Conference quark::mennotes-v1

Six months from now, we'll all be saying "Oh yeah, wonder what ever happened
to him?"  I can't comment directly on Clay, never having seen or heard his
act directly; all I know about it is what I read in the papers and magazines.
There doesn't seem to be anything there that would interest me, though.
Steven Wright and Robin Williams (most of the time) are more my style of comics.

			Steve

    I watched Larry King interview A.D.C. the other night.  I have never
    seen or heard his act, but the audience was calling in to ask him
    questions.  One woman stated that she disliked his act and the way he
    puts down women, but she wondered if that was just his act/show or is
    he really like that.  And his reply was "I have a girlfriend who I care
    a lot about, and I truly like and respect women, but my show is just an
    act, it's part of my show".
    
    I really have no opinion as yet, since I've never seen his
    show, but I bet he's laughing all the way to the bank!
    
    -Dotti.

    
    ADC was a semi-talented stand-up comic who realized that:
     
    	controversy = attention
        attention = publicity
        publicity = interest
        interest = $money$
    
    Lots of "entertainers" (mostly mediocre ones) have to resort to being
    controversial for their careers to go anywhere, especially in the very
    competitive (or overcrowded) fields like stand-up comedy.
    
    Take, for instance, 2-live-crew and their porno-(c)rap. And anybody
    remember The Sex Pistols? Like mentioned earlier, these kind of people
    usually end up in the whatever-happened-to category simply because
    their material becomes repetitive and boring.
    
    It's too bad, because I think ADC's earlier (non-sexist) humor made
    him a pretty-good comic. I don't care for his current stuff, its not 
    funny, its just rude.
    
    					-Steve

    Did you know that Andrew Dice Clay is nothing like the character he
    pretends to be. I watched him on Aresnio Hall, and Entertainment
    tonight. His real name is Andrew Clay Silverstein. He said that he (as
    a person) would never hang around with the "DICE MAN". He got real
    choked up on Aresnio. He is very sensitive. He is a normal person,
    except for when he goes to work. I like a lot of his material, although
    some of it is really distasteful and needs work.
    
    all in all I'd rate him a 7.5 - 8.
    
    He's not that bad...
    
    I've seen alot of his acts...
    
    /sandi
    

    
    He reminds me of Don Rickles when he was 'discovered' after being
    in the business for many years.
    
    Unless he can change his style, he won't be around for too long
    because people get bored with the same jokes day after day.
    
    Roger

    Although I don''t really care for much of his humor (not my style), it
    bothers me that those women on SNL boycotted his show.  The employee of
    SNL should be fired for not performing when Dice was on.  I' sure she's
    never done anything at the expense of men in her routines. (yeah right)
    
    
    Mike

    
    	RE: .7  Mike W.
    
    	So, Dice should have the right to free speech, but the women
    	who boycotted him shouldn't have the same right?
    

    RE: .7 Mike, from what I heard Nora Dunn's contract is not being
    renewed with SNL. 
    
    RE: .8 Suzanne - the women who boycotted him aren't being denied free 
    speech, they broke a contract to perform. 
    
    Let 'em pay the price.
    
    Paul C.

    
    	RE: .9  Paul
    
    	From what I heard, SNL's producer backed Nora Dunn's right to
    	protest in this particular way.
    

    
    	Then again, ADC has been banned from MTV for life and has been made
    	to suffer in enough other ways to elicit tears from him on the
    	Arsenio Hall show.
    
    	But, it's all been his choice, too, so I suppose he deserves this
    	sort of hassle, too.
    

    
    	... and tears on national television over what people are saying
    	about him.
    

    
    	On second thought, never mind.
    
    	If ADC is making good money, anything he does can be justified (even
    	if makes him cry to think about it.)
    

    Suzanne, so now you're saying it's not okay for a guy to show emotions? 
    If they want to boycott him, then they don't go to his shows.  If they
    chose to not go to work, then they get canned.  I've seen many female
    comedy performers make fun of men, and it didn't bother me.  It doesn't
    bother me that Dice makes jokes at the expense of women.  Would it bother 
    you to hear a woman comedy performer take shots at men?
    
    
     Mike

    RE: A few back, Nora Dunn, etc


    If you saw ADC's act on the MTV sponsored awards show, you might 
recall he signed a contract stating that he would play a clean act that 
night....and then turned around and did a raunchy, vulgar act (IMHO) . I 
was taping the show for my 14 year old daughter.....I cut him out of the 
tape. (And explained to her why I had done it.....she had no complaints)

Why should Nora Dunn suffer for her (higher) standards? At least MTV had 
the courage to tell him he will never play for them again....he suffered by 
his own reniging on the contract. Nora Dunn at least told them ahead of 
time that she would not do it.....And by the way, I am not sure SNL didn't 
WANT her to make a fuss....it helped the ratings, I am sure.

His material is repetative and distasteful if you value people around you. 
If you enjoy this stuff, that is fine, go to a club and listen to him, but 
don't give him national exposure carte blanche, he does not deserve or need 
it.He most likely will disappear in time, but he plays to a crowd that 
seems to like his stuff and believe his lines, and that is what is really 
scary, he could be a fake on stage, but his audience really feels that way 
about others.....would you want him saying some of that stuff about your 
wife or young daughter? I wouldn't.....send him back to the sewer to play 
or tell him to clean up his act.....

    Vic H

    
    I really don't know how someone can claim that ADC's audience
    really feels that way about others. 
    He's a comic, an outrageous comic, nothing more. At least he wasn't
    anything more until some started protesting, urging boycotts,
    and some refused to work with him. 
    
    As is expected, all of this backfired and he's now more famous
    than ever. And I'm glad. We've seen enough politically correct
    sanitization of our speech in normal everyday living. To apply
    it to a comic, engaged in an on-stage persona is absurd.

    I KNEW he was a sweetheart underneath!  I'm sorry I missed him on
    Arsenio Hall.  I was in tears myself when I first saw "The Diceman
    Cometh" a year or so ago.  I suspected he was really a teddy bear
    even then.  I read his interview in Vanity Fair and saw Ford
    Fairlane and now I'm absolutely entranced with the guy.  But then I
    like that Italian-New-York-macho shtick anyway!  (Though I didn't
    like Fonzie one bit - the whole show was too goody-goody for me.)
    
    He calls his honey Trini Bennini, (I forget her real name).  He doesn't
    drink, do drugs, nor is he into harming animals!  ;-)  He strikes me as
    warm, loving and fiercely loyal, (just me projecting those Italian
    qualities onto him?), with a glint in his eye and a genuine streak of 
    bad boy which he expresses only in safe, (and lucrative), ways.  I'd 
    wager that even he's a little surprised and saddened that people 
    actually love this kind of humor.  Willing to oblige, mind you, but
    surprised!  :>
    
    I think his cynicism is no worse than that inherent the Simpson's,
    or Married With Children and his shock approach no worse than Lenny 
    Bruce, Sam Kinison, Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor.  His nursery 
    rhymes bore me sometimes, but his stories are priceless!  I'd love to
    meet and hang out with him.  I'm sure it'd be a laugh a minute.
    
    For the record, I was quoting the "bank line" jokes to my mother last
    night, (she's never seen him at all anywhere), and she was laughing
    pretty good, too!  The man's absurd and outrageous.  I love 'im!

    
    Bad tangent...
    
    Personally, my favorite stand-up comic is Jerry Seinfeld.
    I especially like his routine on men wanting women.
    
    							Hank

    
    Exactly Z...I mean Kits has the most outrageous collection of blood
    and guts horror flicks you've ever seen.Does this make her
    a knife wielding axe carrying butcher???
            
    Although this could explain the axe marks in m head...:-)
    
         
    

    
    	RE: .17  Mike Z.
    
    	> Please do not speak for me, I can do that all by myself.
    
    	No one did that.
    
    	What I commented on was "Our society's wonderful value system,"
    	not yours.
    

    	RE: .18  Mike W.

    	> Suzanne, so now you're saying it's not okay for a guy to show 
    	> emotions? 
    
    	Now, *this* is what it looks like when someone puts words in
    	another person's mouth.  (Don't do it again, ok?)

    	Dice is obviously not as gleeful about the reactions people are
    	having to him as some of his supporters are (else he probably
    	wouldn't have cried about it on national television.)

    	> If they want to boycott him, then they don't go to his shows.  If 
    	> they chose to not go to work, then they get canned.  

    	If he's free to make the kinds of statements he makes (and he *is*
    	free to do that,) then others are free to make statements against
    	it (which they are free to do as well.)

    	SNL did not publicly censure Nora Dunn for her stand in the matter.
    	In fact, the producers of SNL said they supported her.

    	RE: .20  Hank

    	> As is expected, all of this backfired and he's now more famous
    	> than ever. And I'm glad. 

    	Well, I'd hate to ruin this for you, but nothing backfired.

    	Ok, so the guy is rich and famous.  I doubt that very many people
    	who don't care for his humor would rather see him dead or in the
    	poorhouse.  (I certainly wouldn't.)

    	In fact, I think he probably has a lot of talent.  If so, then
    	he will last in the public eye.  If not, the sensationalism of
    	his act won't be enough to carry him.  (Personally, I think it
    	would be a smart move to cash in on his fame and change his act
    	now so that he can apply for a bigger variety of movie roles.
    	If he doesn't show that he can do more than the Dice man, his
    	movie career will be shot.)

    	> We've seen enough politically correct sanitization of our speech 
    	> in normal everyday living. To apply it to a comic, engaged in an 
    	> on-stage persona is absurd.

    	If people don't like what he says, they're free to speak up about
    	it (as some have.)  It's part of our freedom, even if it doesn't
    	happen to be politically_correct among the politically_incorrect
    	_crowd.

    	RE: .22  Sandy
    
    	> I KNEW he was a sweetheart underneath!  
    
    	His character in "Casual Sex" (another good example of the Dice
    	Man persona) was great for this very reason.  He had a good heart.
    
    	I really do think it's possible that he has talent, so I'm very
    	curious to see where he goes from here.  I wish him well.
    
    	P.S.  Heard on Headline News (Cable) just now that Dice is giving
    	up his "leather-studded standup career" for the movies.  He said
    	he isn't upset that the movie made about his concert (Carnegie
    	Hall or somewhere) won't be released.  He said that he's just
    	happy to be able to say he played there.
    
    	Sounds like Andrew Dice Clay *does* have good business sense!!

    RE: (Don't do it again-ok?)
    
    I'll continue to present my interpretations as I wish regardless of
    your orders-ok?
    
    I also noticed how you failed to respond to my question regarding your
    thoughts on women performers who cut down and abuse men in their
    routines.  Be careful how you respond to this as it might contradict
    what you have previously written.
    
    Mike

    RE-Jerry Seinfeld-Is that the guy who looks somewhat psychotic and
    stresses the punchlines with his face and voice?  If so, he's a riot.
    
