.

Second, I think I gave pretty reasonable answers to all your rebuttles.

Third...please, show me this "soft bat of morality." I do not argue froom a moral position. I argue from a logical position, based on historic facts.

Finally...i don't criticize without presenting an opposing view, I don't carry dialog out of context and I certainly don't extract "morals" out of personal preference in order to point the finger either...what's your point.

Have you visited my solve the cause, not the symptom thread?</font>[/QUOTE]First, I was speaking of my own education. Certainly you noticed the use of first person tone.

Secondly, you evoke "morals" throughout your responses in this thread and show a "blur" as you put it in what you think is morally culpable and what isn't. I won't go through the trouble of quoting you, but it was to the tune of DJs who rape or are racists are "bad", but those who bootleg records or use drugs are ok because you don't find those things morally suspect. And this isn't convoluted to a philosophically opinionated person?

Finally, when you make assertions based on morals, as you have in three previous threads (that Bush Sr. is personally responsible for millions of Iraqi deaths, that the US is responsible for tension in the Middle East, etc.), you eliminate all means of fair and balanced debate simply because morality cannot be a platform for discussion among those who do not share the same morals. Perception cannot be argued.

Some of us actually read posts, Konbit.

[konbit]

First...that final paragraph was not in the first person.

Obviously...you are not the reader you think you are. My opinions are not based on morals at all. In fact, you are one of the first people to ever accuse me of being moralistic (I'm a bit flattered, actually). We can digress down a semantics argument if you want...but what you call ethical, I called moral (in this thread).

The "blur" was due to the fact that "bootlegs" is a broad term that covers numerous kinds of releases. Some of these (from my "ethical base") are good, some bad. I didn't want to have to get into a discussion about bootlegs (I'm sure my opinions are documented in the archives. if you are interested).

Furthermore, the opinions that Bush Sr. is personally responsible for millions of Iraqi deaths, that the US is responsible for tension in the Middle East, etc. are not done from a moral position, but from a historic one.

I admit, I was not a history major...but in my study of media theory, we covered numerous historic events from the past situation, in which the US acted contrary to what what most people believe a nation should (and then, paid off the press to misreport it).

Truly, your opinion that i am arguing from a moral platform is laughable. When discussing history and politics, the only morals I know are based on logic.

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by konbit:
First...that final paragraph was not in the first person.

Obviously...you are not the reader you think you are. My opinions are not based on morals at all. In fact, you are one of the first people to ever accuse me of being moralistic (I'm a bit flattered, actually). We can digress down a semantics argument if you want...but what you call ethical, I called moral (in this thread).

The "blur" was due to the fact that "bootlegs" is a broad term that covers numerous kinds of releases. Some of these (from my "ethical base") are good, some bad. I didn't want to have to get into a discussion about bootlegs (I'm sure my opinions are documented in the archives. if you are interested).

Furthermore, the opinions that Bush Sr. is personally responsible for millions of Iraqi deaths, that the US is responsible for tension in the Middle East, etc. are not done from a moral position, but from a historic one.

I admit, I was not a history major...but in my study of media theory, we covered numerous historic events from the past situation, in which the US acted contrary to what what most people believe a nation should (and then, paid off the press to misreport it).

Truly, your opinion that i am arguing from a moral platform is laughable. When discussing history and politics, the only morals I know are based on logic.Gotcha Konbit. You win. I'll back off so you can go back and edit your moral positioning out of your replies. There are quite a few. I'm certain you'll need time.

[lesysteme]

hmm..bold soul you cast the first stone here it seems.

konbit simply stated an opinion..its you that seem to have the problem with it.

like you said morality is subjective...but you seem to say that, then go on to try and define it in some way..

sorry man but you lost on this on..and the 12th grade comment was pretty weak and pretty low.

another question: why is it that those who seem to preach morality get so up in arms when someone disagrees with them.

I personally find it offensive when i hear "moral" leaders getting nicked for adultry and other "sins" that they constantly attack the "sinners" for..the only difference is the fact that their following repentance allows them to get off in some wierd way...i could go on for hours with names....just an observation.

its like when you have to keep telling your partner how much you love them..a break up is around the corner.

