From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #153 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, April 20 1998 Volume 07 : Number 153 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Stuff [Ed.Doxtator@ssa.co.uk] Re: Crunchings and munchings? (RH 0) [M R Godwin ] intelligence responses, pt 1 [dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich)] Re: intelligence responses, pt 1 [tanter ] Re: cheri knight [DElaineMcD ] I Saw Robyn Hitchcock (Probably Not) [griffith ] Re: Musicians and Music ["JH3" ] Re: Musicians and Music (appr. 2% RH content) [sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu] i wish i was mr. horton ["Capitalism Blows" ] Re: Gump and Gumper [Tom Clark ] Re: intelligence responses, pt 1 [sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (amadain)] Re: cheri knight [Gary Assassin ] Re: i wish i was mr. horton [Eb ] Re: Stuff [Tom Clark ] Re: intelligence responses, pt 1 [Bret ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:40:42 +0100 From: Ed.Doxtator@ssa.co.uk Subject: Stuff Hi Kids... just got back from Ireland and the Guinness was great. The Book Of Kells says, "Hi". A friend of mine who's been doing home recording studio stuff for awhile has been able to master a couple of live shows from cassette to CD. Has anyone done this? What's involved in terms of mixing and so forth? (I'd ask him, but he explains things very poorly, and getting directions on making a sammich is more difficult than it oughter be.) Most Hated Film "Working Girl". Melanie Griffith doesn't act, she pouts. Her lower jaw quivers on screen so much you'd think there was a hurricane blowing between her chin and nose. Sounds like she's going to burst into tears at any minnit. And that blue eyeshadow wearin' "Joisey High-Haiah" girl to ultra-sophisticated DKNY lovin' high flyer is just too precious for words. Harrison Ford turns in a performance only slightly less interesting than the Hoover old Melanie uses to clean up the carpet. (Oh, let's not forget, she does that in her Victoria's Secret bra, underpants, and high heels.) Most Loved Film That No One Has Seen: "Drive In". Low-budget comedy, about a small town in Texas (I think) whose entire summer social life revolves around the opening of the local drive-in theatre for the summer season. There's a disaster movie, floods, bad 70's vans with waterbeds, an attempted robbery, a cast of several, and one of my favourite closing lines of all time: "Well, somebody has to re-build Rio." Most loved trash 80's comedy film: "Better Off Dead". Cos everybody wants some. Look after yerselves. - -Doc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 12:01:34 +0100 (BST) From: M R Godwin Subject: Re: Crunchings and munchings? (RH 0) I might have known you were a Lloyd Alexander person. For a long time we only had the first 3 books in the UK, so it was _years_ before I got hold of Taran Wanderer and The High King. Tremendous ending - I was really upset when Llonio got killed. The Black Cauldron is still my favourite, though. Needless to say, the Walt Disney film was an absolute travesty, with Gurgi turned into a talking Skye terrier... The Susan Cooper books have their moments, but I think that the actual plot mechanics aren't done as well as they should have been. - - Mike (prolificker and prolificker) Godwin PS to Nick: Did you see the TV serial of 'Elidor'? Totally ruined by having _Roland_ kill the unicorn at the end, for no apparent reason. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 12:17:40 GMT From: dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich) Subject: intelligence responses, pt 1 >>The other point is really the thing that's touchy... It has >>to do with the fact that American culture does not like smart people... > >Probably not, but isn't it mostly just Hollywood (and television in general) >that's behind this? I still don't get this impression from the majority of >books that are being published these days (except for the ones about >Leonardo DiCaprio, of course) but practically 90% of the big-budget movie >thriller crapola that comes out of Hollywood now has some sort of evil >industrialist villian or high-tech fiend stereotype who gets outwitted by >some Arnold Schwarzenegger type in the end (as if Arnold could outwit a >potato). But doesn't hollywood and the press shape the countries mindset? Did any of ya'll see 'brave new world" last night? Television (and not Tom Verlaines' TV!!!) as a conditioning tool....hum.... The Learning Channel was recently introduced to the cable lineup here in Montreal. I was hopeful until I started to see the uncritical treatment they give ghost stories, UFO conspiracy theories, parastuff, etc. Or is this a different TLC? No, this is the same channel. A couple of years ago, when they were showing "connections", "human animal", etc., it was better. I guess they had to improve their ratings, so they brought out the 'roswell' crap....where's James Randi and CSICOP when you need them? You just think you're so smart, don't you? No...I'm just a conduit for ideas from somewhere. So, does it take a really smart person or a really simple person to realize that kindness is a much more important virtue than intelligence and that, if kindness is all you've got in this world, then you're probably doing just fine. Well, it just takes the ability to see this fact. Hey, Buddha said that intelligence could get in the way of enlightenment, the ability to intuitively 'know' kindness and goodness. > As an unabbashed, unrepentant smart person, I agree completely. America DOES NOT respect intelligence!