    Mike

    	RE: .29  Mike W.

    	> RE: (Don't do it again-ok?)
    
    	> I'll continue to present my interpretations as I wish regardless of
    	> your orders-ok?
    
    	Orders don't usually end with a question mark.  (Example:  Ever
    	heard a drill sergeant say, "Do 200 pushups now, ok?")  ;^)

    	> I also noticed how you failed to respond to my question regarding 
    	> your thoughts on women performers who cut down and abuse men in 
    	> their routines.  

    	You're right.  Sorry.

    	You asked if I would be bothered by women performers who cut down
    	and abuse men in their routines.

    	First off, I've heard Andrew Dice Clay, and I don't recall ever
    	stating in notes that I was "bothered" by his material.  I've
    	commented on the publicity he's received for it and the reaction
    	to the women who boycotted Saturday Night Live, but I don't
    	believe I've ever stated that I'm bothered by what he does.

    	To be honest, when I first heard his routine (on his Diceman
    	Cometh before he got so famous because of the Saturday Night
    	Live boycott,) I barely took notice.  When I saw him later
    	in two movies ("Casual Sex" and "Amazon Women on the Moon,")
    	I didn't remember who he was.  I only found out he was in
    	"Amazon Women on the Moon" a few days ago, and I've seen
    	that movie 5 or 6 times.

    	When the whole controversy started with SNL, I had to think
    	back hard to remember what his routine was like (until I
    	had a chance to see him again.)

    	If I'd been seriously bothered, I think the memories would
    	have been a bit more easy to recall.  ;^)

    	As for women performers who do Dice's act in reverse, I've
    	never heard one.  (Yes, I've heard women who talk about sex
    	in their acts, but not the way he does.)

    	I saw an excerpt from a show by a woman who has "women-only"
    	audiences, and the main thing I noticed about her show was
    	that it had a great deal of audience participation.  My
    	impression was that the show was women-only as a way to make
    	the audience open up (and that they were funnier themselves
    	when they talked about their lives without men being present.)

    	If the woman performer had shown an act that constitutes the
    	reverse of Dice, I imagine I would have had the same reaction
    	that I had to Dice.  

    Another one starts out:
    
    "What's the first thing I look for in a man?" 
    
    " Cash!"
    
    pretty healthy attitude, wouldn't you say?
    
                                                      

    
    re: .33
    
    I think thats a line from a skit called Andrea Dice Clay, a parody
    of ADC done on In Living Color. 
    
    				-St

    The difference between these women who make jokes about men(and even
    other men who make jokes about women) and ADC is that these jokes are
    included in their act - these jokes are not the whole act itself, as
    with ADC.  Andy makes this his whole act to generate attention,
    publicity, $, etc.  This is not how the other performers work, which is
    evident in the fact that no one can remember the names of these women
    comics who do a "reverse ADC."  They will gain recognition through
    their talent alone, and will last much longer than the Diceman.

    If you like him....WATCH HIM!!!
    
    If you don't like him...DON'T WATCH.....but stop the
    complaining....he's a comic....he plays a part that is both funny, and
    lucrative to his being.....
    
    And you all know something else....I bet he doesn't give 2 sh*ts what
    anyone thinks of him....he's laughing all the way to the bank!!!
    
    IMO...I like him...he says all the "little kid" thoughts that we all
    think and don't have the guts to say.....
    
    JayCee
    

    	RE: .37  Jaycee

    	> ...but stop the complaining....

    	Who's complaining?  People are discussing ADC, which every one of
    	us has the right to do.

    	> And you all know something else....I bet he doesn't give 2 sh*ts what
    	> anyone thinks of him....he's laughing all the way to the bank!!!
    
    	He cried on national television while discussing how he feels about
    	reactions to his act.  

    	Further, his act is history.  It was announced on the news last
    	week that he has given up stand-up comedy for a movie career.

    	In my opinion, it's a very wise choice.  Now that he's famous,
    	he'll sink or swim on the merits of his talents.  We'll see how
    	he does in the next 5 years or so.

    
    A.D.C. tells it like it is.  It's his act and he is out for the money.
    
    If nora Dumm and skinhead o'whats-her-name don't want to work with him
    it's because he is a tough act to follow.  "well, I'll protest him and 
    everybody will know who I am". HA.  She's getting a lot of publicity of
    of not working and it's because of him.  
    
    When he *cried* on ARSEnio's show, I laughed so hard.  If you think
    that was for real, you must have voted for Ronnie, twice....
    
    Jimmy Swaggart does a better crying job than that... Now there's real
    comedy..
    

    I happen to think that 95% of ADC's material is truly funny, like,
    a laugh riot!  The first movie I saw him in was "Making the Grade"
    with Judd Nelson, and I've enjoyed him ever since.
    
    If he's giving up Stand-up, personally I'm deeply sadened.  I'll
    miss all of the nursery rymes, and all the great cracks on women!
    (By the way, I'm a woman, and confident enough not to get bent out
    of shape about some guys material.  I take it for what it's worth
    and enjoy it for the laughs it gives me.)
    
    In my opinion this has been one of the most interesting conferences!
    
    THE DICE MAN LIVES!!
    
    Kelly

    RE: .40  Kelly, I'm glad to see there's still some people left
             out there who can take a joke for what it is, a joke.
    
    
    And now, back to the nursery rhymes :-)                       
    Paul C.

>    RE: .40  Kelly, I'm glad to see there's still some people left
>             out there who can take a joke for what it is, a joke.

I love the way people cut jokes and comedians so much more slack than 
the rest of us get.  If it's funny, harassment, degradation, and 
misinformation are "okay."  

If I wanted to take over the world, I think I would do it through
comedy.  Nobody would be watching me, ethics are thrown out the
window, the audience's guards would be down, and anything goes. 

Interesting....

							--Gerry    

    
    RE: .42 
    > "It's only a joke" to those who are not affected	
    
    Gerry, how is it that *some* women can find ADC funny when he
    talks about women in his monologues ???
    
    
    Re; cutting comedians more slack...and why not, they are after all
    comedians...it's not as if these peolpe are running for Congress,
    Governor or Mayor. If it can make you laugh, fine...If not, isn't 
    just tuning him out an option ??? 
    
    Paul C.

If nobody thought Clay was funny, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Clearly a lot of people do.  THAT'S something one might be concerned about.

Rather than get upset at Clay's act, ask why he's so popular.  My theory would
be in part that many men (and not a few women) are afraid of women, and Clay
expresses the aggression toward women that they are afraid to express
themselves.  But this is the basis for the appeal for a lot of different forms
of humor.  It's used as a defense mechanism.

				Steve

    	It always strikes me as strange when people decide that there is
    	only one valid opinion of true humor - their own.  "Sense of humor"
    	is defined as laughing at whatever they laugh at, no more no less.
    
    	If this were true, comedy would be an exact science and standup
    	comics wouldn't have to test their material - they'd know
    	instantly whether it was funny or not by whether *they* thought
    	it was funny.  Audiences would have no choice but to agree or
    	to have the comic yell at them for not having senses of humor.

    	As to whether or not ADC's material is true - most comedy is based
    	on an exaggeration of a "thread" of truth (which amounts to some
    	kind of stereotype, in most cases.)  Even "true" humorous stories
    	usually consist of events that are somewhat out of the ordinary
    	- that's what makes them funny or cute.

    	Using sexism and racism as a way to get laughs definitely works
    	in our culture, for a number of reasons.  Not everyone finds this
    	sort of humor so amusing, though, and it isn't just a matter of
    	being the target of the jokes.

    	For instance, I'm not gay, but I don't care for derogatory jokes
    	about homosexuals, nor would I laugh hysterically if someone made
    	jokes about the Holocaust (and I'm not Jewish, either.)

    	A radio DJ was fired some years ago for playing "Happy Birthday"
    	on the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima - it was meant to
    	be a joke.  I'm sure he thought it was funny and that a number
    	of listeners laughed, but I'm sure that many others were appalled
    	at the lack of taste involved to joke about something like that.

    	I asked my teenaged son what he thought of ADC, and he said that
    	he laughed once or twice, but that most of Dice's humor was 
    	pretty tasteless (in his opinion.)  He thinks ADC's act is boring.

    	At any rate, the standup act is history now - Dice is as smart as
    	I thought he might be, and is taking his fame and running with
    	it (with more movies.)  

    	At this point, he'd be crazy to keep up the controversial stuff
    	when there is so much more money to be made in movies - and let's
    	face it, his only prayer of making it big in films is to show that
    	he can do more than one character.

    	All the more power to him - one way or another, he is bound to be
    	extremely wealthy (while most of the people rejoicing at his former
    	comedy act are enjoying his success vicariously.)

    
    	By the way, if Holocaust survivors were offended by jokes against
    	those who were sent to death camps, would this be indicative of a
    	lack of confidence in themselves?
    
    	Not in my opinion.
    

    Controversy can get a performer (ADC and 2 Live Crew for example)
    more publicity (*free* publicity) than any other means. If some
    backwater sheriff and judge hadn't decided to go after 2 Live Crew, 
    how many people in this country would have ever heard of them ???
    Not as many as know of them today, I guarantee. Same for the Diceman.
    
    Paul C.  

    I feel sorry for people who cannot laugh at themselves as a person or
    as a stereotyped group.
    
    
    Mike

    re:  .48
    
    Hooray!  I totally agree with Mike.
    
    
    -Dotti.

    
    	RE: .48  Mike W.
    
    	Well, I feel sorry for people who demand that others laugh when
    	they laugh (threatening to ridicule or demean those who refuse.)
    
    	Would you laugh on demand because someone threatened to think
    	poorly of you if you had the gall to decide for yourself what's
    	funny and what isn't?
    

    
    	Tangent, but where else will this go?
    
    	I heard that last nigth at the San Diego Padres game
    they played a rendition of the National Anthem by 
    Roseann Barr that was alleged to be gross, insulting, etc.
    Does anyone know any more about this?
    
    Oh yeah, Mike W. Well put, I agree.
    
    								Hank

    
    	If the logic of some of these notes is true, it won't be long
    	before we *do* see a comic stand up before a crowd of people
    	to tell them that they should be pitied for not laughing at
    	the comic's routine.
    
    	(Come to think of it, I *have* seen a routine where the comic
    	brought a bodyguard on stage who strongly urged the audience
    	to laugh louder and give a standing ovation - to avoid risking
    	the wrath of the comic.  It was very funny - but only because
    	it wasn't real.)
    
    	Now, I think perhaps the comic was prophetic.
    

    Hank (I think), yes I heard it this am driving in.  Kiss 108 FM played
    it from start to finish.. making fun (well deserved mind you) of her
    "singing voice" throughout the whole thing...
    
    
    My opinion;
    
    Although it was indeed somewhat humorous, I felt somewhat sorry that
    such a beautiful song was being hacked to smitherines by a person that
    obviously couldnt sing...
    
