From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V2 #119 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Sunday, December 13 1998 Volume 02 : Number 119 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Moxy Chanukkah song. ["Jake O'Rama" ] Re: Frucontent and "ethical" content [jherrick@mail.smith.edu] Re: Nature Sounds of NGs [Krista ] Re: Frtripping/Frshow Highlights of 98... [Krista ] Re: either/or [Krista ] Re: Frtripping/Frshow Highlights of 98... [Krista ] Re: First concerts??? [jose07029@yahoo.com] Re: Indie Tape [vika@ibm.net (Vika Zafrin)] Re: either/or: also, the ethics of pet-keeping [vika@ibm.net (Vika Zafri] Re: Indie Tape [shazalinrea@juno.com (Mindy J Munson)] Re: Indie Tape [shazalinrea@juno.com (Mindy J Munson)] Re: California Dreamline [dalevy@aol.com (DALevy)] pet ethics, plus my mangled web address (sorry!) [Srm9988n@aol.com] Re: California Dreamline [katrin@dimensional.com (Katrin Luessenheide Sal] Re: Indie Tape ["A.J. LoCicero" ] Re: Indie Tape ["A.J. LoCicero" ] Re: Indie Tape [pookie ] Re: Indie Tape [pookie ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998 23:12:42 -0600 From: "Jake O'Rama" Subject: Re: Moxy Chanukkah song. On 13 Dec 1998, GordonLew wrote: > I had a little Moxy > I bought their tape today, > And when its on the tapedeck > Then Moxy I will play. > > Moxy Moxy Moxy > I bought their tape today > Moxy Moxy Moxy > Moxy I will play. Nice, very, very, nice call on this one. jake ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 05:24:27 GMT From: jherrick@mail.smith.edu Subject: Re: Frucontent and "ethical" content In article <19981212215504.15269.rocketmail@send203.yahoomail.com>, Juliette Lexington wrote: > Frucontent: > > Has anyone else noticed that there are two versions of the back cover > for the YWGTTM CD? Speaking off differing CD details, my friends and I noticed that the Canada version of "Wood" has a completely different print on the actual CD than the America version. Are we the only ones who feel jealous about the lack of creative distribution? By the way, your second quote is great! > "The truth will set you free, > but, first, it will piss you off." - Gloria Steinem Julie Herrick (Smithie) - -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 07:28:27 GMT From: Krista Subject: Re: Nature Sounds of NGs Gruneberg Veronica J aptly wrote: > > Man, Monique, do I understand the pre-exam hell. Yep, "hell" is the proper term for it, all right. This has been an absolute *doozy* of a week. I'm surprised my brain hasn't short circuited yet. I feel like curling up on the sofa with hot chocolate and watching bad T.V. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 07:23:03 GMT From: Krista Subject: Re: Frtripping/Frshow Highlights of 98... Lizzie reminisced: > > > there was: Jian reading from "Lovin' Leo"; LOL!!! Now *that* would have been hilarious to see :-! My friend and I were shopping a while back, and saw that very book! We too took turns reading the most ridiculous parts out loud to each other in animated "teenybopper" voices, much to the chagrin of the other customers - some people have *no* sense of humour :-p... ---Krista--- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 07:54:28 GMT From: Krista Subject: Re: either/or Alan Sigman asked: > > I just have to ask - how do you get your groceries home? > I use mesh bags whenever I remember to bring them to the store with me. I avoid plastic bags whenever I can. By the end of the week I always seem to have about 14,897 plastic bags littering my house. I think they mate in my closet when I'm asleep at night. Loose pieces of paper, and dirty glasses gathered around my sink have the tendency to multiply regularly in the same fashion. ---Krista--- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 07:41:27 GMT From: Krista Subject: Re: Frtripping/Frshow Highlights of 98... hKatherine@ehmail.com shares her personal Frutripping highlights: >my mom's crush on Mike; Your mom too?! Cool :-)! >seeing Martin Sexton for the first time!!! Seeing Martin Sexton live *is* an event to be remembered! Just a single man with a guitar, alone on a stage, and yet he is able to captivate an entire audience. Such a magnetic perfomer (does that make any sense? It does to me, but then again it's 12:39 in the morning and I'm not thinking all that clearly). Krista ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 09:19:43 GMT From: jose07029@yahoo.com Subject: Re: First concerts??? In article , "Jennifer K. Heffron" wrote: > First