>> Okay, this much is certainly true. It's far better, in America, to be a "team player" than it is to be able to reason on one's own (maybe this is true everywhere?). All countries -- indeed, all civilizations -- are built on a mix of brute strength checked by conveniently malleable systems of morality. That would also include the dominant Native American populations before the White Man arrived. This is deplorable, and I am not making any excuses - -- but it is sort of a fact, and very likely even necessary. So I really don't think America is any worse than any other country (Sorry, Eddie, I think we are actually better)(except maybe for the Czechs, they seem pretty cool about things. Well, they *did* have Frank Zappa working with them, didn't they? ) And to respond to this thread about dumb Americans, most communities have not treated their intellectuals too well. Of course, a look at what the intellectuals tend to *do* when they get power may point to some reasons for that, heh heh. No arguement there- look no further than Hitler and Pol Pot. (though, personally, I think they had a bunch of bitterness that, if only they had learn to deal with it in other ways, instead of killing everybody who was, actually, similar to themselves ( once the killing got out of control, the smart are always toast....they could put up resistance to the IDEAS of a regime.) I suppose I get irked at the "smart people" vs the mob mentality, even though I tend to gravitate towards it more than I care to admit. But look at two of the greatest geniuses and artists of our century -- James Joyce and Albert Einstein, two blokes who amaze me at their brilliance, two minds that *hated* the mediocre and the base, and yet never despaired of humanity in general, two men who were often laughed at, scorned, and ridiculed -- and yet they looked under the hood of the universe, and nevertheless saw that the engine that drove us all was love. Simple love. How much easier it is to be cynical, to be aloof, to be dismissive -- and how much harder it is to forgive. To accept -- and better, to constantly try to *change* the things, the people around you -- and yet be open to change in your own heart. Well, I've been trying...I used to be able to do the 'love everybody' thing. But, certain things have happened in my life in the past year or so that have made me run for my Richard Thompson albums, and just generally go darker. (among those is working on Capitol hill....power DOES corrupt, and I have seen it happening to me). Too much division in the world, if you ask me. I would like to take the "fuck you" stance -- oh, and sometimes I do, it makes one feel pretty smug and good and safe -- but that's just another wall, another mechanism to keep us all in seperate and carefully labelled boxes. Forming communities is a gift we seem to have as human beings (Well, look at *us!* You guys is my *friends!*) but there are some evil fuckers out there who want to keep us apart, and I think that sometimes -- and I am only speaking for myself -- I find that the evil fucker is living inside of me, too. Out, out, evil fucker! So I say -- break down the walls between us! Keep throwing yourself at life, keep trying to forge new connections, keep trying to reach out of that box no matter how many times you are beaten up, laughed at, betrayed, and wounded -- I mean, what else is there? Bitterness and detatchment? Numbness or overbearing arrogance? "only lonely ness, only lonelyness and dreams". Any advice how to shake bitterness and numbness? Maybe I oughta spend more time prostrate in front of the Buddha. (Maybe I should just play "acid bird" over and over again until I am grinning widely!) What I love about the list...we can go off about stufff like this quite intelligently. I really appreciate all these view points. What's Robyn's view, you think? -luther P.S. So sad about linda...now we can't joke about her keyboard abilities anymore! So, you think Paul's next album will be a bit darker (better?) without his other half around? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 08:46:42 -0400 From: tanter Subject: Re: intelligence responses, pt 1 At 12:17 PM 4/20/1998 +0000, you wrote: > > P.S. So sad about linda...now we can't joke about her keyboard >abilities anymore! So, you think Paul's next album will be a bit >darker (better?) without his other half around? I wouldn't be surprised if there is never a "next album." She was so integral in his composing process--she was the inspiration for so much in his life. I hope he can go on and keep working but if he stopped, I could understand why. I feel badly for him. She really was a decent person. Marcy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:11:19 EDT From: DElaineMcD Subject: Re: cheri knight >>>>>>>Opening for Robyn at the GAMH will be somebody named Cheri Knight, >formerly of a band called the Blood Oranges. she could be a good opener to catch -- the blood oranges released a couple albums and one ep (at least) of rocked-up rooty americana. their _lone green valley_ ep is quite nice.<<<<<<<<<<<<< cheri knight's second solo album, *the northeast kingdom*, is probably my favorite album of the year thus far. emmy lou harris appears on it, and steve earle produced it, but she goes into power pop territory as well, and just flat out rocks. i saw her at sxsw with the band she's touring with (will rigby on drums, marlee macloud on rythmn guit and backing vocals - cheri plays bass, and another guy on lead guit whose name escapes me now) and would not miss seeing them again. i think the appearance with robyn is solo acoustic, but nonetheless would be well worth attending. in fact, i'm rescheduling my son's birthday party so i can go to the show when she comes to portland. that's how good she is... i'm running roughshod over little kids to get there. elaine ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 11:59:45 -0700 (PDT) From: griffith Subject: I Saw Robyn Hitchcock (Probably Not) I was eating at a Thai restaurant in West LA on Saturday. A man who exited from the restaurant as I was being served looked strikingly similar to Robyn. The only real difference was the way he dressed. I've never seen him in "street' clothes (that is clothes he would wear while not on stage). Also, this person was wearing a baseball cap. I've never seen Robyn wear a hat before. If I could have heard this person speak I would have probably known if he was Robyn or not. I'm still not sure if it was him - most likely not. BTW, Nile Rodgers was sitting at the table next to me. How weird is that? griffith = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Griffith Davies hbrtv219@csun.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:33:00 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: Musicians and Music West sez: >I know a couple of guys, who shall remain nameless. They are musicians, >although they have not released anything to the public and, indeed, do >not even play live. Rather, they create songs--mostly techno and 80's >synth rock-type stuff--in their living room/home studio...... >Here's the thing: I once asked them, "Hey, why don't you have anything >by, say, The Beatles? Don'tcha like 'em?" Well, they DON'T. And the >reason they don't like The Beatles is not because of their songs or the >way they are played. It's because of THE WAY THEY WERE RECORDED. The true home-studio gearhead is a different breed of animal. I know that because I used to be one of them, and before the surgery I had three legs, six eyeballs, and several horns growing out of my head. (And don't ask me about my butt.) If you're not careful, after a while you become so enamored of the recording process itself that the content becomes secondary. You've got to have all the latest fancy gadgets and stuff, and even worse, you spent so much money on them you feel like you have to use them, all the time, on everything you record. And then when you listen to new records that don't have any signal processing or multi-layered overdubs on them you think, "what a piece of crap, I could record something lots better this with all five hands tied behind what passes for my back" (see above paragraph). And then you start to apply the same thinking to records that came out before the technology was even available, unfair though that is. And the bigger your ego, the more likely you are to fall into that trap, because you might think that you yourself could not only record but *write* a song that's just as good as anything the Beatles ever released. (Or at least the Dave Clark Five, since most people don't have *that* much hubris.) I believe I can honestly say that never happened to me, but who knows. (I can definitely still listen to the Beatles.) The Kinks are a better example, actually. Their early records had terrific songs but were recorded very badly, to the extent that they went into the studio a few years ago and completely rerecorded a lot of them. Not because they necessarily thought their fans wanted cleaner versions, but because they themselves were never all that happy with them. And yet there's a fine Britpop band called the Lilys that (*IMO*) goes out of their way to sound like the early Kinks, even down to the production. They just like that sound, I guess. It takes all kinds. >I asked them if they didn't >feel in any way limited by the rather narrow scope of their musical >tastes, and