    It was horrible......

    
    	RE: Roseanne Barr's song
    
    	Gee, since it was meant to be humorous, then I guess anyone who
    	doesn't find it funny must not have a sense of humor, eh?
    
    	Further, I guess we should pity Americans who can't laugh at
    	themselves as a people or as a stereotyped group, right?
    

    	RE: .57  Mike Z.

    	> Suzanne correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be making fun
    	> of others when they assume the same position as you (unable to laugh
    	> at themselves or stereotypes).

	> What gives?

    	No, no, Mike.  You're wrong about my position in this, *and* you're
    	wrong about what I was trying to show in my note.

    	First off, whether or not someone laughs at Andrew Dice Clay is
    	not proof of anyone's ability to laugh at oneself or stereotypes.
    	Humor is not an exact science.  What one person thinks is funny
    	may be boring as hell or downright idiotic to someone else.

    	It makes no sense to make demeaning remarks about anyone for not
    	finding a particular comic or situation funny, in other words.

    	As an example, if Dan Quayle were to be hit by a truck, some people
    	might find it very humorous indeed.  They might even laugh out loud at
    	the scene of his accident.  If Dan failed to laugh, would it be 
    	valid to say that he is unable to laugh at himself or at stereotypes?  
    	Should he feel obligated to laugh to prove that he has a sense of 
    	humor?  (What if he didn't happen to think the situation was funny?  
    	Would it be valid for others to insist that his failure to laugh means 
    	something terrible about his character?)

    	If, perhaps, Dan *would* laugh at his own accident, think of
    	something that you wouldn't find funny.  For example, what if
    	ADC were assassinated.  Would you laugh?  What if others told you
    	that your lack of laughter was proof that you have no sense of
    	humor?  (Do you see what I mean?)

    	Not everything is funny to everyone.

    	In my note regarding Roseanne, my point was that it makes as much
    	sense to demand that people laugh at Roseanne's song as it does to
    	demand that people laugh at ADC's comedy routine.  If people can
    	be demeaned for not liking ADC's act, then they should be demeaned 
    	for not liking Roseanne's song as well.

    	My opinion is, of course, that humor is subjective.  People are
    	entitled to form their own basis for deciding what is funny (and
    	what isn't) and it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or
    	not someone can laugh at themselves or at stereotypes.

    	No one can define humor for everyone else.  
    
    	My note about Roseanne was an effort to demonstrate this point.

Gee would someone create a keyword RAT HOLE it would sure save me time looking
for this topic.

>           <<< Note 476.55 by CONURE::AMARTIN "MARRS needs women" >>>

     
 >   Although it was indeed somewhat humorous, I felt somewhat sorry that
 >   such a beautiful song was being hacked to smitherines by a person that
 >   obviously couldnt sing...
    
 >   It was horrible......


	I agree !   Her disregard for both the song and what it
	stands for was disgusting.  Right after she finished
	singing she spit on the ground. 


	kits

    	RE: .60  Kits

    	> Her disregard for both the song and what it
	> stands for was disgusting.  Right after she finished
	> singing she spit on the ground. 

    	She also grabbed her crotch - my guess is that she was imitating
    	baseball players with those two moves.

    	Some people think this was quite funny on her part.  Some don't.
    	It just goes to prove my point that not everything is funny to
    	everyone.

    	Some people draw the line at Andrew Dice Clay, while others draw it
    	at Roseanne Barr, or somewhere else.
    
    	So what?

    Roseann Barr's rendition of the Star Spangled Banner was in my opinion,
    equal with burning the American Flag. She obviously has no respect for 
    herself or her country. Did you find her singing funny Suzanne ????
    I sure as h*ll didn't.
    
    Paul C.
     

	re: .61 Suzanne



>    	So what?

	
	So, I gave my opinion of what I think of her. That's what!

	She's a poor excuse for an American, a poor excuse for a
	woman, and most of all a poor excuse for a human being.

	kits

    
    Re: .63, Kits, I couldn't have said it better.
    	     The woman is a disgrace!
    
    						Hank
    

    	RE: .62  Paul C.

    	> Did you find her singing funny Suzanne ????  I sure as h*ll didn't.

    	Gee, Paul, do you mean to say that you aren't prepared to cut
    	Roseanne some slack?

    	Your words in .43:

    	  "Re; cutting comedians more slack...and why not, they are after all
    	   comedians...it's not as if these people are running for Congress,
           Governor or Mayor. If it can make you laugh, fine...If not, isn't 
           just tuning him out an option ???"
    
    	If she doesn't make you laugh, isn't tuning her out an option?

    
    	RE: .63, .64
    
    	Roseanne makes millions and millions and millions of dollars
    	(and most of it comes from being controversial enough to get
    	in the news almost no matter what she does.)
    
    	Everyone seemed to think it was so wonderful for ADC to get
    	rich by offending people.  What's different about Roseanne?
    

	re.  66  Suzanne


    
>    	Everyone seemed to think it was so wonderful for ADC to get
>    	rich by offending people.  What's different about Roseanne?
 

	One BIG difference is that ADC performs his act in
	clubs where people pay to go see and listen to him.

	Roseanne was singing the National Anthem at a baseball
	game....and thousands of people were forced to listen
	and watch her digusting antics.

	kits   

    	RE: .67  Kits

    	> One BIG difference is that ADC performs his act in
	> clubs where people pay to go see and listen to him.

    	Not entirely true.  ADC did a live offensive act on MTV 
    	(against their wishes) that appeared in millions of living 
    	rooms for the price of basic cable.  MTV banned him for life
    	for doing this.

    	> Roseanne was singing the National Anthem at a baseball
	> game....and thousands of people were forced to listen
	> and watch her digusting antics.

    	Yeah, through their binoculars...  (I'd be willing to bet
    	that the vast majority of people at the stadium didn't
    	catch on to what she was doing until they saw it on the
    	news that night.)

    	It's wonderful to see how quickly the principles held
    	up to defend ADC's offensive material fall apart when
    	Roseanne does something many people don't like.

    About disgusting antics, this week Madonna perormed in Holland.
    Last time she had soccer stadium crowded for 2 concerts, this time only
    one night and not sold out.
    Long time fans of her stated in interviews that her disgusting,
    provocative behaviour on stage could not mask her disability to sing
    and they were sorry they went.
    When people didn't react the way she wanted them to react, she made the
    international gesture with her middle finger.
    
    Charles

    
    
    According to some Chicago dj's, Ms. Barr had been sitting in the dug
    out before the game talking with the players.  They had "enticed" here
    to spit and grab her crotch after she sang the song.  Evidently, those
    actions had nothing to do with the (well-deserved) boos she received.
    
    As for her singing of the anthem:  I personally REALLY DON'T LIKE THE
    "STAR SPANGLED BANNER" because I don't believe that we need to sing
    about the glorification of war before every major sporting event.  (I
    recognize this could be a topic in an of itself -- start one!) 
    However, when I attend Cubs games (which is as often as possible -- I'm
    a butch guy!) I simply stand quietly, respecting the people around me
    who do find something from singing the tune.
    
    As for laughing at ourselves.  I think gay people do this very well. 
    Most of the "camp" that takes place is, I think, our laughing at
    ourselves and maybe laughing at how much of the rest of the world
    perceives us.  I find ADC VERY offensive because he crosses some
    invisible line of taste for me.  So, I don't watch/listen to him. 
    Everybody can make their own choice.
    
    	Greg  (who's been away for a while)

    
    	RE: .70  Greg Diercks
    
    	> Everybody can make their own choice.
    
    	Bingo!
    

	RE .68 Suzanne



>    	Yeah, through their binoculars...  (I'd be willing to bet
>    	that the vast majority of people at the stadium didn't
>    	catch on to what she was doing until they saw it on the
>    	news that night.)

	You bet wrong Suzanne. Rosanne was immediately rushed
	out of there because the majority of people there
	offended.   We are talking about a Baseball game.
	Where families go....where parents take their children
	for good clean entertainment. 
	
	All in all....it's a matter of opinion.  Those who have
	no pride in our country will see nothing wrong with
	what she did. 

	
>    	It's wonderful to see how quickly the principles held
>    	up to defend ADC's offensive material fall apart when
>    	Roseanne does something many people don't like.


	You are talking apples and oranges here.

	kits
	

    	RE: .72  Kits

    	> All in all....it's a matter of opinion.  Those who have
	> no pride in our country will see nothing wrong with
	> what she did. 

    	This is great!

    	When some say they DON'T laugh at ADC, some others will say 
    	that it's because they just don't have a sense of humor (and 
    	they just can't laugh at themselves.)

    	When some say they DO laugh at Roseanne, some of these same 
    	others will now say it's because they just have no pride in our
    	country.

    	I love it!  

    	>> It's wonderful to see how quickly the principles held
	>> up to defend ADC's offensive material fall apart when
	>> Roseanne does something many people don't like.

    	> You are talking apples and oranges here.

    	Two (former) standup comic millionaires who now do movies and TV
    	(and got famous by doing somewhat or overtly offensive material)
    	- I don't see a gigantic difference here, do you?

	re .73 Suzanne

	
	This is another case of Suzanne going on and on and
	twisting peoples words to what she wants to read in
	them, and Suzanne wanting the last word.

	I expressed my opinion. It still stands. Go argue
	with someone else.


	kits

   

    re.74
    Kits,
    Maybe arguing with herself would be a good idea?
    
    Charles

       >> RE: .62  Paul C.

    	> Did you find her singing funny Suzanne ????  I sure as h*ll didn't.

      >> Gee, Paul, do you mean to say that you aren't prepared to cut
    	 Roseanne some slack?

    I wouldn't find ADC, RAB or anyone else funny if they descrased the
    National Anthem they way she did. 
    
    >	Your words in .43:

    >	  "Re; cutting comedians more slack...and why not, they are after all
    >	   comedians...it's not as if these people are running for Congress,
    >      Governor or Mayor. If it can make you laugh, fine...If not, isn't 
    >      just tuning him out an option ???"
    
    >	If she doesn't make you laugh, isn't tuning her out an option?
    
    I would certainly have tuned her out had I been watching the game. I
    just feel bad for the majority of the fans at the ball game who were
    unable to tune her out. If you enjoy such contemptable displays, more
    power to you. I was brought up to respect the flag and all it stands
    for. 
    
    Enough of this rathole.
    
    Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion of the Diceman. Let
    RAB get her own note.....
    
    Paul C.
    
     
    
    

    	RE: .74  Kits
    
    	> This is another case of Suzanne going on and on and
	> twisting peoples words to what she wants to read in
	> them... 
    
    	No one's words were twisted.  (Go back and read .48 and
    	.72, if you need verification.)
    
    	> ...and Suzanne wanting the last word.
    
    	Let's keep the topic to ADC and other entertainers, ok?
    
