|
|
| Author |
Message |
facelift
|
|
Kurt is comatose
| 
Mar 5 16:23 UTC 1994 |
For all of you who care, Kurt Cobain the lea singer of Nirvana, is, since I
last heard, in a coma. What d'yall think about it? Do you care? Do you think he
deserved it? Do you love Nirvana? Oh well...
|
| 61 responses total. |
beng
|
|
response 1 of 61:
|
Mar 5 17:30 UTC 1994 |
Break out those Pearl Jam CDS and listen to them at full volume ...
|
kentn
|
|
response 2 of 61:
|
Mar 5 17:34 UTC 1994 |
Yeah, I heard he woke up. Some people are rejoicing, some are lamenting
the fact. What happened to Kurt to put him in a coma?
|
facelift
|
|
response 3 of 61:
|
Mar 5 17:36 UTC 1994 |
It is said that he fell into a coma do to an overstressed body, lots of
champagne and barbituates.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 4 of 61:
|
Mar 5 19:23 UTC 1994 |
Tommy, you might consider typing return every 70 characters or so--it will make
your responses so much more readable!
|
other
|
|
response 5 of 61:
|
Mar 5 19:54 UTC 1994 |
I was gonna say, "Well, there goes lollapalooza," but if he woke up, then maybe
not...
|
tnt
|
|
response 6 of 61:
|
Mar 5 20:55 UTC 1994 |
Another example of what I call 'auto-Darwinism.'
|
steve
|
|
response 7 of 61:
|
Mar 6 00:09 UTC 1994 |
I kinda understand what Tim means. It was certainly rather stupid
what he did, but perhaps others (like, the kids who buy the majority
of their CDs) will see what a loosing proposition drugs are.
|
rogue
|
|
response 8 of 61:
|
Mar 6 02:00 UTC 1994 |
I like Nirvana and buy their CDs (and indirectly support Cobain's drug
habits, I guess). However, Cobain deserves whatever he gets because he
is an adult and makes his own decisions. If he dies tomorrow because
of an OD, that's his *choice*.
|
davidtg
|
|
response 9 of 61:
|
Mar 6 04:23 UTC 1994 |
well no one can say it wasn't an informed decision. If he dies
I feel no pity, it was his own decision.
|
scg
|
|
response 10 of 61:
|
Mar 6 04:33 UTC 1994 |
Yes, it was his own decision. Still, as a society, we have to examine why
people make that kind of decision. We will always have people using drugs
no matter what we do, but I believe we would have a lot fewer if people were
taught real facts about drug use, rather than a bunch of stuff that is
obviously propaganda.
|
other
|
|
response 11 of 61:
|
Mar 6 05:34 UTC 1994 |
There is so much more than just teaching the real facts about the drugs.
There is also the developing undercurrent of despair, resulting primarily from
the pressures to achieve so that you can spend more money and have all the
goodies that you see the folks on TV having, and the realization that many of
us will *never* have those things simply because we haven't had the luck and/or
the opportunities/tools to use.
|
aaron
|
|
response 12 of 61:
|
Mar 6 14:43 UTC 1994 |
Yeah. Poor Kurt will *never* have a lot of money, or those goodies the
folks on TV have.... No wonder he uses. :*
|
other
|
|
response 13 of 61:
|
Mar 6 17:42 UTC 1994 |
There is also the "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" thing...
|
rogue
|
|
response 14 of 61:
|
Mar 6 22:25 UTC 1994 |
#11: So drugs are for the self-pitying? You surely jest...
|
carson
|
|
response 15 of 61:
|
Mar 6 22:49 UTC 1994 |
the way I understood it, it was an accidental overdose, i.e., he wasn't
being recreational about it. If I remember, the reason he was taking
whatever he OD'd on was because he was fighting pneumonia or something.
|
jamie
|
|
response 16 of 61:
|
Mar 7 00:01 UTC 1994 |
You know, drugs are sort of an IQ test. ODing on them, I mean. After all,
you never hear about insects dying of drug ODs. Except pesticide, and then it
wasn't their fault anyways. So, anyone who uses cocaine, marijuana, LSD, etc,
must have a lower IQ than your common cockroach. Right?
|
park
|
|
response 17 of 61:
|
Mar 7 02:51 UTC 1994 |
poor JimBob,
|
scg
|
|
response 18 of 61:
|
Mar 7 05:37 UTC 1994 |
Then again, the cocroach probably isn't smart enough to figure out where to
get the drugs. I tend to think that drug abuse is probably a lot more on
other environmental factors, other that just "IQ."
|
other
|
|
response 19 of 61:
|
Mar 7 05:49 UTC 1994 |
re#14: The phrasing of your response leaves me wondering what it was
that you were trying to communicate. Try again?
re#16: One of the great problems we have with the idea of legalizing
drugs is that those of you who have been suckered by the propaganda
have not learned to make a distinction between *use* and *abuse*.
We tend to make that distinction with alcohol, attitudes and education
about it are still fuzzy. Yes, we teach the law, which makes a clear
distinction in the case of alcohol between drinking and drunk, but
that distinction is not really the issue.
|
tnt
|
|
response 20 of 61:
|
Mar 7 06:11 UTC 1994 |
And the only time a user might realize he or she is an ABUSER is after the
fact (if at all).
|
other
|
|
response 21 of 61:
|
Mar 7 06:15 UTC 1994 |
Tim, what's your point? Are you saying there *is* no difference between use
and abuse?
|
tnt
|
|
response 22 of 61:
|
Mar 8 02:43 UTC 1994 |
If you use to escape reality, certainly. And that's why people use illicit
drugs.
|
rogue
|
|
response 23 of 61:
|
Mar 8 03:00 UTC 1994 |
#19: In #11, you're essentially saying that people use drugs because they
cannot achieve the sucess or have the money and babes they see on
TV. So they despair and use drugs. My question sarcastically asked
if drugs are for the self-pitying. In other words, how many other
excuses can you come up with why people use/abuse drugs?
|
other
|
|
response 24 of 61:
|
Mar 8 06:50 UTC 1994 |
I'm not making excuses for anybody. People will do what they will do, but
the pressures to which they are exposed on a regular basis affect those
decisions. I'm basically saying that if we as a society work to alter some
of those pressures, we can thereby best affect the demand for illicit drugs.
Again, there must be made a distinction between use and abuse. I use
as an example the drug television (known to make people chronically stupid).
It can be used for entertainment purposes with little recognizeable
detrimental effect, but it can also be abused, causing among other things
an abysmally fantastic view of reality (take for example the constant reports
of how people in other countries think *all* Americans live, on the basis of
our exported tv sitcoms).
People will probably always use drugs for entertainment. Entertainment
is by it's very nature escapist. Does that mean that because drug use is
escapism, that we should ban drugs? That's not only stupid, it defies logic.
(By drugs I mean the recognized chemicals such as pot, lsd, caffeine,
nicotine, alcohol, etc. as well as tv, and in some instances, perhaps also
recorded music, but then who am *I* to judge?)
|
