Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 George Harrison Dead: The World Mourns

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Nov 30, 2001
George Harrison, a spiritual hero to millions, has passed away. He was 58 years old.


More stories about Arts
Thomas Kinkade brings art back to the people
Review: Fred Fortin, 'Le Plancher des Vaches'
Review: Willie Col?n, `Lo Mato'
Anthrax - Please, PLEASE change your name.
Kill Yr Idols: Kurt Cobain
Anthrax - Some factual corrections, but no apology.
This week's top-selling music releases
Music Review: Britney
Some help for all you aspiring Santas.
Fuck Cunt Shit Piss Cocksucker Motherfucker Tits
Classic rerelases: Caf? Tacuba, Les Cowboys Fringants
The Semiotics of modern 'Popular' music - Symbolism and Discourse
Review: Saint Luke's Christmas Eve Candlelight Service
Britney Spears' Six-Inch Secret
Reexamining the Recording Industry
Hey Kids! Need a Band Name? Then Check This Out!
An Adequate Guide to This Weekend in Television
Your Adequate Guide to Weekend Television
The History of Rap.
Theater Review: My Fair Lady
World Music Review: Ozomatli, `Embrace the Chaos'

More stories by

Lolita's World: The disturbing tendencies of the modern man.
Why we must increase Space Weapons research - a proof from the Drake equation.
The British Empire - Why it was so good.
Goths and Vampirism - A final solution?
Kill Yr Idols: Tiger Woods
Models - Stormtrooping superbitches of the Fashion Industry
Don't look at me.
A paean to masochism: A new philosophy of life.
Why America needs laws against flag burning.
AOL - The Saviour of the Internet
An Analysis of Marketing Techniques in Supermarkets.
Football & Fascism -- Prima Donnas and the Superman
A Day on the Town
Kill Yr Idols: Usamah bin Muhammad bin Laden
Using the Myers-Briggs System for a Better Society
Real Men use Realdolls?
Why I want to be an American Citizen

Born in 1943 and raised in squalor by a busdriver and a housewife, that Mr Harrison eventually transcended his humble origins is a tribute to strict parenting and family values.

George first came to fame singing for 'The Beatles', a 1960's popular music group of some repute. He played guitar for the band, but it was inevitable that he would leave them eventually, just as he had left the Quarrymen and Johnny and the Moondogs before.

In 1969 he left the pedestrian Beatles behind and hurtled towards a new destiny. At first he became a solo artist, touring with great success in America in the early 70's. But the success caused him to drift away from his wife Pattie Boyd, and before long his good 'friend' Eric Clapton eloped with her. Poor Harrison was at a new low.

Really, though, he was only just beginning. He soon shacked up with Olivia Arrias, a poor Mexican-Californian unlikely to leave him, and then formed quite possibly the most talented musical ensemble the world has ever seen - The Travelling Wilburys, a band consisting of Bob Dylan, Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty, Roy Orbison and of course George himself. This new band wowed the world and made superstars of its members, with such hits as Tweeter and the Monkey Man and Heading for the Light. George had finally found the fame he had always longed for.

To appreciate the acclaim Harrison received in this period, one only has to note that a Minor Planet was named after him (4149 Harrison, a minor planet in a 4.35 year elliptic orbit at 12.9 degrees to the ecliptic plane, just as Harrison would have wanted). One has to wonder if he has possessed this celestial body now that he has passed away. Few people get deified in their own lifetime, and Harrison would be just the sort to enjoy the fame of being a Minor God.

After the tragic and distressing break-up of the Wilburys, Harrison became a broken man, He had achieved fame at last, but for what? He became a recluse, refusing to talk of his years in the Wilburys and living in Friar Park, an enormous Gothic mansion in rural England.

That he was sick of the fame he achieved can be seen in this quote:

"I'm really quite simple. I don't want to be in the business full-time, because I'm a gardener. I plant flowers and watch them grow. I don't go out to clubs and partying. I stay at home and watch the river flow."

Poor Harrison had come full circle, a life endlessly spent chasing fame, only to reject it and return to his Liverpudlian, working class hatred of recognition when he finally grasped the nettle and found that it stung.

The famous event in 1999 where he was stabbed in his mansion can really be interpreted as symbolic of Harrison's life. He wanted fame, desperately searched for it throughout his span, but when he finally achieved it with the Wilburys he rejected the consequences. The stabbing was his fame reminding him he can't just ignore it, take the good parts and ignore the bad. Fame demands its own terms, and when it reminded Harrison of this salient truth, Harrison was back on the road to spiritual recovery.

Really, we should all be happy he is finally dead, and that he has at last reached a sort of resolution - he has all the fame of a Minor Planet, but he can never be touched or molested now. He wanted fame without any consequences. Now he has it.

After his death, we see how his real friends react, and how his enemies try to capitalise on his posthumous fame:

I am devastated and very, very sad.

We knew he'd been ill for a long time. He was a lovely guy and a very brave man and had a wonderful sense of humour.

He is really just my baby brother.

Paul McCartney

This is really a shameless, despicable attempt to capitalise on Harrison's fame by a man long since eclipsed and forgotten. Note that Harrison's true friends from the Wilburys, such as Roy Orbison, have not been seen or heard in this trying time. They have kept a dignified silence, and not polluted the airwaves with such emotional rot as:

George was a best friend of mine.