    	> I expressed my opinion. 
    
    	Me, too.

    	RE: .77  Paul C.

    	> I wouldn't find ADC, RAB or anyone else funny if they descrased the
    	> National Anthem they way she did. 
    
    	Now we're getting somewhere!!

    	Like I said earlier, not everyone thinks everything is funny.  People
    	draw their own lines when it comes to humor.

    	That's why some people don't like ADC.  Some people feel that *he*
    	desecrates images/people/ideas that *they* cherish!

    RE: Suzanne,  same old song and dance.  I agree with .74.  
    
    
    Mike

    
    	RE: .80  Mike Wannemacher
    
    	Well, if you must know, I sent a message to Roseanne asking her to
    	do something that would really rock the socks off the folks who
    	feel sorry for people who don't laugh at ADC.
    
    	She did a hell of a job!  ;^)
    

    RE ::COLON
    
    If I understand you correctly, you believe that different people draw
    'the line' in different places on different subjects.  If so, I agree!
    
    However, what is offensive?  What is immoral?  What is illegal?
    
    Where should society 'draw the line'?
    
    The problem is that these items (IMHO) should not change. One set of
    rules.
    
    Steve

    Difference between what Rosanne did and what Dice did: 
    
    Dice has said it's that his is an act and it wasn't his views.  As of
    yet, Rosanne hasn't said anything about what she did.  She should come
    out and say that she tried for a laugh, and messed up.  I think
    everyone would leave it at that.  Instead, all I've heard is excuses.
    
    Also Suzanne, I said I thought what she did was in bad taste, I did not
    say she should be boycotted or admonished for what she did. 
    
    Mike
    
    PS. Also, please stop mixing files so as we don't have to recount what
    has happened unless you are going to do just that (recount the whole
    other incident in the present file.  
    
    PSS. FYI (everyone else)-Suzanne brought up something which I said in
    this file in womannotes.

    RE: .75
    
    I agree, but better provide some Midol.
    

    Andrew's humor, Roseanne's singing, 2 Live Crew's lyrics, Andy Rooney's
    commentary; keep 'em all, I'm a First Amendment junkie.  However ...
    
    Years ago I made a decision: what will be the quaility and content of the
    information I receive.  Do I read the "National Enquirer" or "The New York
    Times", watch "A Current Affair" or "Meet the Press".  The same goes with
    comedy.  I would consider ADC's current act a riot if I were still fourteen
    years old.  Back then racist, sexist, homophobic humor was the order of the
    day.  If I laughed it as good.  Period.  But as an adult I find most of
    ADC's humor amazingly shallow,   I see an aging fourteen year old behind
    the mike.  Yes, it's only an act but I doubt there's much beyond his
    one-premise persona.  ADC isn't George Carlin, who is a brilliant social
    critic and wordsmith.  He's no Richard Pryor, who brings the audience into
    the pain and pathos behind his characters' swagger.  What we have here is
    exhibit A in Andy Wahol's "15 minutes of fame" theory -- and ten of those
    minutes are already history. 
    
    The above sounds a lot more holier-than-thou than I intended.  This
    certainly is just one guy's opinion.  It's hard to stay on the proper
    side of the ethicial line when the little rascal keeps moving so much.
    And I don't mean to imply ADC is the root or path of social injustice.
    I just find his humor to be one more example of the growing insensitivity,
    and emotional immaturity of my generation; people who see ADC's
    character not as a joke but an accurate and respectable reflection on
    the world.  From him many people draw a view of their fellow man
    (and woman).  That's more scary than sad.
    
    Larry

    For those living in the Los Angeles area (and perhaps everywhere) HBO
    is rebroadcasting ADC's 1988 "On Location" special at 3:05am (that's
    AM) PDT, Saturday July 28th.
    
    Stay up late tonight or set your VCR and see what all the fuss is
    about.
    
    Larry

    
    	RE: .85  Costello
    
    	> -< Just a Joke, mind you >-
    
    	> I agree, but better provide some Midol.
    
    	It would have been funnier if you'd grabbed your ...
    
    	Never mind.  ;^)
    

    This is interesting, a number of people defend ADC when he
    puts down women and other minorities.
    
    Other people rake Rosanne Barr over the coals when she does
    something on tv that the average ball player can do with
    out any criticsm.
    
    Are people in this file so hostile to Suzanne Conlon that they
    disregard everything that she says just because of the messenger?
    
    Bonnie

    
    	RE: .90  Bonnie
    
    	Thanks, Bonnie - it's ok, though.  I really do understand how
    	difficult it must be to see the contradiction in the two ways
    	some people are reacting to ADC and Roseanne.
    
    	Hugs,
    	Suzanne
    

    re:90
    
    Bonnie,
    
    People are hostile to Suzanne because she attacks every male point
    of view (and some non-feminist female) in any conference (=wn=, Soapbox,
    -mn-) she enters. More than once she's been accused of twsiting
    a reply to suit her needs by both men and women.  I, among others
    have deleted =wn= from my notesfile because of action like this.
    If she'd be a bit less hostile toward others they may in turn be a bit 
    less hostile toward her. 
                                         
    Everyone likes to express their views. Many won't because they have
    to constantly defend against a verbal bombast if their view differs
    from hers. After awhile I get weary of, rep/ext >>>, etc. and just
    do a next unseen. 
    
    Ken 

    Okay Ken,
    
    Then what do you think about the different responses to ADC and
    Rosanne Barr? Or the fact that she was slammed for something
    male ball players do on tv all the time?
    
    Bonnie

        I saw RAB and her "SO" on Joan Rivers the other nite and
    the audience did'nt give her a hard time about the singing of
    the anthem.
    
    She got quite a bit of support for her to take on one of the 
    "National Perspirerer" type of mags. She stated that she had
    been victimized by these *publications*.  
    
    Later in the show a *gyn/ob* did a sonar scan on a *pregnant*
    male to female sex-change recipient.  Now that's entertainment.
     

    Mike
    
    I'm  trying to examine the actions.
    
    Are you saying that spitting on televison after sreaching the national
    anthem is worse in most/many people's/your mind than humor like
    ADC's?
    
    My personal opinion is that I care for neither, but that, to me, putting
    people down as ADC does is worse on my scale of values than being 
    disrespectful of the flag. and I'm not advocating disrepect for the
    flag, only saying that I think there are worse things that people can
    do.
    
    Do you believe that if a white male comic had done what Roseanne did
    the reactions would have been the same, or is there some component
    of gender involved here?
    
    Does anyone know why Roseanne was asked to 'sing' the National Anthem,
    given that they surely must have known she could not sing?
    
    Bonnie

>        Does anyone know why Roseanne was asked to 'sing' the National Anthem,
>    given that they surely must have known she could not sing?
    
    Perhaps in acknowledgement of the old saying, "It ain't over 'til
    the fat lady sings"?
    
    Kris 

    hokay

    	RE: .92  Ken Upton

    	> ...she attacks every male point of view (and some non-feminist 
    	> female) in any conference (=wn=, Soapbox, -mn-) she enters. 

    	Obviously, this is a stereotype.  I can list for you an endless
    	series of notes written by men (and non-feminist women) to which
    	I didn't reply AT ALL, whether I disagreed with what they said
    	or not.
    	
    	My point about the contradiction between the some of the reactions
    	to ADC and to Roseanne was right on the money.
    

    
    	What it really comes down to is that people draw the line at a
    	variety of different places when it comes to finding the humor
    	in a comic's routine.

    	When comparing Andrew Dice Clay to Roseanne Barr, I find Roseanne's
    	humor FAR less offensive.  Others find ADC less offensive.  

    	So what?

    	The whole thing is that people should NEVER have attempted to put
    	down anyone else for not liking Andrew Dice Clay (especially when
    	it was inevitable that some other comic would come along that THEY
    	wouldn't like as well as some others did.)

    	Humor is subjective!  (That's been my main point all along.)

    	RE: .102  Mike Z.

    	> Yes!

    	Thanks!

    	> And vice versa - people who like Andrew Dice Clay should not
    	> have been criticized.

    	As I'm sure you know, I didn't criticize anyone here for LIKING
    	Andrew Dice Clay.  I've barely seen anyone here who has done that.

    	My criticism has been against the idea of judging people for
    	NOT liking Andrew Dice Clay - (I'm against the idea of telling
    	people that failing to find ADC funny must mean that they can't
    	laugh at themselves, or whatever.)

    	Humor is subjective (as I've tried to point out all along.)

    Re: Bonnie
    
    re: Crotch grabbing. 
    	Havingplayed organized baseball for years, the only thing I
    can say is that a better, more comfortable protective cup needs
    to be developed. The damn thing hasn't changed much since the 50's.
    Hair gets puts, scrotums get pinched, testicles get rolled. I'm
    not making any excuses, it just happens. If the players didn't reach
    down and adjust, they'd be doing the "squirm". Anyway, if they went
    up to the plate uncomfortable, they could never make contact or
    concentrate on what they're paid millions to do. Personally I favor
    wearing a girdle similar to a football players with a flexible leather
    cup.......
    
    re:spitting
    
    	This is the most disgusting part of the sport of baseball. I've
    been in dugouts that are literally stained brown from juice. During
    a game in the 60's and early 70's puddles often had to be mopped
    up by clubhouse attendants because the players were slipping in
    it. The number of 'chewers' has dramatically decreased because the
    studies show that mouth tissue is extremely sensitive to the tabacco
    and irritation begins with the first chaw, leading to severe dental
    and oral problems. Bubblegum is replacing tobacco but the players
    still spit. Studies have shown that it becomes a habit with
    ballplayers, almost a rite on the field.
    
    	Next year, some baseball clubs will forbid tobacco chewing in
    their parks and no spitting in the dugouts. It's an issue with many
    ball teams but traditions will get broken.
    
    	I honestly believe that Roseanne Barr did her little thing the
    other night to get attention. If she had tried to "sing" the national
    anthem that would be one thing. She scream and squealed through
    it. What grabbing her crotch and spitting had to do with singing
    the song is beyond me. Then she gave the crowd the finger because
    they boo'd her. She's mooned people from her car and bus, she's
    flipped the bird on many occasions, she made disgusting displays
    of herself repeatedly in public. She was wrong and it's undefendable.
    
    	Trying to bring ADC into the picture is means of "men vs. women"
    to make her single act less than it was. ADC does stuff I don't
    agree with, but I never heard anyone say, "If Roseanne Barr did
    that, blah, blah, blah." Let's keep the topic to the act, not compare
    it to something totally unrelated, weigh the merits of RAB actions
    for what they're worth. . . not much.
    
    Ken 

According to the report of Roseanne's performance I read in the newspaper,
Barr had not intended to insult by her singing, nor by the crotch-grabbing
and spitting.  It said that she realized the mistake she had made in
agreeing to sing the anthem after the first few notes, when the crowd
started booing her, but she continued on as she probably should have.  In
this case, it was simply that Roseanne can't sing.  I wonder who it was who
had the bright idea to ask Roseanne to sing the anthem at the game and what
effect they thought it would have?