[Ron la Rock]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
No...I wouldn't support them. They would be hypocrites...because most house music is about spreading love. But, it also astouds me that some house fans support war, torture and violence over the love and peace the music teaches us.Really - so when recordings are bootlegged, producers steal from artists, older "famous" DJs use their influence to take advantage of up and comers, club owners rip off and exploit everyone, rampant drug abuse and overall elitism occurs, that's love as well? Wow!

Hmmm...I guess George H. W. Bush killed the scene like those millions of Middle Easterners.

Whatever. :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]and the sexxx
whatabout the sexxx

hers some lyrics 4 ya
"work that mother ****er"
"work that body/ move yo body"

or the lyrics 2 sweet pussie paulene

or another little ditty that goes
"drift within
this your body
can you flow with each tissue corridore
let your pump down the long red tunnell"

then all of sudden
"HELP HeLP Let me out of here"
& after another verse and chorus
"bleed 2 death"
the song "outta limits"
by mission control

an erotic fantasy travel through 1s own body blood streams where you control life, breath and die at the
end of the song/track
now i love the song but it didn't make me feel love as it did raw f*k*n lust xxx
& it never gave(and still doesn't) me peace of mind ;)
at least until i got a piece of @@@

smokin.gif
graemlins/cool_shades.gif

remember this is house/ not the lilith fair
(no pun)

[ March 06, 2003, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Ron paizley ]

[konbit]

Hahaha.... relax, man. I really don't think I am coming from any more of a moral position than you...but that's the tricky thing about subjectivity, eh?

This thread is more about morality than any others...but maybe that's because "morally" was in the topic.

[ March 06, 2003, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: konbit ]

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by lesysteme:
hmm..bold soul you cast the first stone here it seems.

konbit simply stated an opinion..its you that seem to have the problem with it.

like you said morality is subjective...but you seem to say that, then go on to try and define it in some way..

sorry man but you lost on this on..and the 12th grade comment was pretty weak and pretty low.

another question: why is it that those who seem to preach morality get so up in arms when someone disagrees with them.

I personally find it offensive when i hear "moral" leaders getting nicked for adultry and other "sins" that they constantly attack the "sinners" for..the only difference is the fact that their following repentance allows them to get off in some wierd way...i could go on for hours with names....just an observation.

its like when you have to keep telling your partner how much you love them..a break up is around the corner.Thanks for that. I really appreciate your comments.

BTW - WHO ASKED YOU ANYTHING? graemlins/scared.gif ;)

My original arguement still stands. That we won't be able to agree at this point in time has been accepted.

And it seems like I threw the first stone because Konbit and I have been dogging each other through three different topics. I'll let it close for me here.

[ March 06, 2003, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Bold Soul ]

[lesysteme]

earth to bold soul:

you have now entered the internet...you are on a messageboard.

everything is up for grabs. what part of this do you not understand?

whats your problem BTW?

youre coming off fairly insecure. no one here is getting riled up except you.

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by konbit:
Hahaha.... relax, man. I really don't think I am coming from any more of a moral position than you...but that's the tricky thing about subjectivity, eh?

This thread is more about morality than any others...but maybe that's because "morally" was in the topic.It's cool. BTW - Maybe I didn't finesse my 12 Grade rhetoric comment enough, but it was meant to be in the first person.

My ONLY point in all of this is that it is equally as important to be well informed and skeptical when interested in non-violence as it is when one supports military action. I am seeing WAAAAYYY too much misinformation and lack of judicious thinking on the "peace" side for it to help anyone's cause. All the scholars support war, all the ACTORS support peace (and this is coming from an entertainer).

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by lesysteme:
earth to bold soul:

you have now entered the internet...you are on a messageboard.

everything is up for grabs. what part of this do you not understand?

whats your problem BTW?

youre coming off fairly insecure. no one here is getting riled up except you.Man - I thought it was time to lighten up. You didn't notice my smilie, huh?