We will miss George for his sense of love, his sense of music and his sense of laughter.

Ringo Star

Many Harrison songs are available here. Long after the Wilburys great rivals, the Rolling Stones, are forgotten, their music will live on, and you can help it live thanks to free software.


58 is far too young to die (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Adam Rightmann on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 11:58:45 AM PST
it's very sad, but I wonder what how much his marijuana addiction contributed to his cancer.

A. Rightmann

Addiction? (1.00 / 1) (#7)
by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 12:17:47 PM PST
Read the studies. Do the research. It's not addictive...I wonder how much all the damn shit they add to our food contributed to his cancer?

"Our"? (none / 0) (#8)
by tkatchev on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 12:21:42 PM PST
What do you mean "our"? As far as I know, George lived in Great Britain.

Peace and much love...

True, but where did he die? (none / 0) (#17)
by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 01:00:15 PM PST
He died in Los Angeles, California according to the Salon article.

True, it says he died at a friend's home...but he obviously spent a good amount of time here.

Lots (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Right Hand Man on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 12:59:25 PM PST
I'll avoid the needless swearing but I will agree that possibly his diet played some part in his early death.

From what I know of drug addicts, they don't have the best nutritional habits. That, coupled with the fact that Mr. Harrison lived in England where the food is of considerably lower quality than the US, owing to their political nearness to Socialism and the resulting bread lines that always crop up when the government meddles with private industry, probably accelerated his demise. Had he grown a decent percentage of his own food and hunted for a good portion of his meat I'm sure he would have added a few years to his life.

Of course just laying off the dope probably would have helped more.

"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Hmmm... (none / 0) (#35)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 05:17:23 PM PST
How much of your own food supply do you produce? For civilization to exist as it is today, a certain level of specialization is required. Some people serve society by growing large amounts of food, while others entertain those farmers.

Today, if everyone had to produce a substantial portion of their food, our nation could not exist because people would be unable to concentrate exclusively on what they do best, whether that be making music or whatever you work at everyday.

Well (none / 0) (#36)
by Right Hand Man on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 05:55:53 PM PST
How much of your own food supply do you produce?

Quite a bit. Actually, God has blessed my garden with rather fertile soil and my woods with a good supply of game. I still buy basics like sugar, flour, oranges, etc., things I can't grow in Pennsylvania, but hunting and fishing supplies me with well over half of the meat I consume.

Today, if everyone had to produce a substantial portion of their food, our nation could not exist

Actually I think the nation would be better off if people were less dependent on others. Primarily it would help build back the sense of individual responsibility that has been eroded by the left leaning education system. If you know that if you don't get up off the couch and go pull some weeds you won't be eating much over the winter, you won't be as afflicted with sloth.
This also fits with a long standing contention of mine that the federal welfare program should be replaced by a program that provides each destitute family with a small plot of land and reasonable quantity of seed. I'm no Libertaryan, I think government has its place in providing for the common defense and helping keep people on the straight and narrow, but generally the less we see of it in our everyday lives the better. My program would allow government to provide people with the means to be self sufficient to some degree, maybe even throw in a few small farming implements, but then require it to step back and let people get to work. Either you raise a successful crop or you end up seeking charity from the church.

"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

Yes but... (none / 0) (#38)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 06:24:34 PM PST
Most people don't live anywhere near a hunting ground. The majority of the population of the United States lives in urban areas, where arable land is nonexistent and the game is restricted to pigeons and stray animals. They CANNOT provide their own food where they are, and would also be completely lost on a farm. Perhaps "getting back to nature" would be a good thing, but most people are simply unequipped to do so.

The population can only get larger, and barring some extra-terrestrial settlement or a global disaster that significantly decreases the number of people, the surface of the earth will no longer be able to support the number of mouths it must provide for. Your solution would be wonderful, given unlimited or near unlimited land, but as things stand today, the notion of everyone farming for themselves is not feasible.

Can you farm for yourself? (none / 0) (#48)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 12:06:27 AM PST
Imagine for a moment that our commercialism suddenly turned into a black hole and collapsed in on itself taking all those starbucks and blockbusters and walmarts with it. With around ~6 billion people and about 169,968,121,260 km^2 of land, assuming 1/3rd of the Earth's surface, every person could have 14,164 km^2, or a little over 5,400 sq mi. using only half the available space. If we could control our population and put all this technology to use automating all the systems that provide us with our lovely material possessions we might be able to give everyone their own home. Yes, this would require changing our fundamental beliefs. We would have to make quality homes and vehicles and products that don't break easily and are highly modular in design with things like upgradability servicability in mind. We'd have to leverage the power of our networks and information systems to organise the very data we currently organise to provide us with a constant supply of food to the local stores or mail our products. But when you talk about giving everything away like this, splitting it up between everyone all fair like, you're talking about communism or star trek. I don't know. I'd work for free if we all seemed to care a bit more about what's important, like the quality of life and our time. I don't remember the last time I worked for a company that actually cared about its products more than the money it could make from marketting wisely and cutting corners. Let alone its employees.

Okay, how about this? Is it possible to launch an object into space using a maglev rail?

Still not enough and more comments (none / 0) (#67)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 01:44:39 PM PST
First of all, most of the land in those 5400 sq. miles in not farmable unless you are very lucky and get your parcel in the Ozarks, but if your tract is in the middle of the Swiss Alps, you are going to have a bit more trouble. Arable land is not spread evenly across the globe.