I too wonder at the difference in reaction that people have to Barr's
performance (which consisted mainly of poor singing), and to Clay's
performance which consists of deliberately selected insults.

As for all of you who are slinging mud at Suzanne, please stop.  It is not
deserved here.

					Steve

    Ken
    
    The only way, that I recall that ADC was brought into this was to
    compare the differences in reactions to the two comics. i.e. The
    response to people who complained about ADC was essentially that
    those who objected had no sense of humor. Yet it seemed like the
    same people were all over Rosanne  Barr for  behavior that was
    apparently not intended to  be offensive (according to the news
    reports anyway.)
    
    Bonnie

>   <<< Note 476.108 by WMOIS::B_REINKE "treasures....most of them dreams" >>>
>
>    The only way, that I recall that ADC was brought into this was to
>    compare the differences in reactions to the two comics.

Uhhh, the *base note* was about ADC, and asked for reactions to *him*.

    *this* meant the discussion of Roseanne Barr's actions
    
    sigh
    
    

    RE: .109  George Hetrick
    
    > Uhhh, the *base note* was about ADC, and asked for reactions to *him*.
    
    Roseanne was brought up as a tangent to this topic, and the author
    in question had every right to do this.
    
    
            <<< QUARK::NOTES_DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MENNOTES.NOTE;1 >>>
                         -< Topics Pertaining to Men >-
================================================================================
Note 476.53                     Andrew Dice Clay                       53 of 110
HANNAH::MODICA                                       11 lines  26-JUL-1990 13:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    	Tangent, but where else will this go?
    
    	I heard that last nigth at the San Diego Padres game
    they played a rendition of the National Anthem by 
    Roseann Barr that was alleged to be gross, insulting, etc.
    Does anyone know any more about this?
    
    Oh yeah, Mike W. Well put, I agree.
    
    								Hank

    Looks like Ms. Barr and her career choices deserves a note of its own. 
    Someone start one.
    
    Let's get back to Mr. Clay, shall we?
    
    Larry

    Actually, Larry, the comparison was illuminating.  ADC's so-called
    "humor" was sexist and racist, and when people voiced objections, they
    were criticized.  RAB's so-called "humor" was disrespectful of musical
    taste and family values, and when people voiced objections, they were
    criticized.  Given that it was different folks objecting in each case,
    and that in fact, some of them showed up on opposite sides in the two
    cases, shows that it wasn't philosophy at work here, it was whose ox
    got gored.  You refuse to tolerate sexist humor or you don't.  You get 
    up in arms about a bad rendition of the anthem or you don't.  I support
    both performers' right to perform upon first amendment grounds, while
    absolutely refusing to shell out a nickle in support of either of them
    (I don't find either of them HUMOROUS.)
    
    Maybe if ADC shapes up, or my tastes change, I'll worry about him
    again.  Meanwhile, I'm a hundred percent behind the people who walked 
    off Saturday Night Live and the Arsenio Hall show to protest his humor.
    And my sincere hope is that his career crashes and burns, because I'd
    rather *not* recognize that this society rewards such sick 'humor' as
    his with a viable springboard to a career.  But I fear I'll be forced 
    to recognize that it does.
    
    Sandy, you used to tell me that it was precisely the lack of equal
    representation that made Jessica Rabbit/Roger Rabbit a dreadfully
    unfair model.  In that sense, the Diceman's humor is not balanced in
    this society...we wouldn't find a reversed situation (sickly cruel
    jokes about men) funny at all, and we wouldn't reward the woman who
    delivered them.  That's as good an evaluation of ADC's humor (unfair)
    as I can make, when I try to distance myself from whether or not I'm
    negative toward him because I don't find him funny.  (And similarly, 
    I don't think we permit black or ethnic comics to take *cruel* shots 
    at whites, and reward them for it, or find it funny, in this culture
    either.  Though I'll admit I don't see much stand-up, and probably 
    have an insufficent knowledge base to defend that last assertion.)
    Given that we aren't a healthy enough society to respond with humor to
    the reversed situation, I find ADC takes away from our humanity more
    than he brings to it.  And it isn't funny at all.
    
    DougO

>I support
>    both performers' right to perform upon first amendment grounds, while
>    absolutely refusing to shell out a nickle in support of either of them 
    
     I personally don't see any tie at all to the first amendment. If
    Saturday Night Semi-comatose decided not to have his act on, or the
    Padres tried something besides my favorite moron to boost ticket sales
    (like, perhaps, winning a baseball game) I would see no suppression of
    the first amendment. Perhaps you can elucidate on the first amendment
    angle.
    
>In that sense, the Diceman's humor is not balanced in
>    this society...we wouldn't find a reversed situation (sickly cruel
>    jokes about men) funny at all, and we wouldn't reward the woman who
>    delivered them.
    
      That's not exactly true. There are a number of female standups who
    have a large repertoire of jokes about men, some of whom do not allow
    men into their audience (guess why). They are making a living.
    
     I think that key to your point is defining the "we" in "we wouldn't
    reward them..." If you are saying that the largely male audiences which
    reward ADC's comedy with their $$$, probably not (but you never really
    know). On the other hand, some of these female "rank on men" type
    performers are beginning to make some dough, presumably from mostly
    female audiences.
    
     I'm not sure it's entirely fair to take a segment of the population
    and make the comparison you made, because it does not appear to be
    equally balanced. Demographics suggests that an ADC type would be
    better suited to success comedy than, say Dianne Ford, because while
    both comics use similar styles, ADC is appealing to the larger (mostly
    male) audience. For a glimpse at the other side, take a look at your
    local book store. There exist a number of books which take a very
    harsh look at men (in a general sense) and often come out with some
    statements that I personally can't believe intelligent beings would
    swallow (generalizations about awful men, etc). These books are often
    packaged as feminist literature, and are widely read, especially by
    educated women. And yet, there is a lack of a similar market niche of
    books that specifically set out to raise up men by demeaning women.
    (**Note: I recognize that by far, more literature exists that demeans
    women than demeans men. I am talking about a specific market segment,
    NOT literature as a whole. Anyone who attempts to bring up that red
    herring will be ignored.**)
    
     I think the most interesting reflection of this phenomenon is not that
    women write books that speak of men in a derogatory fashion, but
    rather that these books seem to represent a sort of silent reprisal for
    the ADCs, random male chauvinist actions, and other societal influences
    that demean women. That they are not as able to attack men directly
    shows how far we are from equality.
    
     The Doctah

    Miscellanous musings.  
    
    I'm surprised at the controversy here.  
    
    I wonder how long it will be until folks give up the notion that you
    can't sanitize the world....someone will always offend someone else.
    I'd lay money down to say that a world that squeaks when you rub it is
    so far off to be non-existant, and meanwhile, people are going to pick
    on each other.  Nature of the beast.
    
    When does the picking go too far? one might ask. 
    
    I would consider the difference between offensive and actually hurtful
    before totally denouncing someone as trash.  I don't like
    Madonna--she's offensive in her "tramp"-iness to me--but I don't
    believe she is hurting me as a woman for doing that.  Those who believe
    women who are tramps like what Madonna protrays will believe it,
    whether or not she is prancing on the stage in bad lingerie. To many,
    women are not purely sex objects, dancing about, jiggling and enticing
    you to be their playtoy.  To some, women are, and will be. 
    Madonna dressing up in a nice business suit isn't going to turn their
    minds to the facts any more than stripping off her clothes turns those
    "in the know" to expect the same whore-ishness from all women.  But
    meanwhile, Madonna is offensive to some.  
    
    ADC makes rude remarks about women and minorities (and I guess) gays. 
    I don't listen to his act.  Depending on the jokes, I might be offended
    by them too--or I might laugh.  (I will admit I am not above laughing
    at off color jokes--however, this does not mean I then go about and
    beat up minorites and gays because I think it's okay).  ADC might be
    offensive, but unless he is actually standing up there citing people to
    go out and hurt other people, then he's simply a comic with
    questionable taste, and little else.
    
    The KKK makes rude remarks, too.  But these are not jokes of
    questionable taste--these are proclaimations (which still are
    offensive, but not hurtful) which are then USED to incite others to
    take action against the perceived enemy.  THAT's what I consider
    hurtful.  The KKK is not an offensive body of bigots talking their
    heads off--they have been a HURTFUL group.
    
    As much as we idealists would have everyone love thy brother, and for
    all differientating boundaries to be wiped clean, it *probably* isn't
    going happen.  And until if/when that noble goal is reached, people are
    going to offend other people.  There will be black jokes, women jokes,
    gay jokes, Asian jokes, men jokes, dog jokes, old people jokes, America
    jokes, Mexican jokes, etc.  And someone will always be offended. 
    People like to laugh about other people and/or themselves.  
    
    One last illustration:  I'm not keen on fat jokes, but they happen.  I
    think it sad that people make them BUT--I have laughed (genuinely) at
    them when delivered in a particular way.  I imagine it depends on the
    method of delivery and the amount of derision in the joke.  And while I
    might not care for the joke, I don't feel that fat people are oppressed
    by the joke's existance.  I like sociology as much as the next person,
    but I believe lines of expectation and tolerance do and should exist.
    
    Offensive vs. hurtful.  To me, that's the difference.
    
    ---kim

    I'm convinced that if a male had sung the national anthem at the game
    and then grabbed his crotch and spit no more would have been said.  In
    fact, I bet it would have been seen as a "cute gesture" since its a
    "male thing to do."

UK View:

The only ADC we have had over here was, surprisingly, on the BBC, that bastion
of stiff upper lippedness. Clipped from Diceman were shown on a program on
Why Deregulated Television Was Not Necessarily A Good Thing. The comments
from the panel discussing it were generally influenced by them not finding it
very funny, but the general consensus was that Diceman (the show) was a 
mixture of The Price Is Right (obviously hyped up audience, maybe with 'plants')
and Hitlers Nurembourg Rallys.

Madonna did a live concert last week on BBC Radio: two minutes of continuous
swearing has pretty much killed off a chance of a repeat effort. I missed it:
I was watching the Wall in Berlin. With such an enthusiastic response to the
the fascist imagery of the end of that production ("Are there any queers in
the audience ?...that one looks Jewish!"), I really hope those ADC fans who 
think people are not influenced by what is presented as entertainment are right.

>    I'm convinced that if a male had sung the national anthem at the game
>    and then grabbed his crotch and spit no more would have been said.  In
>    fact, I bet it would have been seen as a "cute gesture" since its a
>    "male thing to do."
    
     If Steve Martin had done the exact same thing, the same outburst by
    those annoyed would occur, but nobody would be claiming that he was
    being singled out because of his gender.
    