concert: Rick Springfield (!) at the ATP Tennis Center near King's > Island, Cincinnati, August 1982. I think it was The "Working Class Dog > Tour." The Greg Kihn Band opened. It was most excellent. > > Second concert: Loverboy. Oh yeah! At the Indiana State Fair the > following August. I had to throw that in because it is such a one-two > double whammy. And I even got a t-shirt. Too bad I didn't hold onto it. > It was hot pink, as I recall. > > Go ahead--you can laugh if you want to. I'd like to think that my musical > tastes had nowhere to go but up after that. Hey, I was young back then. > But, I am a little ashamed to admit that I still tend to linger over the > Rick Springfield greatest hits collection every time I browse through my > BMG catalog. I haven't heard any Rick Springfield since my turntable bit > the dust back in 1986. Except for the snippet of "Jesse's Girl" that was > playing in the background of the movie "Boogie Nights." > > Okay, I'll stop rambling now. > > Jennifer > Hi Jennifer! The Rick Springfield Working Class Dog Tour was also my first concert...it was excellent! I also saw him in his "Success Hasn't Spoiled Me Yet" Tour. I saw him in concert last month...he still looks excellent after all these years! I loved it! It was some 80s thing and there were also other bands there. Loverboy was there too...I gotta say some of those guys haven't aged well. I bought the ticket just to see Rick though. The concert was in New Jersey. Cassie :-) - -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 13:21:47 GMT From: vika@ibm.net (Vika Zafrin) Subject: Re: Indie Tape lesystemed@aol.com (LeSystemeD) delighted us with: >Spamming is not an >uncommon thing on the net. This guy does not deserve it, in spite of your >jejune analysis. Here, I have to agree with the fact that not only is spamming not an uncommon thing, but it's a Wrong Thing To Do to anyone, even the jerk (MNSVHO) who is trying to sell his indie tape to the highest bidder. My post was going to be longer, but Heather pretty much covered what I wanted to say: Steve, what you were talking about were indeed contractual issues. Tobey, the stores, the brothers Gibb, they're all in on the legality issue thing. This guy, apparently, isn't. Do you really think he'll be sending part of his profit off to the Fruvous HQ? I doubt it. Also, regarding the protectiveness issue. I don't believe it is right for ANYone to make profit off of ANYone else's art (dead people's art, especially long-dead people's art, is a different issue entirely, we won't get into it, will we?), so I don't think it's a case of being overprotective of Moxy Fruvous in particular. > You may have been humorous, but the original poster was not. I think it was pointed out that, apparently, Gemm.com's rules are first asker, not highest bidder. That would explain why the original poster was not in good spirits. >Don't patronize me, and I won't patronize you, ok? OK. - -Vika, making some sense. Vika Zafrin vika@ibm.net "The wonderful thing about Shakespeare is that when it's done well, it makes people feel smarter than they are. As opposed to dumber than they are. There is really no in-between." - Spencer Golub ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 13:45:06 GMT From: vika@ibm.net (Vika Zafrin) Subject: Re: either/or: also, the ethics of pet-keeping lesystemed@aol.com (LeSystemeD) delighted us with: >Who said that a "species" is sacrosanct? This is the logical fallacy behind the >"endangered species" acts. Why do we care if the evolutionary development of >homo sapiens entails the elimination of hootowlus wintermuffus? I've heard that argument made before. I even agree with some of it, but only with some of it. The Endangered Species List is there for a good reason. For one, some species that are on it, if they become extinct, will take whole ecosystems (is that the right word? help me out here, bio majors) with them. I'm certainly no bio-/zoologist, but even I've heard and read about some silly mosquito or bug or toad that is absolutely integral to certain pond structure, and that, because humans are cutting down trees, or draining ponds, or whatnot (No! Not Bawlmer! Bawstin!), is becoming extinct rather rapidly. Granted, many species that are on the List are not integral for any other life forms. But usually, that's not how it works. Evolution has made us all dependent upon one another, sometimes inconspicuously so (who knows - maybe humans are dependent on, say, elephants; IF that's the case, would your