Also the population is still going to grow no matter what anyone does. We as a species have defeated natural selection, and the weak and stupid are not weeded out before the propagation their genes. This is an unfortunate aspect of the generally good humanitarian movement that we all help further.

Thirdly, if our cities and commercialistic institutions collapse and we use the land that they vacate as farm land, most of our higher industrialization will collapse as well, because we wouldn't have the concentrations of population that make them possible. And in any case, they would be too busy ploughing and planting to go off and join think tanks or construction gangs that would design and create the automatic production of our material goods.

About Communism, I don't personally have anything against it, but it is a real hot button for most people on this site, and I am trying to keep away from that in this thread.

And finally, about the mag-lev: I think that we have the technology to do so, but the design of the projectile would have to sustain phenomenal g forces, so I don't think that it is feasible for human transport. Also the power demands are astronomical. Again, technologically, this would not be possible in a world culture of large self-contained farms.

Communism is great (none / 0) (#68)
by nathan on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 01:59:52 PM PST
As long as you don't mind the radical destruction of individuality through the reduction of the human organism to a conditioned, behaving bundle of responses.

Communism is so laughable because the very concept of 'materialism' implies 'nihilism.' If all there is to a human being is conditioned, behaving chemicals, which is to say no possibility of personal meaning in life, then why should you have humanistic beliefs (which are purported to be the reason for Communism) in the first place? The answer is because they are socially desirable rather than morally valid.

You go have fun in your test tube.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Yes. (none / 0) (#77)
by tkatchev on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 02:11:08 AM PST
Though some sick indivuduals are trying to synthesize a religious brand of communism; that is, trying to graft communism onto some sort of religious doctrine. Good thing they haven't decided on the appropriate host religion yet. (Though personally, I think Muslim communism would work particularly well.)

Peace and much love...

Aaaaaaaggggggghhhhhhh! (5.00 / 1) (#82)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 07:06:32 AM PST
You see, just mention the word "Communism" and anything else you say takes a back seat to an immediate bashing of the subject. I don't care about Communism on this thread, so if you want to debate it, go to the "Communism in the Workplace" (or whatever it is called) article.

Now, if anyone has anything intelligent to say on the issue at hand (Hint: The establishment of a world farming community and its effect on world industry. NOT Communism) I would welcome your insights and counter-arguments. Thank you.

the subject at hand (none / 0) (#84)
by osm on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 07:56:52 AM PST
is GEORGE HARRISON'S DEATH, you flaming socialist moron. if you want to spread your propaganda, go to kuro4uck.

Shit (5.00 / 3) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 01:23:29 PM PST
Read the studies. Do the research. Shit in food causes bloody diarrhea, not cancer. If you have any evidence of restaurant workers adding shit to food, please report it to your local health authority.

Now that's a spicy meatball! (1.00 / 1) (#21)
by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 01:32:55 PM PST
That's funny shit. Of course, it was not meant literally, but thank you for taking it to it's comic conclusion. You get a star!

Marijuana is addictive (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Stretch on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 03:10:11 PM PST
Read the studies. Do the research. It's not addictive

As someone who has carefully watched the studies and done the research marijauna is mentally addictive however there are no signs showing it is physically addictive. Those two types of addiction are significantly different and should be treated as such.

Just ask any stoner with no stash.

It is also unlikely marijuana contributed significantly to Harrison's death and perhaps even easied it.

i agree (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by osm on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 03:16:02 PM PST
as for harrison's brain tumor - it was a brain tumor wasn't it? personally, i wonder if it had something to do with the lsd.

again? (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 12:24:38 PM PST
you're ridiculous. you won't waste any chance you get to spew your rhetoric. If there is a God, then he cares about the important things, like how you treat other people. He doesn't care if you want to stick a dick up your ass or light up the product of a naturally growing plant.

Well then, enjoy the following natural experience (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Adam Rightmann on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 12:30:12 PM PST
Rake up a nice big pile of poison ivy leaves, prepare yourself a hemlock-belladonna milkshake with a side of stuffed amanita mushrooms, and lie down and enjoy your naturally growing plants.

God made marijuana to be used for hemp, for ropes, cloth and paper. Some degenerates then proceeded to pervert God's purpose by breeding marijuana plants with an increased level of the insecticide THC; somehow finding it's dizzying, confusing effects enjoyable.

A. Rightmann

Poor Adam (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 06:13:01 PM PST

Insecticide? Oh dear... (none / 0) (#62)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 12:31:44 PM PST
    Some degenerates then proceeded to pervert God's purpose by breeding marijuana plants with an increased level of the insecticide THC;
Yeah, right. So, if THC is an insecticide, then why does our brain appear to have cannabinoid receptors from birth? Whereas other, harder drugs mess around with the dopamine level in the brain (very dangerous territory), cannabis seems to be designed for us.

There's only one possible conclusion (none / 0) (#75)
by pyramid termite on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 07:27:18 PM PST
So, if THC is an insecticide, then why does our brain appear to have cannabinoid receptors from birth?