    The Doctah

    
    	Nobody seemed too terribly upset when someone sang the National
    	Anthem very badly in "The Naked Gun" - and it's not hard AT ALL
    	to imagine this person going for an extra laugh with the chari-
    	cature of a baseball player (crotch-grabbing and spitting.)
    
    	In fact, it would have been one of the more tasteful moments in
    	the film (comparatively speaking.)
    
    	It simply never would have occurred to anyone to assume the
    	worst about the intentions of the guy in this film.  

    Re: Last
    
    The difference between Leslie Neilson's rendition of the Anthem in
    "Naked Gun" and Barr's version at the Padres game is the difference
    between make-believe and reality.  An audience makes clear distinctions
    between the two, something Roseanne badly misunderstood.
    
    Larry

    
    	RE: .120  Larry
    
    	> An audience makes clear distinctions between the two, something 
    	> Roseanne badly misunderstood.
    
    	Live comedy routines are just as real (or unreal) as filmed ones.
    
    	If someone can justify what they do as "just kidding," then it can
    	be justified regardless of the medium.
    

    
    	The difficulty with "The Naked Gun" analogy is that
    	the singing there is one comic device with a comic
    	movie filled with other comic devices.  It has its
    	own established rules by which it operates.  And its
    	rules are that farce, lampoon, vulgarity, irreverence,
    	and so on are normal in the context of this particular
    	movie.
    
    	On the other hand, the rules, or conventions, if you will,
    	that apply to the singing of the national anthem before
    	a sporting event, by precedence, show that the anthem is
    	done as a serious piece of music with *some* latitude allowed
    	for legitmate artistic expression.
    
    	Within those guidelines if heard quite a few renditions that
    	I've like and quite a few I didn't think much of at all.  And
    	I was guilty of a fair amount of outlandish behavior myself
        back in the sixties when my hair was long and I bummed around
    	Cambridge, Boston, and assorted odd venues.
    
    	Ms. Barr's performance, in my quasi-humble opinion, was self-
    	indulgent, offensive, immature, inexcusable, tasteless, and
    	generally disgusting.

    	
    	RE: .122  Cohen
    
    	> Ms. Barr's performance, in my quasi-humble opinion, was self-
    	> indulgent, offensive, immature, inexcusable, tasteless, and
    	> generally disgusting.
    
    	A lot of people thought it was hilarious, too.
    
    	People have different ideas on what's funny, I guess.
    

>    	A lot of people thought it was hilarious, too.
>    
>    	People have different ideas on what's funny, I guess.
 
     So what's the point of arguing about it? Are we to tell people "you
    shouldn't be offended by that" or "you shouldn't find that funny"? I
    don't think so. 
    
    The Doctah

    
    	RE: .124  The Doctah
    
    	>> People have different ideas on what's funny, I guess.
 
     	> So what's the point of arguing about it? 
    
    	People have different ideas on what's arguing, too, I guess. ;^)
    

    This, coming from a person with about 1/3 of all the entries in this
    one note.....
    
    Do you have a life Suzanne?  or do you just live, breath, eat, and
    smell gender wars......?
    
    I mean, you look for the gender angle in almost every every discussion
    that you enter......Is there like an alarm or something?
    
    :-)

    And in such places as mennotes and womannotes, one perhaps *shouldn't*
    note "gender angles" in current issues of the day?  C'mon, Al, what're
    you here for?  You don't want gender angles, don't read mennotes. 
    Don't read womannotes.  And quit pickin' on people who happen to be
    fully aware that "gender angles" permeate attitudes, values,
    institutions, and every other aspect of our culture.  Except maybe
    food. ;-).
    
    DougO

    Well then Dougo, you have a serious problem also..... Life is too short
    to bottle up blame and hatred.
    
    As for food, one could find gender angles in ....say... a hotdog?
    
    :-)

    I'm with Doug,
    
    I did see what Suzanne saw, a disparity between people who thought
    that ADC was okay, and who implied that those who thought he was
    obnoxious were too uptight, and those who while either being amused
    at or disapproving Rosanne's actions, were in the minority for those
    who felt that what she did was beyond the pale.
    
    For the record, I'm a patriotic American, and fly our flag on the
    holidays..
    
    but I still think that 'humor' that debases people is much worse
    than 'humor' that makes fun of national symbols like the flag or
    national sports like baseball.
    
    Guess it is a difference in perspective, I care more about people
    than symbols. 
    
    Bonnie

    re:.126
    
    I've just been basically sitting back and reading most of these,
    the idea of this whole thing strikes me as funny.  
    
    Personally, I don't see how Suzanne can possibly have a life :^).
    
    No one that I know, who has any resemblance of a life, would ever
    jump on everything (or alot) of what was said in a discussion.
    
    Some things are funny to some people, some aren't.  Boy, that sounds
    mighty simple to me.  It is very interesting to hear everyone's
    opinion, but we should all understand that there is no right or
    wrong.  That's what makes being able to have an individual opinion
    so wonderful.  I may not agree with some, but I certainly respect
    them.  
    
    This is America, I can think anything I want.
    
    Kel

    	RE: .128  AMARTIN
    
    	> Well then Dougo, you have a serious problem also..... Life is 
    	> too short to bottle up blame and hatred.
    
    	C'mon, Al, I know that logic isn't your strong suit, but the
    	fallacious argument that someone must be filled with hatred
    	if they land on the wrong side of a discussion is getting
    	old.
    
    	You simply have no right nor invitation to tell anyone what
    	they feel in their hearts or how they live (or SHOULD live.)
    
    	You're out of line.

    Al, since when does identifying problems equate to 'bottling up blame
    and hatred'?  I discuss gender angles because they are problematic in
    this culture, and because identifying and analyzing problems is the
    first step towards fixing them.  Far more blame and hatred gets
    directed at me because I try to identify and start working on such
    problems, than I have *ever* dished out in such efforts.  Your jibes at
    Suzanne are far closer to what I'd call symptoms of bottled up blame
    and hatred than any notes I've ever directed to you or anyone.
    
    When I talked about 'food' as an area of our culture that may just not
    be permeated with gender angles, I was referring to cuisine.  Hotdogs
    may fit your preference, but never mine.  In terms of what we
    appreciate and admire in the fine arts of culinary excellence,
    I don't think there is a gender angle...men and women are equally
    gifted at preparing and enjoying fine food.  But if you wanted to
    discourage me from identifying gender angles, why did you immediately
    bring one up?
    
    DougO

    
    	RE: .130  Kel
    
    	> Personally, I don't see how Suzanne can possibly have a life :^).
    
    	> No one that I know, who has any resemblance of a life, would ever
    	> jump on everything (or alot) of what was said in a discussion.
    
    	Well, at least your jokes are getting cleaner - the last time you
    	tried to kid around about me, you suggested I was menstruating.
    
    	It's an improvement.  Really.
    

    Least of my worries, Mike.

    C'mon folks, lay off the personal attacks.  I REALLY don't want to have
    to start deleting notes again....
    
    			Steve

    What happens next, Mike, is that the people who believe that it's
    "because it was a woman" will try to get those who don't to examine
    themselves and think about it a bit, after which, if they still
    believe that their standards for what's obscene, rude, etc  are
    universal and not based on gender, fine.
    
    But what usually happens at this point is that those who deny the
    presence of an underlying sexist angle will refuse to be challenged to
    examine their positions and will respond to the attempts with
    aggression, a la "you see sexism in everything".  "You're just full of
    hatred", and so on.
    
    Those who do believe that an underlying sexist delineation often
    determines what we consider rude, (most people allow males much more
    leeway in swearing for instance), are usually perfectly willing to
    offer the results of their own self-examinations and the processes that
    led to their beliefs.  But that's often interpreted as "harping" or
    "being strident".
    
    So it's often difficult to get beyond the "Is so!" "Is not!" kind of
    thing since the one who wants to point out, examine and question areas
    where potential underlying sexism may lurk is met with resistance in
    the form of accusations about style, tone, lifestyle, (go figure that
    one!), anything to avoid the topic and the call for self-examination.
    The speculations about "what if so and so did thus and such?" are only
    speculations but they are questions with which we can test ourselves to
    determine *for ourselves* the real motives behind our beliefs.  But not
    everyone is open to self-examination.  Not everyone knows or cares
    where they get their ideas.  They have them and that's that.  And people
    who enjoy self-examination and who suggest it to others as a way of
    getting at truths before continuing on in the converstation, are seen
    as treading on dangerous ground - being too pushy, getting too close.
    
    So it's important to distinguish between people who just want to give
    an opinion, (which is valid), and people who are interested in their
    opinions, where they come from, why they hold them and whether or not
    they need to think about discarding them for new opinions.  What I've
    learned most from notes is that not everyone is introspective.  Many
    people aren't interested in why they think the way they do, they just
    do and that's all.  I don't understand it but different strokes!  

 Unfortunately, Sandy, the side that believes that there is an element of
sexism present because they have exmained their own feelings are unwilling to
believe others that say that sexism is either not present or an inconsequential
aspect of the matter at hand. The way you write your response, it sounds like
the ones who believe sexism is present are always right, since they are the
only ones who ever introspect. But that is not true.

 Some of us who believe that sexism in certain cases is an inconsequential
aspect have indeed performed considerable introspection.

 One point that ought to be agreed to (for meaningful discussion to take place)
is that there are some people who turn a blind eye to sexism and believe
it is never a factor, there are some people who tend to believe it isn't a
factor unless proved otherwise, there are some people who tend to believe that
sexism is a factor unless proved otherwise, and there are some people that feel
thatr sexism is automatically involved n'importe quoi. If we can't agree that
there are some people on both sides that fit reality to their preconceived 
models, then we are going to have a tough time getting anywhere.

 Frankly, I'd like to ignore the two extremes, because they contribute no
meaningful information. Each one sees an incident and starts pushing the only
button they have. Practically useless. It's the ones that are capable of
evaluating situations on their own merits that I am concerned about.

 No matter what, there are some that would insist that Roseanne Barr is being
picked on because she is a woman and for no other reason, even if Steve Martin
did the same thing and got the saem reaction. And there are others, who would
say that there is no sexism involved, even if Steve Martin did the same thing 
and was applauded. To me, there is no useful input from these people.

 What is more interesting is when people have an honest disagreement and attempt
to convince each other that they are correct. But even this is only useful to
a certain point. Usually a time comes when even the moderates pick sides and
dig in. I think this point has been reached.

 Frankly, I think this incident got far more attention than it deserved.

 The Doctah

    
    	Re: .139
    
    	You have my vote!
    
    	My earlier reply was meant to be non-gender specific and
    	used Roseanne by name because of the ease of adopting a
    	reference point.
    
    	In point of fact, when I first heard the rendition it was
    	on the car radio and I missed the introduction.  I did not
    	know who was singing or whether it was a man or woman.  I
    	did formulate the opinion that it was terrible and disgusting.
    	I learned after the recording who it was and the circumstances.
    