argument against the List change?) Forgive me for this HUGE leap, to some of you it may seem ridiculous; to me it is not. If we don't care about the extinction of any particular species, we get a Hitler, and a "Twelve Monkeys" situation (go see that film if you haven't already, and bring a blankie if you're impressionable - I certainly needed it!). Thinking about it on a purely evolutionary level, who knows if the "Aryan race" would have survived if it were the only thing around? >Really? She can be a bitch, but she can't say, "Listen, Steve, it isn't working >out." We have not provided any alternatives, and it is up to us to do so, if >there are to be any. The limited experience I've had with cats has taught me that if a cat's really, really unhappy, it'll let you know unequivocally. :) >Cats are hard to fit emotionally into this argument, because they look so much >like they are enjoying this or that. Learning what makes them purr, though, is >like learning that feeding the slaves a little more cornmeal makes them more >productive; it's a management issue, not a sympathy thing. True, but wouldn't you say that most cat owners really do love their cats and want to make them happy? Given the situation we find ourselves in (i.e., releasing them all back into the wild is not an option), isn't it the least we can do. - -v, ARGH, need to go do paper!!!! Almost *nine AM*, what am I thinking??? Vika Zafrin vika@ibm.net "The wonderful thing about Shakespeare is that when it's done well, it makes people feel smarter than they are. As opposed to dumber than they are. There is really no in-between." - Spencer Golub ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:13:47 GMT From: shazalinrea@juno.com (Mindy J Munson) Subject: Re: Indie Tape >I've been somewhat taken aback at the level of >viciousness >some people have shown on this subject... I dont know about the others but I was *mostly* kidding about the whole spam or whatever he deserves bit. While I dont think what he did was entirely honest I can see where he is coming from as a non-fruhead. Fruchild "I try to meet people 1/2 way... then I take a step closer to 'em." -me "What makes a person so poisonous righteous, that they think less of anyone who just disagrees."-i hope you know where this is from ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:25:05 GMT From: shazalinrea@juno.com (Mindy J Munson) Subject: Re: Indie Tape On 13 Dec 1998 02:40:21 GMT lesystemed@aol.com (LeSystemeD) writes: >It's nopt a matter of failing to understand your humor. Rather it's a >matter of >your humor failing to register as humor where it counts. Spamming is >not an >uncommon thing on the net. This guy does not deserve it, in spite of >your >jejune analysis. You may have been humorous, but the original poster >was not. >Don't patronize me, and I won't patronize you, ok? > >Regards, >Steve > Ummmmm, Steve? I *was* the original poster, and I did not suggest spamming first of all. Secondly, it was just to make you guys aware. All the other posts *were* ment for humour. Im not trying to offend you but please dont put words into my mouth for me. Im very good at doing for myself Fruchild ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: 13 Dec 1998 15:41:44 GMT From: dalevy@aol.com (DALevy) Subject: Re: California Dreamline >How long is the drive from LAX to the Roxy? From Burbank Int'l to the >Roxy? Please take traffic into account. > > Both Burbank and LAX are about 12 miles from the Roxy, which is in West Hollywood. Given LA traffic, I'd say 30 minutes from ignition to parking is about right from either airport (except at rush hour when you can double that.) The drive from LAX to the Roxy is slightly easier but I can give you good directions from Burbank, too. (Burbank overall is an easier airport since it has a much smaller terminal.) Car rentals (and usually flights) tend to be cheaper at Burbank. Doug Levy San Francisco DALevy@NOSPAM.aol.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 17:24:31 GMT From: Srm9988n@aol.com Subject: pet ethics, plus my mangled web address (sorry!) This discussion, while intriguing, has gone so far from FruContent that, unless anyone else objects, I'm asking Steve to take it to private email. Steve, I'll get back to your latest post, but probably not 'till Tuesday! *now all exhale in relief* :) And yes, I know I screwed up the addys. I did repost on this (thanks Nate D for your prompt advisory!) but apparently the second post didn't make it through on some servers. Here once again are the real things: Lori's strange and wonderful world! http://members.aol.com/srm9988n/index.html FruPage! (pix) http://members.aol.com/srm9988n/index1.html ChocoPage! http://members.aol.com/srm9988n/sugar.html Please note, there is no www in these addresses! - -- Lori, grateful for all your interest. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 11:18:42 -0700 From: katrin@dimensional.com (Katrin Luessenheide Salyers) Subject: Re: California Dreamline In article <36732ed8.3497194@news.ucdavis.edu>, nicole.the.wonder.nerd.is@ana.ng.at.tmbg.org says... > When does the show start (doors, opener, Fruvous)? > How long is the drive from LAX to the Roxy? From Burbank Int'l to the > Roxy? Please take traffic into account. > Thanks in advance. Same questions from me...and how far is the Roxy from the nearest Greyhound station? Thanks from me too... k@ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 18:31:09 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: Re: Indie Tape Vika Zafrin wrote: > > lesystemed@aol.com (LeSystemeD) delighted us with: > > >Spamming is not an > >uncommon thing on the net. This guy does not deserve it, in spite of your > >jejune analysis. > > Here, I have to agree with the fact that not only is spamming not an > uncommon thing, but it's a Wrong Thing To Do to anyone, even the jerk > (MNSVHO) who is trying to sell his indie tape to the highest bidder. Exactly. It doesn't matter what someone does to you. Spamming them is the wrong way to handle it. Firstly, it lowers you to their level. Second, it ties up resources that the rest of us could be using for (slightly) more productive online enterprises. :) > My post was going to be longer, but Heather pretty much covered what I > wanted to say: Steve, what you were talking about were indeed > contractual issues. Tobey, the stores, the brothers Gibb, they're all > in on the legality issue thing. This guy, apparently, isn't. Do you > really think he'll be sending part of his profit off to the Fruvous > HQ? I doubt it. My reply was also going to be longer, but again I did all that replying to Heather's post. Vik, see that for why I think you are a little off-base with the above. :} > Also, regarding the protectiveness issue. I don't believe it is right > for ANYone to make profit off of ANYone else's art (dead people's art, > especially long-dead people's art, is a different issue entirely, we > won't get into it, will we?), so I don't think it's a case of being > overprotective of Moxy Fruvous in particular. Correct. This is not an issue of Fruvous. I is a general morality and legality discussion. But the point that I made in my other post is that there is a difference between someone's art (in this case music) and a commodity that is derived therefrom (in this case the legitimate copy of the Indie Tape.) Some in the music industry (particularly since the advent of CDs) have argued that artists SHOULD receive a portion of the proceeds from subsequent resales of their work. I happen to disagree with that suggestion, and so far as I know, so do the courts. I think it would be an incredible legal and ethical mess if we were to go down that road. Artists can control the production of their work, but to give them control over the property of others seems indefensible to me. Should an architect have to be paid each time the house he or she designed is sold? Should he/she be able to deny the sale? I don't think so. > > You may have been humorous, but the original poster was not. > > I think it was pointed out that, apparently, Gemm.com's rules are > first asker, not highest bidder. That would explain why the original > poster was not in good spirits. And something about the post struck me as sleazy also. It isn't that it is improper to auction the tape, just that he tried to do it at gemm.com. Also I happen to think that he's asking WAY too much money. I mean come on, its a 6 song tape the band produced themselves way back when. They are nowhere near as good on that tape as they are today. It IS a nice collectors item to own, but PLEASE! It isn't like we talking Yesterday and Today with the famous "Butcher" cover. There are 50,000 copies of that tape out there. It just isn't worth that much. Keep looking in the used record stores, or go see 25 shows. Those are the strategies I'm using. > -Vika, making some sense. Vika, you usually make sense. (Even when you arn't making any sense!) Chew on the duality of that all you philosophers! Fruhugs all around! A.J. (who