We are actually insects. Our two extra arms are curled up under our armpits and our antannae are actually our eyebrows. George, being a Beatle and a dope smoker, knew the truth, of course and was part of the plot to liberate the sentient insect world of its opressive "humanity". Listen to Taxman, "declare the pennies on your eyes". Surely, knowing that "penny" is Scouse for antanna, it is clear that George was saying that it was time for us to unfurl our eyebrows and be the insects we are. There's more - "Flying" was an ode to the freedom of natural insect flight, "Obladi" was a popular Jamaican insecticide in the 60s, "now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall" is a reference to the liberation of the venue by hungry termites, and Mean Mr. Mustard was, of course, the owner of the Orkin franchise in Liverpool. The Walrus was Paul because he had Tuscany. Sniff this can of Raid and smoke a joint and you will understand everything.
He who hides his madman, dies voiceless - Henri Michaux

Have you ever read God's Word? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by nx01 on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 02:45:50 PM PST
The Bible says "Do not get drunk on wine which leads to debauchery, but be filled with the Holy Spirit."

That seems pretty clear to me. Not all substances are Good Things. Alcohol and other mind-altering drugs such as caffeine, "Mary Jane", XTC, Crack, and dangerous designer drugs such as "N-4-hydroxyphenyl acetamide acetaminophen" are clearly not to be used. If you truly love God, then you will not smoke the devil-weed.

"Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it."
-- James Gosling

but I don't love God... (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 03:17:20 PM PST
and I never said I did. By the way, you know that just about everybody thinks that they're right, and the other person is wrong, don't you? At least I don't need some centuries-old manual to tell me the difference, and however off track I may be, at least I came by my opinions on my own. Of course, I'm waiting for you to say something about sinners who have poisoned my mind...

There are a ton of religions out there, all claim to be right. What is their basis for this? 'Well, it says so right here', they say. You're no different.

Oh yes. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by tkatchev on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 01:03:16 AM PST
You are completely original and free-thinking, just like the other billions of atheists out there.

Peace and much love...

Oh, OK... (none / 0) (#90)
by hauntedattics on Wed Dec 5th, 2001 at 11:04:33 AM PST
So you came to your opinions on your own, huh? That must make them right...

And by the way, no one can poison your mind but you. That's what free will is all about.

see above... (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 03:19:43 PM PST
by the way, I said 'God', not in reference to your sick Christian version of god. You are begging the question, assuming that I accept the Bible as God's word.

Yes I have. (none / 0) (#33)
by Stretch on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 03:38:25 PM PST
The bible can, of course, be interpreted in many ways. There are other quotes that could be (and are) interpreted quite differently. Wine, to me, seems to be much different from marijuana in many respects and similar in few, if any.

Fundamentalism is a plague. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by tkatchev on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 01:01:45 AM PST
Our ancestors were actually much smarter then we are today -- in those days, you had to be smart to succeed in life; plus, proper diet and exercise were the norm in those days, not the exception. Our ancestors, the people who wrote the Bible, could understand metaphor, irony, symbolism, and many other arts which are, sadly, completely lost nowadays.

Anyways, in those days there still existed something called "symbolism", which is a clever way of condensing long explanations into small, tidy packages without losing the emotional impact. In the above quote, "wine" means "a substance that is injested to provide fleeting pleasure, a mild, recreational mind-altering drug, used for entertainment purposes". You see?

Peace and much love...

That's right it doesn't have to be wine. (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 01:28:52 AM PST
That's exactly what I've been trying to tell people. But the priest at my local chapel refuses to substitute a quick bong toke for the more traditional sip of red.

I'll explain to him about the symbolism next time.

Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by tkatchev on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 03:53:58 AM PST
For once, I agree with a liberalist.

Although, you are missing something very important: the cultural context. European peoples have been drinking alcohol for millenia, they have the psychological, cultural, and even physical safeguards that prevent them from sliding into alcohol abuse. In short, we are used to drinking alcohol because our forefathers have done so.

Marijuana, on the other hand, has appeared in Europe only in the second half of the 20th century. Before that, hemp was a plant that was strictly used to make cheap rope and burlap sacks! Since smoking marijuana is something completely new and exotic to Europe, it shouldn't be done. There is no telling what psychological and cultural effects it might have.

Peace and much love...

not quite accurate (none / 0) (#91)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Dec 5th, 2001 at 01:31:50 PM PST
Cannabis 'fruit' has been found in archeological digs in europe dating back to 500-300 BC. The fruit, or flower portion of the plant is NOT useful as a source of fiber. The plant's stalk is what is commonly used to make rope and other material. The flower portion of the plant contains the most concentrated levels of THC (the chemical most often thought of as the one that gets you high). Although the intake methods were different back in these days, the results are nearly identical. Before flower smoking became popular in europe during the 20th century, the preferred method of ingestion was simply eating the flower. If you've ever experienced the high from smoking and the high from eating these flowers, you'll know that there are very subtle differences, but the effects are virtually identical.

There is nothing new or exotic about marijuana intoxication in europe or anywhere else for that matter.

Not true. (none / 0) (#92)
by tkatchev on Thu Dec 6th, 2001 at 12:26:15 AM PST
You have to realize that peoples inhabiting Europe in 500 B.C. were not European in any sense of the word. The culture that we currently consider to be "European" formed quite recently, probably somewhere after 100 A.D., by wiping out the original inhabitants of the sub-continent. (Though nobody knows for sure, since European culture was at the heart pre-literate.) Cannabis consumption was definitely not part of the culture in Europe, for one simple reason: back in those days, you had to consume alcohol to stay alive. As you know, water has tendency to "go bad" very quickly, and drinking stale water is extremely dangerous to your health. There were basically two solutions to this dilemma: either boil water every time you want to take a drink (which is problematic) or drink liquid with a low alcohol content. (Alcohol has an antiseptic effect on bacteria.) So basically, early Europeans drank alcoholic drinks instead of water. (Wine in the south, beer/ale in the north.) This is still reflected in European language -- in all European languages, there is no distinction between "consuming liquids" and "consuming alcohol". Obviously, to the early European, alcohol was the only drinkable liquid.