    	Later I saw the film and observed the gestures, but by then
    	it was of minor consequence because my opinion had already
    	been formed.
    
    	Tacky is tacky no matter who is the perpetrator.  And that
    	particular contribution to western culture left tacky miles
    	behind.
    
    	ralph

    I think those who think the issue is ROSANNE IS A WOMAN AND GOT DUMPED
    ON UNFAIRLY are missing the point.  Suzanne et al. are NOT NOT NOT
    saying that you must find Rosanne's rendition funny and if you don't
    you are sexist.  Look back at what was written!  
    
    o  Notes in here were written (and seconded) that said "if you can't
       laugh at ADC, you obviously take your feminism too seriously,
       because after all he's only a comedian and this is only an act."
    
    o  Those SAME PEOPLE would have been outraged if Suzanne had said "if
       you can't laugh at Rosanne Barr, you obviously take your patriotism
       too seriously, because after all she's only a comedian and this is
       only a one-time joke."
    
    All that has been said is that it is NEVER appropriate to say, "well,
    if you can't laugh at this, you take yourself too seriously."  Suzanne
    has said OVER AND OVER again that humor is subjective.  Obviously those
    who object to ADC don't find humor against women amusing.  Obviously
    those who object to Rosanne's rendition of the anthem don't find humor
    about patriotism amusing.  Big deal!  
    
    Just don't trash someone's right to find something "not funny"; then be
    hypocritical when *you* are the one to find something not funny.
    
    Pam

    I don't understand the fuss. Seems to me the point isn't whether or not
    Barr was funny (always a subjective determination), but that the
    _situation_ did not call for comedy. Something that could well be
    hysterical in a stand-up routine might not go over at all in a sermon,
    or in a classroom, or during the national anthem. [Not to say that I
    haven't seen some pretty funny renditions of the anthem, but they were
    funny mainly because the artists seemed to be trying so hard to be
    serious.] I don't think it's reasonable to compare ADC as a
    self-proclaimed comedian doing comedy to Barr as a self-proclaimed
    non-singer doing (what was supposed to be) singing. Non-comedic
    singing, at that.
    
    Now, if she'd made a _comedic movie_ in which she massacred the anthem and
    pastiched the players' actions, then I would find it odd for people to
    defend Clay and pan Barr, or vice versa (on other than personal preference); 
    both would be using similar forms, and (in my opinion) could be more easily 
    compared.
    
    -b

    re: .142
    	
    	I think that most of us meant what you said. If ADC's routine
    is comedy and is intended to be comedy, then it should be accepted
    for itself on merit only. Same for Roseanne.
    
    	The problem is that Roseanne (I believe) was not intending to
    be comedic at the beginning of the Anthem. Once the crowd began
    to boo her horrible rendition, she resorted to three gestures that
    she felt responded to the crowd. She spit, grabbed her crotch, and
    shot the bird. She apparently was hurt by the crowd's response and
    responded in bad taste. By the end of the anthem she was being drowned
    out by boos for a horrible performance. She knew that she was no
    singer and she more than likely knows how good or bad her voice
    was prior to doing her rendition. She made a mistake and compounded
    it by insulting the crowd........it's over, hopefully she'll stick
    to what she does best from now on....
    
    Ken

       An aside, especially to those who are in a snit about Barr's cheap
       act:
       
       If you have ever been to an event where you applauded after the
       anthem was played, then you have shown every bit as much
       disrespect as did Barr.  The proper respect for an anthem (any
       nation's anthem) is to stand silently when it is played, and not
       to applaud or cheer when it is done.  Non-uniformed people wearing
       hats should remove them; uniformed military personnel keep their
       hats on and salute.
       
       Now, most people who attend sporting events in the US seem to
       cheer at the end of the anthem, and I imagine that the disrespect
       they show is unintentional.  Indeed, if any of Barr's critics in
       this topic have ever been among anthem-cheerers at a ball game,
       I'll be gracious enough to believe that their hypocrisy has been
       similarly unintentional. 
       
       But you all ought to have a clue.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    
    	RE: .144  Mr Topaz
    
    	Excellent point!
    
    	By the way, it should also be noted that those who booed in the
    	stadium were showing even more disrespect for the Anthem than
    	the people who normally cheer.
    
    	Thanks for the reminder about this!
    
    	Suzanne

    I saw Roseanne on TV yesterday and she apologized for the gestures and
    apologized if she offended anyone.  She said she was not trying to be
    funny, but the sound system made it hard for her to hear herself.  She
    said she was hurt by the booing.  So, for me, it's no big deal.
    
    
    I give it a 2, it was very hard to dance to. :')
    
    
    Mike

    	RE: .147  Mike Z.

    	> What?!  They were booing Roseanne, not the anthem.

	> I can usually follow your reasoning, even if I disagree with it,
    	> but this statement makes no sense at all to me.
    	
    	Per Mr Topaz's description of proper behavior during the Anthem,
    	theirs was way out of line.

    	To quote Mr Topaz:

    	"The proper respect for an anthem (any nation's anthem) is to stand 
    	silently when it is played, and not to applaud or cheer when it is 
    	done."

    	Booing does not constitute standing silently.

    
    	RE: .149  Mike Z.
    
    	Booing is far more deliberate than coughing, etc.
    
    	As to whether or not it's "every bit as disrespectful" as what
    	Roseanne did, I'd say it is.
    
    	But then again, it's ok if we don't agree on this.
    

    
    	Re:  Suzanne and Topaz
    
    	You must get special volume rates on red herrings since
    	you use so many.
    
    	The recent smoke you've blown concerning the anthem is
    	so much stuff and nonsense.
    
    	I've been to symphony performances where an outlandish
    	interpretation has been booed.  Everyone understands that
    	the castigation is meant for the conductor, not the 
    	orchestra, and not the composer.  The one ultimately
    	responsible for the performance is held to blame.  In San
    	Diego that person was Ms. Barr.  To try to misdirect the
    	focus is silly.
    
    	Within the context of that night, and with all other
    	performances of the anthem at sporting events to serve
    	as a canon of acceptible behavior, the performance was
    	boorish, loutish, and beyond the limits of propriety.
    	This would true no matter who had been the performer.
    	Since the performer happened to be Ms. Barr and since
    	she had control over her performance.  She must assume
    	full responsibility for her decisions.  In this case
    	it means she must accept the opinion of the majority of
        the people witnessing her and her rendition, that is, that
    	she as the creator and it as the creation were, shall we
    	say, totally unsatisfactory.
    
    	Verdict:  Totally devoid of merit, taste, and sensibility. 

    	If that was meant for me, I'll pass along advice my son often
    	gives folks in situations like these, Mike:
    

    	Take a chill pill.

    	What do you care whether I acknowledge the motives for the
    	booing or not?  Strictly speaking, it was improper to make
    	deliberate rude noises during the Anthem, no matter what the
    	excuse.

    	You don't think it was as bad as what Roseanne did.  I do.
    	So we disagree on it.

    	So what?  (I mean, really.)

    I don't know about anyone else, but I would rather see discussion
    on ADC in the Andrew Dice Clay topic than lovely Rosanne.
    
    I'm sick of hearing about her!
    
    
    annoyed yours,
    
    /Greg

    
    	RE: .155  Mike Z.
    
    	> In one breath, you criticize people for using strict criteria
    	> when citing some activities as "sexist" (eg: the auction discussed
    	> earlier, which forbade male attendance), then, in the next breath
    	> you take a similar approach to the one you claimed was unfair - you
    	> resort to strict guidelines, and black and white judgments.
    
    	In the "next breath"?
    
    	Mike, if I'd waited this long to breathe, I'd have been dead several
    	weeks ago.  ;^)
    
    	Seriously, now.  We disagree on this point (among many.) I can accept 
    	it.  Why can't you?

    
    	RE: .157  Mike Z.
    
    	.156> Seriously, now.  We disagree on this point (among many.) I can 
    	.156> accept it.  Why can't you?
    
    	> I see that we disagree, and that is acceptable to me.
    
    	If that means you're going to stop harping on that point, I'm
    	ecstatic.
    
    	> So, please stop telling me what I am feeling and thinking, I
    	> treat you like an intelligent adult, and I expect the same in
    	> return.
    
    	Oh no, another point of disagreement.  
    
    	I can only hope that we can agree to disagree on this one as well 
    	(as long as we're on a roll here.)
    

Ok, *I'LL* have the last word here.  Back to the discussion of Clay, if
anyone has anything new to add.

			Steve

    OK... did you know that he uses Dippity Due??
    
    :-)

>    OK... did you know that he uses Dippity Due??
 

	
	Does not. He uses Stiff Stuff !


	

    Andrew Dice Clay=unfunny.
    
    Richard
    
    
    
    
    (dare I add that I think Suzanne Conlon is great!  It's a 
    wonderful life you must lead, Suzanne.  Congrats for taking
    all the dumping with such good humor and maturity.)
    
    Now you can all go back to talking about ADC, if you find
    m*ff jokes funny.

    RE: .163  Richard, thank you for allowing us to return to the base
              topic. 
    
              I *do* happen to find some of ADC's material funny, thank
              you for asking.
    
    Paul C.

    There was some discussion as to whether Mr. Clay had a career beyond
    the "Diceman" persona.  Has anyone here seen "The Adventures of Ford
    Fairlane"?  How was Clay?  Was he funny?  Can he act?  Does he have a
    screen presence?  Whould you pay to see his next movie?
    
    Larry

    
    The Diceman is a comic. And a comic is suppose to remind us of our sence
    of humor. Why is it that when someone different comes along there are
    always people who want to eliminate them from society. I do respect other
    peoples opinions, but lets lighten-up....those people should use there
    energy towards the Iraqies, instead of trying to condemn a comedian.
    
     I never laughed so hard when some friends and i saw him for the first
    time (THE DICEMAN COMETH). I'll admit he's a little rough on the
    corners, but still made the tears flow from my eyes.
    
     just a thought,
       joe

    Has anyone ever heard of Andrea Dice Clay?  I've seen her on tv and 
    she is very funny.  I forget what show it was, I see so much comedy.
    
    Her material, of course, is a spoof and total opposite (men stuff!) 
    of The Dice Man and I haven't laughed that hard in a long time!  I
    guess she's also a 'dated' comic, but boy is she talented.  Leather
    coat, ciggiebut hanging out of her mouth... real classy 'piece of meat!'
    
    BTW - I think a lot of ADC's material is a riot!  He's a pig, but I 
    seem to favor dirty jokes!  I'm a woman and I don't get offended or
    take it personal.  I don't know, call me sick, but it's funny.
    
    my 2 cents!
    Pam

    She was a spoof on 'In Living Color'.....

    RE: 171 ::Martin
    
    Thanks!  That's where I saw her, on 'In living Color'!  I think the
    only times I laugh with that show is when they're spoofing/making
    fun of someone.  They're pretty talented that way.  Oh, and I can't
    forget the dancing - I love it!
    