doesn't own the indie tape) - -- Epitaph on a dead blues singer's gravestone: "I didn't wake up this morning . . ." _____ _ / ____(_) | | _ ___ ___ _ __ ___ | | | |/ __/ _ \ '__/ _ \ | |____| | (_| __/ | | (_) | \_____|_|\___\___|_| \___/ @wwnet.com ICQ#: 13117113 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 18:07:32 GMT From: "A.J. LoCicero" Subject: Re: Indie Tape This thread seems quite odd to me. Some different concepts seem to have gotten all mixed up IMHO. petit_chou@juno.com wrote: > > Vika the Bold said: > >No, but if he's trying to make money off of someone else's art, I say > >let the f***er suffer. > > Hee hee hee! You make me laugh, Vika Zafrin! I understand this to be humor :), but frankly it seem misplaced humor to me. The guy is not making money off anyone else's art (i.e.. intellectual property). He is trying to make money off a valuable commodity that he OWNS (i.e.. the Indie Tape). This is the basis of capitalism and seems perfectly ok as long as you accept the concept of private property. > Then Steve asked: > >So, what about Tobey? Does he earn a living? > > What about him? He's an all around great guy? He has good taste in > shoes? What are you looking for here? Of course he's making money off > of someone else's art, but the difference it that it's sanctioned by the > lads. Here Steve was trying to show how the selling of someone's art CAN be legitimate, but it is really the wrong example IMO for this instance. Tobey is an EMPLOYEE of Frucorp. He sells cd's on the band's behalf. He doesn't get a cut of the profits though (so far as I know) he simply gets PAID. The band (and possibly the record company?) get the proceeds of the merch table sale. So that is not really an analogous situation. > >What about record-store employees, managers, club owners? > > They are in direct contract with either the band or the band's record > company. It's okay for them. Nonsense, they are not in direct contract with anyone. The stores are are independent RETAILERS. They buy a product wholesale and resell it retail. This is close to what this guy is doing. The employees however, are another step removed. Again, Tobey they are not paid on commission but in wages. They have no commercial interest in the sales. > This is just some joe-shmoe trying to sell > his stuff to the highest bidder. Yes he is. That is totally legitimate by any common standard that I'm aware of. > Usually this is totally fine (to me), > except that in the same way I wouldn't buy the late Princess Diana's bed > sheets in an auction, I won't buy this - it just doesn't seem right to > profit off of said person or band in this way. That is, of course, your option but why does it not seem right? Collectibles from comic books to records, to coins, to stamps, to paintings, to furniture, to buildings are sold all the time. This is precisely how Auction houses like Christy's make their money! The reason that buying Diana's bed sheets could be objectionable is that some would find it to be in bad taste (buying a PERSONAL item of a famous dead person--although these are indeed sold all the time as well.) However the indie tape is a published work. It isn't private in any sense. > > >What about MF themselves when they cover "Message to > >You", aren't they making money of the BeeGees' art? > > Yup, with full on support from the Brothers Gibb. Let's "make some > sense," Steve dear. All the examples you mentioned are contractual > issues, not some poor slob selling his stuff. In order to sell copies of > "Message," they need permission. Which undoubtedly they have. Which > signals, if not an emotional approval, a civil approval of the lads' > recording. They don't need the Bros. Gibb's approval so far as I know. They simply have to pay the appropriate royalties to ASCAP/BMI/etc. You or I could do the same. As Heather points out this is not the same as someone selling a recording, but that in no way makes the selling of the recording any less legitimate. > >What's more reasonable than to let people bid? > > That's all well and good, Steve, except that the general policy on > gemm.com (as to my understanding) is that the seller sells the > merchandise to the first asker. NOT the highest bidder. Ah, now HERE is the crux of the matter! The guy (slimeball, asshole, what-have-you) HAS violated the policy and spirit of gemm.com. It seems he should have gone to ebay.com instead. This is mistake on his part, but frankly I don't think it rises to the level of an impeachable offense. (Sound