Contrast this to cannabis consumption: there isn't one single European language that has a word for "cannabis". We have a word for "hemp", but obviously "cannabis" and "hemp" are two completely different concepts. Why is it that we need loan words from non-European cultures to describe cannabis? (i.e. "marijuana", "hashish", etc.)

Your conclusion is obviously logically flawed. Sorry, but your statements are simply unfounded.

Peace and much love...

way off (none / 0) (#94)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Dec 7th, 2001 at 05:05:50 AM PST
Ok, lets say people living in Europe in 500BC weren't European, when did the Europeans arrive? If you want to choose 100AD, thats around when a Roman surgeon (Dioscorides) names the plant cannabis sativa and described its potential medical use. "Cannabis" is actually the latin word for marijuana.

Although European languages do borrow MANY foreign words for marijuana, this is simply because it was more popular in other cultures long before Europe. For example, the world's first known medical text (Shen Nung's Pen Ts'ao) shows that the Chinese considered it a "superior herb" as early as 3700 BC. The role of cannabis in early Europe's culture was defintely less important than in other cultures of the same time period, but it still played a significant role.

I don't understand your logic... even if you HAD to consume alcohol to stay alive, how does that imply that cannabis is not a part of the culture as well? The two are completely independent and unrelated.

You are also incorrect in your definitions of "cannabis" and "hemp". They are in fact the same if you are speaking of a plant species. There are two different types of cannabis, cannabis sativa, and cannabis indica. Either may be farmed for fiber or herb. The difference between "hemp" and "marijuana" as we define it today is simply a distinction between cannabis strains. Hemp plants tend to have very low levels of psychoactive chemicals and tend to grow very tall in order to maximize fiber production. Marijuana plants are simply the strains with higher levels of THC. However, there is no reason that marijuana plants can't be used as an excellent fiber source.

Reply (none / 0) (#95)
by bc on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 08:52:27 AM PST
Ok, lets say people living in Europe in 500BC weren't European, when did the Europeans arrive? If you want to choose 100AD, thats around when a Roman surgeon (Dioscorides) names the plant cannabis sativa and described its potential medical use. "Cannabis" is actually the latin word for marijuana.

Tkatchev is talking about European culture as we define it today. Obviously we don't consider the inhabitants of Europe before 500BC to be properly European in any real sense - there was no such thing as a common European identity or common European traits at that time. Even with the rise of the Roman Empire, things didn't change much because the Roman Empire was a Mediteranean civilisationstuck on the edges of Europe. It's centre of gravity was not in Europe.

It was only the with the rise of Charlemagne and the spread of Christianity that Europe (as we know it) really started to form.

As for Cannabis, the simple fact is that it has always been vastly more popular outside Europe than in. Any attempts to say that Europeans used to be all potheads really requires some proof. Where are the potsmokers in Shakespeare, Chaucer, the Mabinogion, and the Ancients? There are none, which is strange (copious mentions of beer though).

♥, bc.

wholehearted agreement (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by nathan on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 07:13:16 PM PST
The post preceding bc's demonstrates typical liberalist sophistry. "The hemp plant was known to a Roman botanist," this AR says, "so therefore Europeans used to use weed!" One might as well say that ancient European beer was flavoured with hops because they were described by Livy - as a garden vegetable! (The first use of hops to flavour beer dates to the 13th century.)

Face it, AR, some perverted Europeans may have eaten hemp in order to get "stoned," as they say, but most people just used it for its actual useful properties. Its use was neither widespread nor condoned until this century.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

OT: Medieval beer. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by tkatchev on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 02:30:54 AM PST
Actually, what in medieval times was called "beer" wasn't beer in our understanding of the word. "Beer" back then was any cheap drink with low-alcohol content. It could be brewed with anything -- turnips, cabbage, berries, honey, you name it. It was also lower in alcohol content than modern beer -- that's because beer brewers nowadays usually lace beer with alcohol.

Peace and much love...

beer (5.00 / 1) (#99)
by nathan on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 02:05:28 PM PST
That may be so, but I'm speaking explicitly about the 'beer' family of drinks brewed from malted barley. This practice dates back to Sumeria, and has been continuously practiced in some parts of Europe since the 7th century.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

MJ vs. wine (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by nathan on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 01:37:30 PM PST
I don't recall reading about the Last Bongathon in the Gospel. Pot smoke makes rather poor "blood," wouldn't you say?

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

it is true (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by nathan on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 11:33:45 AM PST
One of the upsetting paradoxes of industrialization was that universal literacy killed the capacity to make sense out of literature. It's sad that there's a nation of readers who are unable to enjoy wrestling with literature. (This is not to say that "no-one reads," but by and large, it is for pleasure rather than for edification. Just look at all those horrible "novels" based on Dungeons and Dragons. The sad part is that kids read them; the other sad part is that adult children do so as well.)

