I guess we’re living in alternate universes because I seem to have missed the part where Pavarotti ruined his voice and Corelli didn’t. Also, how about you actually look at other videos before just throwing out uneducated opinions. This video clearly shows Pav not using a mic and not having any trouble. You should also watch some of the staged operas he was in where he is by far the loudest one (and yes these do include verdi operas like aida). I will give you that Pavarotti and Corelli have very different voices the first being more lyric and the latter being dramatic, but that by no means puts pav in the crap category. The video you have posted is of Pav in a huge theatre, and it was probably televised, and he’s also 60 something! Lets go have a listen to corelli’s incredible voice that didn’t deteriorate shall we?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2tSmDCMVsg&feature=related

Both had great voices and both did what they did very well, but lets face it, Corelli’s voice went first. You don’t hear Pavs drop off until he’s 70 with cancer. Corelli had a very powerful voice yes, but I think you’re greatly underestimating just how big Pavs was and you owe it to yourself to check it out.

“Why yes, Unitarian Universalists really do go to seminary. We even have seminaries.”

Fair enough. I can carry that weight. My comment was flippant so that’s a fair criticism.

“yet instead of sitting with it in discernment, you take the time to write a blog post to question Ms. Mills’ motives”

Well, in a word, yes. That’s how the whole blog thing works, you see. I read a post or see a bit of information, have a reaction to it, scribble something down on my blog and open comments, return later and decide what was good and what I can’t use.

I’m rather confused by your stance here. Are you suggesting that the only time to commit one’s thoughts to any media is when one is sufficiently “discerning”? I’ve never maintained that my blog is anything other than a free writing, stream of consciousness exercise, which, I’m sure you’ll see, rather flies in the face of discernment.

Was my reaction right? I don’t know, but certainly from the reaction to my reaction I am beginning to think I’m on to something and that Unitarians, while perhaps noble in goals, are capable of the most astounding acts of self-righteous, reactionary straw man argumentation with an utter lack of introspection.

“while taking a snarky swipe at another religious tradition which, while perhaps not your cup of tea, has done you no wrong”

Well, now, A) apologized for it and B) that’s an interesting phrase, ‘done you no wrong’. Concepts rarely “do wrong” to people, that requires people acting on those concepts. Hence, to say that the concept of Unitarianism, or even religion in general has “done me no wrong” is as meaningles as saying “what has Unitarianism done for me lately?”

Concepts don’t take action, but can be discussed and critiqued, to better and lesser effect. I’ll admit I’m puzzled by the relationship of an institution designed to teach creeds to a religion that espouses no creed, but I’m certainly willing to be edified. But to suggest that I can’t express that puzzlement simply because a concept has “done me no wrong” suggests a level of evangelical zealotry that is troubling in the extreme.

“Is this how you search for meaning, QuakerJono?”

Well, again, yes, it is. In much the same way that Leslie tried to make sense of her experience, emotions and such, so do I. Is every post I make a textbook example of perfect rhetoric and reason? Of course not, but I didn’t realize the bar was so high to have an honest response and a desire to put it on paper (or pixels) and evaluate it.

So you recognize that it was morally right to protest the law, and you concede that there was no rational basis for your “odd dislike,” yet instead of sitting with it in discernment, you take the time to write a blog post to question Ms. Mills’ motives, while taking a snarky swipe at another religious tradition which, while perhaps not your cup of tea, has done you no wrong. Is this how you search for meaning, QuakerJono?

And, for the record, I’ve never understand what the big deal about cunt was, anyway. People can be dicks, cocks, pussies, assholes, and buckets of monkey cum, but dare to drop the C-bomb and for no discernible reason people start acting like you just shouted, “You know who had the right idea? Hitler!” What, exactly, is the deal with this word? Is being likened to female genitalia really all that offensive?

So I guess the reason I use it, is because it fascinates me to see how much power people give it. And thank you for providing me another data point.

Peace,
Amy

I have to tell you that while you may be offended, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with you painting a bit of poetic license as generally offensive. While QuakerJono may sometimes throw caution to the wind and pick the clever, funny way to say something rather than the tasteful, there is a specific genesis to this particular phrasing that alludes to the commonly used “gave birth to legislation” phrasing.

My vagina and I applaud QJ here. Thank you, kegels.

T

PS–Hey Leslie of the “gentle reminder” who then goes on to personally attack QJ by making the assumption that “loving actions are so foreign to you that your initial response is one of irritation”: Hi Pot! I’ve missed you so. I’m sure Kettle is overjoyed to see that you’ve returned. Ah hell, QJ doesn’t even make a good kettle. He made sure to state that these were his impressions. He didn’t say that you were loveless or holier-than-thou…just that it seemed like your post put your plight above that for which you were admirably (a word he used but which with I agree) fighting. He commented on your post. You chose to attack him personally. That was a bit lame on your part. Take a deep breath, step back, strike this down as a momentary mishap, and fight the good fight.