familiar?) :) > If this guy > gave a cut of the profit to Moxy Fruvous, maybe it'd be a different > story. But he ain't so it isn't. No, it would not be at all different. Fruvous is not in any way entitled to anything from the sale of that one copy of the tape. If one of the guys wants to sell copies of the tape that he has for lots of money, great, more power to him. The band even has the right to reprint and reissue the tape if they want. That is something that Joe Shmoe cannot do. That is where their rights as artists lie. But once a legitimate copy of the tape has been sold and they've received their monies from that copy, their control of that copy ends. The new owner can do anything he or she wants with that one copy (both legally and IMHO moraly) including selling it or burning it. > My dear Steve, you seem to be taking this quite seriously. Really, am I > going to spend my time finding porn and flooding this man's mailbox with > it? Frankly, I have far better things to do with my time. It's funny to > talk about. It's funny to think about. Hell, I'd laugh if someone else > did it. But you know what? I can say in full honesty that I continued > this thread in a humorous vain, and I am saddened that you seem unable to > understand my kind of humor. I don't know if he's taking it THAT seriously. I suspect that he is just argumentative, as I am. However funny as the thought of spamming the guy may be, there are a lot of people who really do stuff like that and it harms all of us. It is like joking about murder. It can be funny, but you have to be a little careful of what you say and to whom. (I'm not implying that you did anything wrong here Heather, I'm just making a general observation.) > > Have a divine evening Steve. And to the rest of you, may your panties > not get in a bunch, and may your hair be ever shiny and full of life. :) Um, Heather... Too late... Um oh nevermind! :D A.J. - -- Epitaph on a dead blues singer's gravestone: "I didn't wake up this morning . . ." _____ _ / ____(_) | | _ ___ ___ _ __ ___ | | | |/ __/ _ \ '__/ _ \ | |____| | (_| __/ | | (_) | \_____|_|\___\___|_| \___/ @wwnet.com ICQ#: 13117113 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:27:37 -0500 From: pookie Subject: Re: Indie Tape NOPE. just pple who aren't fruheads charging an extreme price for fruhead merchandise. for example. look how much fruvous charges for their concerts...even tho loyal fruheads would pay much, much more. i think that auctioning off the indie tape is against frumorales. pookie LeSystemeD wrote: > In article <367211B6.5C88CF14@mnsi.net>, pookie wrote: > > >I think we should tell him that he's not an actual fruhead b/c he would > >never > >sell the original copy of the indie tape if he was .....also i think we > >should all spam his email. > > > > Two wrongs don't make a right, though three lefts do. We should spam everyone > who's not a fruhead? > > Regards, > Steve ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 14:30:35 -0500 From: pookie Subject: Re: Indie Tape least someone agrees with me...and a woman wants to flood his mail with porn. rock on fruchild. pookie petit_chou@juno.com wrote: > La Nina del Fru wrote: > > Guys, remember that Gemm.com indie tape? > [snip snip snip] > >Why didn't he just sell it to the 1st person who asked? It > > seems a bit seedy to me. > > And me! I got a similar e-mail from Senor Creepo, and promptly placed it > in the trash ("recycle bin," actually). Hard to find as the tape is, and > as much as it's worth far more than the $41 he's asking (to me, that is), > I refuse to give my hard earned cashola to that money-grubbing poo-face. > My dollars are to be used for good, not evil. I do not support the > extortion of unassuming Frufolk. Down with bastards! > > Then Pookie wrote: > >...also i think we should all spam his email. > >p.s. porn is a good way to slow down his mail. > > I firmly support this idea. Sleezy yuck-heads deserve falsified "photos" > of "women." Yeah yeah yeah! > > So then Jack "Pax" Porcello wrote: > >It's just that I'm getting those *NO* feelings about this whole thing. > > Just say NO to bastards, just say YES to sending them porn. > > Heather has spoken. > > Heather Moore > > ___________________________________________________________________ > You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. > Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html > or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V2 #119 ********************************************