they replied in the negative. But then they're saying they *are* limited, aren't they? Oh sorry, I'm being a pedantic school marm again. >I have to say, I feel extremely ambivalent toward a musician who doesn't >seem to like most music, and for purely technical reasons at that. Am I >wrong? Am I overreacting to what I perceive as style over substance >taken to its most frightening extreme? In a word, yes, but only to the extent that you should be a bit more understanding of their particular mindset. There's enough recorded music in the world that failure to like stuff based on when (or even how) it was recorded shouldn't prevent a person from hearing or liking plenty of decent material from almost any genre, except maybe 50's doo-wop and semi-extinct stuff like that. JH3 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:52:27 -0500 From: sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (amadain) Subject: Re: Musicians and Music (appr. 2% RH content) >I know a couple of guys, who shall remain nameless. They are musicians, >although they have not released anything to the public and, indeed, do >not even play live. Rather, they create songs--mostly techno and 80's >synth rock-type stuff--in their living room/home studio, working at day >jobs to pay the rent. Well, there are lots of people who do that, just for the pleasure of it, but I must confess I don't really understand not wanting eventually to reach - -some- sort of audience, even if it's just your friends. Right there I see something slightly odd. Is it out of a complete lack of interest in that or have they tried and not had much luck and adopted a defensive stance on the matter? >According to these guys, the recording technology utilized by The >Beatles (and, presumably, everyone else around that time) was vastly >inferior to that which exists today; therefore, all those old Beatle >records are simply unlistenable. It just sounds bad to these guys. Um, I don't know these guys obviously, but it sounds to me from the above evidence and also from this that what they really actually are into is the technology of music more than music itself. Perhaps they really are just frustrated producers? :) I'd actually be really interested to hear what either of them thinks of Brian Eno and his "oblique strategies" (oh man, I'm having amnesia again, I don't think that's the right name, but you know what I'm talking about). >viewpoint that much more inexplicable.) I asked them if they didn't >feel in any way limited by the rather narrow scope of their musical >tastes, and they replied in the negative. Not one little bit. Of course not. If people don't perceive limitations as such, well, they're not going to feel that they're limited :). Plus no matter how tactfully you ask the question, they're probably already automatically on the defensive about it, because they've probably encountered a lot of people already who were hostile to their way of thinking, and so naturally they're going to have such a response almost automatically. >I have to say, I feel extremely ambivalent toward a musician who doesn't >seem to like most music, and for purely technical reasons at that. Am I >wrong? Am I overreacting to what I perceive as style over substance >taken to its most frightening extreme? I don't think you're wrong to feel ambivalent about this. It rubs me the wrong way too. It sounds as if they like a diverse number of styles (if you like Inspiral Carpets -and- Tina Turner :)) though. So I don't know if it's really style over substance so much as they are more focused on -sound- than substance. There is a way they think records -should sound- and they're absolutely committed to that, and older recordings don't have the sound they love. Again, it screams "frustrated producers" to me. >care to name. No matter how supposedly crummy the recording quality, I >love the SONGS. I love the spirit and the emotion and the craft that >goes into them. THAT'S what makes them great. Yah, me too. And oftentimes I love so-called "crummy recording quality" :). Love on ya, Susan owner of a mono copy of "Revolver" :) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 12:48:19 PDT From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: i wish i was mr. horton cartman's father: it's gotta be jesus, doncha think? "daring" is kind of a weird word to use here anyway. daring art, to me, would be something like Salt Of The Earth, or radio venceremos, or The Satanic Verses, or maybe brecht refusing to back down to the house un-american activities committee. cases where there is REAL risk involved in putting one's art before the public. i *suppose* you could say that "semen stains the mountaintops" is more daring lyrically than Happy The Golden Prince if only because tipper gore's goon squad is too fucking stupid to try to figure out what songs mean (this is the group, after all, that cracked down on BEDTIME FOR DEMOCRACY because of the album art rather than the lyric sheet...) but that's probably not what