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

There's a reason (1.00 / 1) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 12:22:53 PM PST
Roy Orbison is dead and has been for quite a few years.

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr (none / 0) (#20)
by alprazolam on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 01:27:41 PM PST
There was a lot more to the Wilburys than Roy the Boy you know.

So (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 01:42:37 PM PST
I'm simply saying that there's a reason Roy Orbison hasn't commented.

Don't keep us in suspense! (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 06:55:11 PM PST
Why hasn't Roy Orbison commented?

Obviously... (5.00 / 3) (#43)
by bc on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 07:06:39 PM PST
...because he has more respect for George Harrison than to get his picture into the newspapers and eke out more record sales by making glowing tributes on national media.

I expect he is grieving in private, as a tasteful and respectful man, and a true friend of George, should.

♥, bc.

Um (1.00 / 1) (#51)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 01:06:43 AM PST
...Because Roy Orbison is dead.. Does anyone read before they reply?

yes, of course (none / 0) (#60)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 11:38:30 AM PST
I'm sure a part of him died when he heard of his friend's sad passage to the other side. Unlike Paul.

alright, you idiots.... (none / 0) (#61)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 12:29:46 PM PST
here is where I got this quote from. Watch and learn what researching facts is all about, jackasses.

"Everything was set for a full-fledged comeback when his brother Sam found him dead of a heart attack in Hendersonville, Tennessee on December 6, 1988."

yeah, a part of him died. His goddamn aortic valve.

please, use your common sense (5.00 / 2) (#64)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 12:58:19 PM PST
If Roy were dead, would he be grieving in private over the loss of his best friend? You mustnt believe everything you read on the web. I dont know if you realize this but there isnt actually a licensing body overseeing who gets to indulge their lunacy on the information dirt road. As a result of deregulation by omission in the Internet account market, anyone is theoretically able to pollute the information hypersphere with disinformation and wicked rumor; and unfortunately just about anyone does. This will shortly change as soon as the United Nations convenes its annual plenary session and charges AOL with full custody and stewardship of the Inter-Network, but until then, adequacy must remain the only trusted source for controversial fact on that Inter-network.

Now please let this thread die in peace, unlike Harrison or Roy.

George Harrison is still alive. (none / 0) (#87)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Dec 4th, 2001 at 03:09:45 AM PST
Stop trying to make him look bad you bastards!

I hate to be repetitive here, (none / 0) (#57)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 10:30:34 AM PST
but Roy is dead. He has been for a little while now. Why is it that just about story on this site has some serious problems with facts?

Memory (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 10:40:10 PM PST
You are forgetting about that unfortunate tour bus incident involving Tom Petty and Jeff Lyne.

excuse me? (1.00 / 2) (#18)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 01:07:39 PM PST
um, I hate be a downer here, but wasn't the beatles far more commercially successful than anything else Mr. Harrison did? Check your facts before posting!

Yes, but... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 02:34:40 AM PST
I think Mr. bc means to define success in terms of respect from one's peers or influence on the music scene in general. The Wilbury's far outshined Harrison's other band in that sense.

Ah, yeah. You're a number pusher. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by em on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 02:09:29 PM PST
You value music based on how many copies are sold, eh? Do you work in the record industry?

Clearly bc wasn't talking about this "commercial success" gimmick you brought up. bc is thinking of *real* success, which is not the market-sanctioned illusion that you seem to worship.
Associate Editor,

I'm going to miss George (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by nx01 on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 02:37:21 PM PST
God, I loved the Beach Boys when I was younger! I guess with this death, there really is no hope of them getting back together!

I guess we'll always have his music. I'm sending out some "good vibrations" George's way. :-(

"Every time I look at the X window system, it's so fucking stupid; and part of me feels responsible for the worst parts of it."
-- James Gosling

Beach Boys? (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 03:07:51 PM PST
You are probably thinking of Brian Wilson. He's dead. )-;

You have it backwards (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Starship Trooper on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 04:10:26 PM PST
Actually, all the Wilsons *except* Brian are dead. Ironic, isn't it, considering Brian was the only talent in the Beach Boys.
A seasoned witch could call you from the depths of your disgrace, and rearrange your liver to the solid mental grace

What about Carnie? (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 07:01:34 PM PST
"Carnivore" Wilson is, sadly, still with us.

a guy I once knew (none / 0) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 10:25:39 AM PST
bought a car from Carnie's husband. The suspension on the passenger's side was all fucked up. I wonder why.

Brian Wilson isn't dead (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 06:49:05 PM PST
He's a radio talk show host.

ahhhhh the memories (2.50 / 4) (#24)
by osm on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 02:45:06 PM PST
oh wait, i was on acid. never mind.

This is absolutely horrid news (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 03:20:35 PM PST
The world is going to miss George Harrison. Personally, I thought his best work was his portrayal of the Corleone family's lawyer in The Godfather, Part III, though he was also very funny in 8 Heads in a Duffel Bag. At any rate, he was a magnificent entertainer and it's a sad day for us all.

Wrong person! (none / 0) (#63)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 12:54:33 PM PST
Uhh, that's George Hamilton, not George Harrison.

Not quite. (none / 0) (#65)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 01:14:48 PM PST
It is clearly stated in the credit listings of the above-mentioned films that the actor's name is George Harrison. George Hamilton, along with Andrew Ridgeway, founded the pop group WHAM!, whose hit song "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go", woke a lot of us up back in the '80's.