Just joking, bro/sis. Just easing the tension...

breathe in...breathe out...ahhhhh...

[lesysteme]

i have seen very few scholars that support this war.

alot of them from quite "unmoral" postitions.

Mostly many of them are saying from a timing and tactical point of view, this is not the right time to attack Iraq, due to lack of an appropiate resolution giving the green light to war under international law and also from a postion of an opinion saying that the was will cast the region into crisis..especially if Iraq attacks Isreal.

There are "scholars" sure that support, but that seems to be a bit of a gross generalization if you have been following developments since UN res 1441 was passed 15-0 in nov.

[And]

Eeeek!

[Walter M. Jones]

There are people that think stealing is wrong. I stole a pack of cigs from a grocery store when I was 16. There are people that think looking at naked women is wrong. I love looking at naked women(if they are over 18,of course). If you want,you can take away my citizenship to the House Nation. If I like the music,I will buy it. I don't care what sick problems these guys(or girls) have. They need to work this out with their maker and their shrink. Of course I think anyone that gets off on little kids sexually should be hung by their nutsack and doused with lighter fluid and set on fire if they don't want to get help for their mental condition,I don't care who you are! Disrespect of races is not tolerated by me,again,I don't care who you are. It is a human struggle. There we go boycotting this and boycotting that again on this board. Is there nothing left to support? To much "anti" and not enough "pro". I hope I don't get anyone on this board on a jury if I was on trial for some crime I didn't commit. Too many people quick to judge someone and then stone them before they find out the circumstances behind the charges that were brought up. Have we learned nothing from history? I surely wouldn't let R Kelly or Rob Lowe to be alone with my 16 year old daughter,but ask yourself this hypothetical question: If it was you that was caught in that position that the two men mentioned above were caught in(and there is no cure for the mental sickness),wouldn't you want to get some help? Is the "House" or peaceful thing to do is to help them or to spit on them? I was brought up to help your fellow man or woman and love your enemies. If we want to stop the war abroad,we must stop the war with us here locally and within ourselves. No more hate. Only Love will save the day! Peace.

[AD]

Originally posted by Basecore Boy:
Would you still go out to hear him play music.

Example: he likes child porn, he hates blacks, Jews etc.In one word--NO!

[Martin Red]

Originally posted by willdabeast:
...sexin 16 yo's,

wwhich is legal in the UK

[Martin Red]

I wouldn't be keen on listening to a kiddy fiddler, but it hasn't happened so far.

I suppose if you don't want to hear morally wrong DJ's that would go across the board then

Artists
Ike ?

Sports people
the list is endless

[AD]

Originally posted by Martin Red:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by willdabeast:
...sexin 16 yo's,

wwhich is legal in the UK</font>[/QUOTE]Even worse, it's 12+ in Tokyo, Japan. Now that's not cool. graemlins/jpshakehead.gif

[Dj Alex]

Originally posted by Ron paizley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bold Soul:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by konbit:
No...I wouldn't support them. They would be hypocrites...because most house music is about spreading love. But, it also astouds me that some house fans support war, torture and violence over the love and peace the music teaches us.Really - so when recordings are bootlegged, producers steal from artists, older "famous" DJs use their influence to take advantage of up and comers, club owners rip off and exploit everyone, rampant drug abuse and overall elitism occurs, that's love as well? Wow!

Hmmm...I guess George H. W. Bush killed the scene like those millions of Middle Easterners.

Whatever. :rolleyes: </font>[/QUOTE]and the sexxx
whatabout the sexxx

hers some lyrics 4 ya
"work that mother ****er"
"work that body/ move yo body"

or the lyrics 2 sweet pussie paulene

or another little ditty that goes
"drift within
this your body
can you flow with each tissue corridore
let your pump down the long red tunnell"

then all of sudden
"HELP HeLP Let me out of here"
& after another verse and chorus
"bleed 2 death"
the song "outta limits"
by mission control

an erotic fantasy travel through 1s own body blood streams where you control life, breath and die at the
end of the song/track
now i love the song but it didn't make me feel love as it did raw f*k*n lust xxx
& it never gave(and still doesn't) me peace of mind ;)
at least until i got a piece of @@@

smokin.gif
graemlins/cool_shades.gif

remember this is house/ not the lilith fair
(no pun)</font>[/QUOTE]Ron keepin it real in the BK word up sir...
ha ha... graemlins/rofl.gif

Slam me baby and you know what you have to do just pump that's right... .