this guy was getting at. he probably meant something along the lines of people thinking jeff mangum is a weirdo. hard to figure anyone being weirder than robyn. but even beyond that, i still wouldn't consider that "daring." or maybe he meant that if he's not careful, mangum could be getting into syd barrett or brian wilson or j.d. salinger territory (not to say that salinger's a loony. but he did kind of flip out there.) yes, it would be pretty daring to drive oneself nuts trying to create powerful art. but i can't believe that was the sole --or even primary-- factor in those cases. who does not give a good goddamn about being on MTV or on the cover of > Spin magazine,> when i listen to it, i keep thinking it should be the next NEVERMIND. at the time, i guess i thought nirvana's ascension was pretty organic, if that's the right word. yeah, they made a video and all, but it just seemed like this popular groundswell. but it probably had a lot more to do with geffen spending a lot of money hyping it than i realized. angelic, demented thing I have heard in quite some time.> well spoken! eb, you get a very large golden star in my book. hm. i think it's one of the most beautifully filmed movies i've ever seen. but, if you were watching it on tv, it can't have been letterboxed, can it? that's probably part of the problem. check out the criterion collection laserdisc. ah, you sneaky quail: trying to bait me into another tirade, this one so caustic that it will get me banned from not only fegmaniax, but the whole internet to boot -- for good. i'm wise to your nefary, cher cousin! but you know what? i don't completely disagree with you. america's *intentions* are really no worse than germany's or indonesia's or russia's or whoever. however, we happened to have had the most *power* to carry out our intentions than any other place in history. so the results have been overwhelmingly more horrifying. the other point is, we aren't *in* germany or indonesia or russia. we're in america. so we've a responsibility (a massive responsibility --jeez, that's a hard word to type) to try to change it, regardless of our relative ranking on the evil scale. me too! but i feel compelled to add, quail, that all the qualities you adore in humans -- the qualities that *make* us human -- are worthless in a capitalist society. human qualities are subsumed to the insatiable apetite of the multinational corporation. i'm sorry if that sounds simplistic, but it does have the virtue of being the truth. john p.: i owe you one (1) comsymp diatribe. you *will* get it, but i'm not sure when. "The Dude abides"...I don't know about you, but i take comfort in that. It's good knowin' he's out there, "The Dude," takin' 'er easy for all us sinners. Shesh...I sure hope he makes the finals. --The Stranger ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 98 12:51:27 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Gump and Gumper >A person's >intelligence can propel him only so far, the rest is luck. e.g. Mark Gloster. ouch! stop hitting me! - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:52:34 -0500 From: sdodge@midway.uchicago.edu (amadain) Subject: Re: intelligence responses, pt 1 >At 12:17 PM 4/20/1998 +0000, you wrote: >> >> P.S. So sad about linda...now we can't joke about her keyboard >>abilities anymore! So, you think Paul's next album will be a bit >>darker (better?) without his other half around? >I wouldn't be surprised if there is never a "next album." She was so >integral in his composing process--she was the inspiration for so much in >his life. I hope he can go on and keep working but if he stopped, I could >understand why. I feel badly for him. She really was a decent person. I would tend to agree with Marcy here. They really were partners in every sense. I happened on a news special yesterday about her life and death, and one of the things that really struck me about it was that she was a real class act. I may not have agreed with everything she said or did or liked the way she went about things sometimes. But I have to say she weathered the whole " you're part of the beatles break up", "you're just in the band because you're Paul's wife", and associated life as a Beatle consort thing with a fair amount of dignity and grace. And she struggled admirably to have her own life as a person outside of everything else, continuing on as a photographer and activist. I don't know if all of us would be able to stand up to the pressure and the prejudices that she had to live with as well as she did. It's no mean feat to keep a marriage and family together and functioning under as much scrutiny as they did, and she was very much responsible for that. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 16:01:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Gary Assassin Subject: Re: cheri knight I never heard any music by the Blood Oranges, but while in Switzerland, missing 7 Robyn Hitchcock shows in NY in Feb 1997, I ate blood oranges and had some blood orange juice. Delicious! ------------------------------------ If you have a condom and sunscreen SPF 15 or greater, than it's safe to look at http://www.panix.com/~gsa/index.html On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, DElaineMcD wrote: > >>>>>>>Opening for Robyn at the GAMH will be somebody named Cheri Knight, > >formerly of a band called the Blood Oranges. > > she could be a good opener to catch -- the blood oranges released a couple > albums and one ep (at least) of rocked-up rooty americana. their _lone > green valley_ ep is quite nice.<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > cheri knight's second solo album, *the northeast kingdom*, is probably my > favorite album of the year thus far. emmy lou harris appears on it, and steve > earle produced it, but she goes into power pop territory as well, and just > flat out rocks. i saw her at sxsw with the band she's touring with (will rigby > on drums, marlee macloud on rythmn guit and backing vocals - cheri plays bass, > and another guy on lead guit whose name escapes me now) and would not miss > seeing them again. i think the appearance with robyn is solo acoustic, but > nonetheless would be well worth attending. > > in fact, i'm rescheduling my son's birthday party so i can go to the show when > she comes to portland. that's how good she is... i'm running roughshod over > little kids to get there. > > elaine > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 13:28:58 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: i wish i was mr. horton >> angelic, demented thing I have heard in quite some time.> >well spoken! eb, you get a very large golden star in my book. I didn't say that. Eb, ever burdened with unfounded accusations of eloquence np: something Susan made me get ;) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 98 13:27:08 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Stuff On 4/20/98 1:40 AM, Ed.Doxtator@ssa.co.uk wrote: >A friend of mine who's been doing home recording studio stuff for awhile >has been able to master a couple of live shows from cassette to CD. Has >anyone done this? What's involved in terms of mixing and so forth? (I'd >ask him, but he explains things very poorly, and getting directions on >making a sammich is more difficult than it oughter be.) I've just done it with some live shows. You just plug the cassette deck into your Mac and start recording. I use Adobe Premier so I can edit it into the inividual song files. The only problem I've found is that most CD mastering software writes in "track-at-once" format, which requires a gap between songs - not cool for a live show. The more expensive software (Adaptec's "Jam") will allow you to write in "disc-at-once" format, so there are no gaps. A work around using the less expensive sw is to just write one big sound file to the CD, but then your CD only has one big track! There are a lot of shareware and commercial sw packages that allow you to do post production on the samples. Premier has some of those capbilities, but it's not really meant for that. - -tc p.s. I lost some old emails, so those of you that contacted me regarding ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:34:15 -0500 (CDT) From: Bret Subject: Re: intelligence responses, pt 1 > >I happened on a news special yesterday about her life and death, and one of >the things that really struck me about it was that she was a real class act. >I may not have agreed with everything she said or did or liked the way she >went about things sometimes. But I have to say she weathered the whole " >you're part of the beatles break up", "you're just in the band because >you're Paul's wife", and associated life as a Beatle consort thing with a >fair amount of dignity and grace. And she struggled admirably to have her >own life as a person outside of everything else, continuing on as a >photographer and activist. I don't know if all of us would be able to stand >up to the pressure and the prejudices that she had to live with as well as >she did. It's no mean feat to keep a marriage and family together and >functioning under as much scrutiny as they did, and she was very much >responsible for that. well stated (as usual) Susan, Linda and Paul were truly a couple, completely. Which is more than many of us can say for our lives. I doubt there will be another record from Paul, although anything later in his career, I do not care for, they (I tend to speak of them as one) were an inspiration to myself and probably every veg*n in the english speaking world (plus some). You said "It's no mean feat to keep a marriage and family together and >functioning under as much scrutiny as they did, and she was very much >responsible for that." It's almost imposible these days just to keep a marriage together. and yes, she was very much responsible for that. all in all a fine woman that the world is a darker place without. - --Bret ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #153 *******************************