Confused??!! (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Dec 4th, 2001 at 12:34:09 AM PST
Wasn't George Harrison the lead singer of the '80s group Culture Club? This was back before he ruined his skin by getting so overly tan, and he was known as the Boy George...

Gah? (none / 0) (#96)
by Cirieno on Sat Dec 8th, 2001 at 07:09:19 PM PST
Um... Wham! was Geroge Michael (real name Georgios Panayiotou) and Andrew Ridgeley. Strangely, it even mentions this on the site you posted, so... um... research?

Wrong Again (none / 0) (#108)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Dec 14th, 2001 at 02:11:32 AM PST
Geroge Michael was "milli" of Milli Vanilli fame. Andrew Ridgley was the guy who invented Ridgley's Chewing Gum.

*sniffle* (none / 0) (#32)
by jin wicked on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 03:35:41 PM PST

"Ars longa, vita brevis...Art is long, life is short."

Your sig. (none / 0) (#72)
by kwsNI on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 05:02:12 PM PST
I know you've been using that .sig for a while, but I think it was very appropriate there.


Cute, (none / 0) (#78)
by tkatchev on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 02:13:15 AM PST
Cute, but very sad that it has to be translated so that people wouldn't get confused... *sigh*

Peace and much love...

Yes. (none / 0) (#85)
by kwsNI on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 07:38:57 PM PST
What trying times these are when most people can't even read at least one unspoken language.


I'd like to think (none / 0) (#107)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Dec 13th, 2001 at 07:52:39 AM PST
that we have bigger problems than adhering to your elitist agenda.

Yes weed is addictive in a way (1.00 / 1) (#44)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 09:47:06 PM PST
First of all i would like to say that i feel bad about G.H. dieing, i really like "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and more.

Well i've been smoking weed for about 7 years now, of which 5 were about every day. I just quit 2 months ago, and that wasn't really easy to do but not to hard either. Quiting smoking cigarettes is about 100 X harder. I just got nervous and slightly agressive for 2 weeks, then i never had the urge to smoke weed again. But it makes you think you can't do without it. So it's a psychlogical addiction. It makes itself a part of your life that becomes so common, you can't imagine what life would be like without it (this only goes for every day use like i did)

But i doubt smoking weed will "get you into hell". It doesn't hurt anybody, and although it makes people slightly dull and cloudy, it has much less negative effects on a person's mood than alcohol.

Great music, great man. (3.00 / 1) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 10:02:26 PM PST
George Harrison was an often overlooked figure who played an important part in Western popular music. George was probably the least irritating post-breakup Beatle, and he made a lot of great music. His passing is a real loss for the rock world.

Rather than hang our heads and mourn, it would be more fitting at this sad time to celebrate George Harrison's life through enjoyment of his music. There can be no better way to pay tribute to George's life and work than by logging onto Morpheus, Gnutella, Kazaa, or AudioGlalaxy, and downloading a few hundred megs' worth of George Harrision MP3s (This site has a good listing of song titles to search for). Happy downloading, and may God Bless George Harrison.

Seeing as... (none / 0) (#52)
by tkatchev on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 01:09:47 AM PST
Seeing as George is dead, you won't be hurting anybody by downloading MP3's except the CD packagers.

Peace and much love...

I don't want to hurt anybody (none / 0) (#58)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 11:32:27 AM PST
I just want to celebrate George Harrison's life and work by disseminating his music to people far and wide. Information wants to be free, you know. Here's a little something I think will open that tightly shut mind of yours.

What do those parentheses mean? (5.0/5.0) (1.00 / 1) (#88)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Dec 4th, 2001 at 03:11:40 AM PST
what do those parentheses mean?(5.0/5.0)

Um... (1.00 / 1) (#89)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Dec 4th, 2001 at 03:46:58 PM PST
Maybe the reason "friends" like Roy Orbison haven't been heard from is because Roy Orbison is also dead. He has been for quite some time.

Research is always a good idea before writing a story.

George Harrison (1.00 / 1) (#93)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Dec 6th, 2001 at 06:21:40 AM PST
Who wrote this crap? You must be an idiot!!!!!! Roy Orbison didn't comment on George's death because Roy himself has been dead for a few years now.
And comparing the Traveling Wilburys to the Rolling Stones, I think that statement lets everyone know that you are from your own MINOR PLANET. Go Back!!!!

This is nice and all, but... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by Lint on Mon Dec 10th, 2001 at 04:47:43 AM PST I'm sure a few people posted, aside from fundie xian and anti-drug rantings, there are quite a few things wrong with your observations on Mr. Harrison's life. But as I'm too tired/lazy to go through all of the postings, here you are...

Firstly, I wouldn't say he was raised in "squalor". His father drove a bus and he went to art school. Humble, perhaps, but let's not exaggerate it. "Working-class" is the preferred term.

Secondly, I don't agree with the impression that he was using the Beatles as a kickboard for his own career. True, one gets the impression that he wanted out of the Beatles almost as soon as they hit the big-time, but I would say that was more due to his being uncomfortable with popularity than anything else, period.

In fact, George was the one who suggested that the Beatles take to the studio rather than tour, due to the huge crowds and his disappointment with the fans (or the band, for the matter) not being able to hear their music over the noise of the audience. And, thus, was the point where the Beatles changed music forever through their experimentation in the studio and the artistry of the band working together on more major projects, such as Sergeant Pepper's and The White Album.