    Does anyone have that episode taped?  Was it the sister that did 
    that spoof (Waynes?)  I'll ask in the tv notes conference if anyone has
    that on tape too.
    
    Thanks,
    Pam

    	They also had Samantha Kineson on once too - I don't know if
    it was the same woman that spoofed both, but whoever it was had
    that routine down as well!

    	amy

    Andrea Dice Clay was spoofed by Kim Wayans....the sister of Keenan.
    
    Samantha Kinison was not spoofed by her, but by one of the other female
    cast members.....
    
    And my favorite skit that they do is Antione and the other guy
    (?)...triple "Z" snap for them....what a pisser!!!!!
    
    Jill
     

RE   It's satire!

I think that the "intentions" of a "satirist" can be important, too.  
For example, compare Mark Knopfler and his song "Money For Nothing" 
with the way that ADC reacts to his audience's perception of his 
satire. 

Knopfler's song "Money For Nothing" is a very clever song that uses a 
homophobic, sexist, and racist narrator to wail against MTV generation 
passivity, mindlessness, and consumerism.  Unfortunately, the song 
was constructed so slickly that gay groups attempted to boycott Dire 
Straits (ironic name, eh?), and fans revelled in the homophobia.  
Apparently, after Knopfler saw how fans shook their fists, contorted
their faces, and spewed the homophobic lines while he performed in
concert, he modified (and later dropped) the lines from the song when
performing live.  I guess he was dedicated to the concept of putting
forth a clear message, to the point that he changed what didn't work. 
And what didn't work was determined by the audience perception and
reaction. 

ADC, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any problem with his 
audience abusing protestors.  He doesn't seem to have any problem with 
people "not getting it."  I would venture a guess that success, 
money, and continued popularity might be more important to this man 
than getting a satirical message across.  

Do you want to support such a satirist?


							--Gerry

    
>>ADC, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any problem with his 
>>audience abusing protestors.  He doesn't seem to have any problem with 
>>people "not getting it."

    And why should he?  Why are you creating such a big moral dilemma for a
    man whose very profession (comedy) has always consisted of poking fun at
    people, objects, professions, social behaviors, etc.  Many people find
    his humor offensive and abusive, and that's fine.  Other people
    consider his humor, funny, and that's OK too.
    
    I realize the need to point fingers at someone.  The physical and mental 
    abuse is a national problem, but very few of the people I know that
    laugh at ADC jokes exhibit any of the qualities that his (ADC)
    character portrays.
    
       - Larry

    from today's Boston Globe, Comedy Review by Steve Morse
    
    Despite criticism, Clay's dirt is even viler than usual

    
    WORCESTER -- A group of 20 protesters picketed Andrew Dice Clay's 
    crudely chauvinistic show at the Centrum last night.  Carrying signs 
    that read "Hating women is no joke" and "We're not laughing," the 
    picketers were from various men's awareness groups that didn't 
    appreciate his Neanderthal tongue.
    
    What did they get for their effort?

    "We got some whores protesting out front tonight," Clay told his 9,000 
    fans inside, ending any thought that he might temper his show in the 
    wake of a landslide of negative reaction this year.

    If anything, Clay was more vile and vulgar than usual.  Recalling his 
    experience last spring when singer Sinead O'Connor boycotted his 
    performance, he said he was sorry he couldn't meet her because he 
    thought she's want to have oral sex with him.

    But then came a moment that showed just how far removed from reality 
    Clay's ego can be.  "Sometimes it gets to you once in a while, but you 
    got to believe in yourself," he said.  "And sometimes you do touch 
    people."  He then introduced a friend who had been "touched" at a Clay 
    show and had since beaten cancer.  The implication was that Clay's 
    comedy had something to do with the healing.

    The height of gall?  You bet.  The Brooklyn-born Clay is in some sort 
    of dreamland if he thinks his comedy is a public service.  How do you 
    canonize a guy who goes on to make sick fun of women, ethnic groups, 
    midgets, fat people and even babies?

    But most of all, of course, women.  Staring at a woman in front (a 
    rare sight, since 80 percent of the crowd was male), he bellowed, 
    "Where's the short dress?  Where's the attitude of treat me like the 
    pig that I am?"

    Trying to make his act more topical, Clay reserved special venom for 
    the female Boston sportswriter who has charged several New England 
    Patriot football players with sexual harassment.  Clay dumped on her, 
    saying he couldn't believe she went to college just so she could look 
    at men in locker rooms.

    The sad thing is that Clay has a good sense of comic timing.  But his 
    lowest-common-denominator sex banter is so narrowly defined that it 
    becomes grim and boring after an hour on stage.  And this time he 
    didn't even play drums or show clips from his movie flop, "The 
    Adventures of Ford Fairlane."  No wonder many fans stayed away this 
    time -- he sold out two Centrum shows last year, but failed to sell 
    out one this trip.
    

>>ADC, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any problem with his 
>>audience abusing protestors.  He doesn't seem to have any problem with 
>>people "not getting it."
>
>    And why should he?  

Because he plays a big part in it.  He owns some responsibility.  (Not 
all, just the responsibility of a catalyst.)

>    Why are you creating such a big moral dilemma for a
>    man whose very profession (comedy) has always consisted of poking fun at
>    people, objects, professions, social behaviors, etc.  

Because there are people "whose profession consists of poking fun at 
people, objects, professions. social behaviors" whose schticks do not 
offend, do not rally the audience "against" a group of people, and who 
show some responsibility for what they say on stage.  For example, 
Whoopi Goldburg, Richard Pryor, Lily Tomlin, and Bobcat Goldwait (sp?) 
come to mind.  They also "poke fun at people objects, professions, and 
social behaviors," but they do not serve as catalysts for the hatred 
of groups of people, like ADC does.  If you doubt the truth of this, 
just look at the audience verbally abusing the protestors outside of 
the Centrum this past week.


>    The physical and mental 
>    abuse is a national problem, but very few of the people I know that
>    laugh at ADC jokes exhibit any of the qualities that his (ADC)
>    character portrays.

Very few of us wear white hoods, burn crosses, and lynch people.  
However, most of us act on racist assumptions (check out the Charles 
Stuart case for an example of a whole city running on incorrect, racist 
assumptions and knee jerk reactions).  I would be willing to 
generalize and say that most ADC fans are allowing their racism, 
sexism, and homophobia to go unchecked.  THAT'S WHY IT'S FUNNY, you 
see.  Because the stuff deep down is going unexamined.

ADC fans might not lynch people, but the worst may verbally abuse 
protestors (note the quick use of the term "faggot" and "dyke" at 
people who are protesting abuse against women; note the quick, 
knee-jerk assumptions operating down deep).  The best of ADC fans will 
probably react in more subtle ways to their own unexamined racism, 
sexism, and homophobia.

							--Gerry

    "Rally the audience against a group of people".  Interesting remark.
    You make it seem like ADC is leading a mob to riot.  If anything, the
    protesters outside the Centrum served as a catalyst.  I'm not denying
    that the fans have their prejudices, the "faggot" and "dyke" slurs
    are a clear example of that, but if the protesters WEREN'T there, no
    comments would have been made.  So who/what was the catalyst?  The fans
    whose purpose was to attend an ADC show or the protesters whose purpose
    was to pass out leaflets and gain TV time and newspaper ink for their
    cause?
   
    I believe that the protesters had a right to be there and they
    shouldn't have been subjected to the verbal abuse that they received,
    but to hold one man responsible or to blame him as the agitator when
    he was probably in his dressing room at the time, is unfair.  I applaud
    the idea of fighting prejudism, racism, abuse of women and minorities,
    but I believe that protesting ADC concerts is misguided.

       - Larry

> If you doubt the truth of this, 
>just look at the audience verbally abusing the protestors outside of 
>the Centrum this past week.

 Picture this: you are going to a comedic performance of a well known and
controversial gay performer. His shtick basically amounts to referring to
heterosexuals as homophobes, debasing heterosexuals' lifestyle (who needs
snot nosed kids around anyway? Why do they have to show affection in public?),
attacking Catholicism and basically goring the white male heterosexual ox
in any way he can. Of course he does this to howling gay audiences, who nod
their heads in agreement with every stereotype. As you approach the entrance
to the hall, you are greeted by a small group of protestors with placards
and leaflets. "Heterophobia is not the answer." "Don't answer stereotypes
with stereotypes." as well as "You can be cured." How do you feel? Are you
ambivalent to the existence of protestors? Are you pleased? Angry? Defensive?

 My personal opinion is that protesting the show was tantamount to telling
people "You can't enjoy this. You can't find this funny because it's morally
offensive. Yet how many of these protestors would have supported Robert
Mapplethorpe's right to exhibit those photos which many people found offensive?
It all depends on whose ox gets gored. And when it's "the establishment" that
is offended, well that's just too bad. Well let's be consistent. If we are
to protect artists, then you've got to protect ADC. It always comes down to
someone saying "I just don't see any art in there. That's just garbage to me."

 The Doctah

    Andrew Dice Clay hardly needs protecting, if protecting is defined as not
    protesting.  The protesters outside of ADC's concert may well have thought,
    "You can't enjoy this because it's morally offensive."  That's fine with me.
    Protesters outside of a Mapplethorpe exhibit or a Farrakahn speech may
    feel the same way.  Go for it.  I'll be willing to potest an ADC
    concert or a Farrakahn speech.  I'm also willing to dodge protesters to
    attend a Maplethorpe exhibit or a screening of "Last Temptation of
    Christ".  Protest is good, even if it *is* your ox being gored.
    
    However, there's a huge difference between protesting art and supporting
    laws which make creating and/or enjoying art a crime.  That's the only
    protection Mr. Clay gets from me.
    
    LArry  

    RE:          <<< Note 476.182 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "toys R us" >>>

>	If I found myself in a black ghetto, would I be racist if I
>    were to assume that I was in a bad place?

         That depends on your definition of "bad".  If you are taking a
    direct connection from BLACK to crime and violence, then you are making
    a racist assumption.  There are ghettos of many different racial
    concentrations which may be unwise for strolling.
    
         If you were in a Black ghetto and had a Jesse Helms campaign
    poster in your hands, you could reasonably deduce that you had made a
    bad decision on paths to take.
    
                                     Greg
    

There is a good article in the November 1st Rolling Stone magazine 
about the band Living Color.  In the article, they describe what it 
was like to watch Guns N Roses rally a crowd with the idea that it was 
okay for them to use the N word as long as it wasn't directed only to 
African Americans.  The members of Living Color talk about what it was 
like to feel an audience moved to near violence by a performer, and 
how they feel that performers have a responsibility for the movement 
that they generate in their audiences.

It speaks more eloquently than my persisting in here about ADC.  Check 
it out.  You might not agree with it, but it is good reading.


							--Ger