Peace to you and yours Alex

[the 18th letter]

Originally posted by Albert D.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Martin Red:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by willdabeast:
...sexin 16 yo's,

wwhich is legal in the UK</font>[/QUOTE]Even worse, it's 12+ in Tokyo, Japan. Now that's not cool. graemlins/jpshakehead.gif </font>[/QUOTE]Send him to Tokyo or the UK. Problem solved. Unless he is only attracted to young black girls, he should be good to go.
But on a serious note, I never really got into R. Kelly's music enough to want to purchase any. He makes good radio catchy tunes, but dat about it!!

[the crackhouse]

Danny, with all my respect, you're right on what you're saying, but become a lil' bit annoying in always pointing people and tell us what is to be said and not to be said.
It's hard to change someone's opinion, point of view and thinking manners.
Be careful as I think you look like a school teacher who always correct people.
The clever things you said are drown in all the interruptions you made over people.

But please don't fake anything ;) , just my friendly opinion, you are loosing your subtile diplomacy IMO, be yourself, but be careful to say things without being rude or interrupt to hardly.

Peace
And please continue !

[the 18th letter]

Originally posted by rammeh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Albert D.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Martin Red:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by willdabeast:
...sexin 16 yo's,

wwhich is legal in the UK</font>[/QUOTE]Even worse, it's 12+ in Tokyo, Japan. Now that's not cool. graemlins/jpshakehead.gif </font>[/QUOTE]Send him to Tokyo or the UK. Problem solved. Unless he is only attracted to young black girls, he should be good to go.
But on a serious note, I never really got into R. Kelly's music enough to want to purchase any. He makes good radio catchy tunes, but dat about it!! As far as one of my favorite DJ's being morally wrong would I stop supporting them? It really depends on what they do. My favorite DJ with a 12yo chick in the booth with him or her, feeling on her booty? That's not gonna fly. </font>[/QUOTE]

[Byron Long]

dOES THIS INCLUDE STILL LISTENING TO MICHAEL JACKSON ?

[Martin Red]

Originally posted by Dean:
dOES THIS INCLUDE STILL LISTENING TO MICHAEL JACKSON ?That's the 10 squilllion $ question ?

I suppose it'll be the media yada yada or I am only worried about his music....yada yada yada !

[ March 07, 2003, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: Martin Red ]

[Martin Red]

Originally posted by rammeh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rammeh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Albert D.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Martin Red:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by willdabeast:
...sexin 16 yo's,

wwhich is legal in the UK</font>[/QUOTE]Even worse, it's 12+ in Tokyo, Japan. Now that's not cool. graemlins/jpshakehead.gif </font>[/QUOTE]Send him to Tokyo or the UK. Problem solved. Unless he is only attracted to young black girls, he should be good to go.
But on a serious note, I never really got into R. Kelly's music enough to want to purchase any. He makes good radio catchy tunes, but dat about it!! As far as one of my favorite DJ's being morally wrong would I stop supporting them? It really depends on what they do. My favorite DJ with a 12yo chick in the booth with him or her, feeling on her booty? That's not gonna fly. </font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]Hey there's black girls here too ya know.

12 years old WTF! , do they go through pubity at 5 or something ?

[the 18th letter]

Originally posted by Dean:
dOES THIS INCLUDE STILL LISTENING TO MICHAEL JACKSON ?I would not buy Jacko's music if he was on the CD cover feeling on a 12yo old's booty.

[Koffy Brown]

Originally posted by Bold Soul:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ashaki:
we all fall short in the eyes of you know whoAl Sharpton?</font>[/QUOTE]nope Gary Coleman :D