Third: George didn't "drift away" from Patti Boyd due to his success--she moved in with his best friend, Eric Clapton (the song Layla was written for Boyd). However this didn't affect their friendship. In fact, George, Eric and Patti stayed friends until the end, while George and Eric and worked together on many musical projects between the point of the Beatles' breakup and until George's death. I believe that Eric Clapton was even helping with what may be George's last album (if it is released) "A Portrait of a Leg End".

Fourthly, You seemed to cut out the most brilliant portion of Mr. Harrison's career in order to focus on the Traveling Wilburys. In fact, most of George's critical and commercial success took place long before the Wilburys were even thought of. George Harrison's "All Things Must Pass", which is reverently agreed as being his best album, came out while the Beatles were still warm. Other solo albums such as "33 and a 1/3", "Somewhere in England", "Dark Horse" and "Extra Texture" gave us classics such as All those Years Ago (a tribute to John Lennon, R.I.P yesterday), This Song, Crackerbox Palace, You, and of course Dark Horse. This is an excellent site with a complete Harrison discography and lyrics listing for those who are interested.

Next--and most disappointing--was the way in which you described the Traveling Wilburys, as if they were in and of themselves some sort of major rock-and-roll phenomenon. Yes, an incredible line up BUT! The Traveling Wilburys were just this: A group of very close friends, a bunch of self-described "Old Farts" who played together part-time when they were in-between solo work. Jeff Lynne, one of the Wilburys, was one of George's closest friends and long-time musical collaborator. As was Dylan, who co-wrote many of George's solo works, and for whom George played at his fairly-recent (post Wilburys, I believe) tribute concert.

There was no nasty Wilburys break-up. No drama, no sensation. The stopped playing together because 1) Roy Orbison died, and 2) They only played together when they felt like it. For more information on the Wilburys, I suggest you visit here, where you will find your much-sought-after Wilburys' tributes to George.

Also forgotten from your post on George was his film work, including his HandMade Films production company which produced such films as "Monty Python's Life of Brian", "Time Bandits", "Mona Lisa" and many others. He helped artists who hadn't been seen or heard make their own films with very little involvement, and helped launch the careers of (now) major cinematic artists such as Terry Gilliam and Bob Hoskins.

George Harrison was a deeply spiritual man who enjoyed his privacy, his family and friends and his music. From my impression, I think being a "god" of any size would have been the furthest thing from his mind, no matter the niceties of having a planet named after him. I honestly believe that fellow ex-Beatles McCartney and Starr are more devastated by this than could be imagined-- Starr was probably George's oldest and best friend in all of his musical coterie, and McCartney, aside from their legal and personal disputes that started before the Beatles' break-up and carried on through the years ("How Do You Sleep"), rectified some of that anger shortly before George's death. I haven't seen McCartney make any public gestures regarding Harrison's death, aside from asking the media to leave Hari's wife and son alone. So I really don't see how McCartney's, or his best friend Starr's, comments on a long-time friend's death are "capitalizing" off of it, and I frankly found that suggestion a little offensive and insensitive.

I'm sure there's more, but I'm a little flabbergasted so I'll stop while I'm ahead. One question--is this a site devoted to misinformation? If so, I'll feel silly. ;)

Otherwise, if you want real information on Mr. Harrison visit Rolling or NPR's tribute to George Harrison.

He will be sorely missed as a great musician and a brilliant and genuine human being.

Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

argh (none / 0) (#101)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Dec 11th, 2001 at 12:11:13 AM PST
is this some kind of British laughing-on-the-inside-but-sure-as-hell-not-on-the-outside kind of satire? I mean jesus, so he was a more forgettable member of an extraordinary band. You see, the onion actually made me laugh with the words "Ringo Next." Time spent reading this acticle is time I could have spent checking my rectum for detrius.

Then go do it. (none / 0) (#102)
by tkatchev on Tue Dec 11th, 2001 at 02:01:03 AM PST
And spare us from your inane ramblings.

Peace and much love...

Wow (none / 0) (#103)
by Lint on Tue Dec 11th, 2001 at 02:51:47 AM PST
So that's what you do with your free time. I thought you were the type to have a hobby other than making internet postings to topics you don't care about which showcase your rather remarkable lack of manners.

Me, I'm a reader. But whatever floats your boat, buddy.

Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Bill Hicks

Comment from the other side of the pond - UK! (none / 0) (#105)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Dec 12th, 2001 at 07:02:45 AM PST
Some of the self-righteous comments I have read regarding George Harrison's smoking habit are rich coming from a country that gave us Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison, not to mention Curt Cobain ! The behaviour that lead to their respective demise was a lot more 'in yer face' than George.

Thank you.

George Harrison - good guitarist and simpleton (none / 0) (#109)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Dec 18th, 2001 at 07:57:29 AM PST
I agree with the many commentators who have said that Harrisons contribution to the Beatles "sound" is underestimated by most. Similarly his ability as a guitarist is likewise underestimated as his best work always aimed to serve the song rather than show off - neat fills not lengthy solos. Personally I find his ideas on religion and so on as idiotic as those of any other pop star. And it has to be said he was a lucky man in the right place at the right time. When Curtis Mayfield died 2 years ago, there was comparatively little fuss made. But he was considerably greater than Harrison both as musician and man, though he was never in the right place to become mainstream.


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to