From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #233 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, June 23 1998 Volume 07 : Number 233 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Online Tuneage [Bayard ] Re: More on x-mission.com [Eb ] Re: Online Tuneage [Viccicraig@aol.com] Re: Online Tuneage [Tom Clark ] Re: *That*... [amadain ] Re: Online Tuneage... [Mark Gloster ] Re: *That*... [tanter ] Have a great time in Seattle... [Mark Gloster ] Re: *That*... [amadain ] you know what ["mr. pointy" ] Re: you know what [tanter ] Re: you know what [Capuchin ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #232 [james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Di] Portland and Seattle! [Capuchin ] Hitchcock and Demme [Marc Holden ] Re: Hitchcock and Demme [Eb ] Re: you know what [amadain ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 19:43:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Re: Online Tuneage On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, Tom Clark wrote: > Yeah, but what about freely distributing (via www) recordings of him > performing unreleased material? well, if it's really free, wouldn't it fall under "fair use" or something? I know lyrics and such fall under fair use if the web site is considered a non profit "virtual library." But just being unreleased is by itself grounds for falling under the fair use clause, as JH3 implied. I found this: Copyright Laws: Fair Usage - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The following passage is law in the United States of America but there are similiar clauses in most countries. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ '107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include: 1.the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2.the nature of the copyrighted work; 3.the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. 17 U.S.C. ' 107 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV). _____________ I don't know if the law JH3 referenced changes any of this, pls let me know if so. I should note that Mark & I are being very careful about sending RH the royalties he's owed from the tribute discs. Mark especially had been very consciencious (being an active musician himself, he knows the importance of keeping honest with someone else's songs.) =b ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 12:56:19 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: More on x-mission.com Glen wrote: >Here's what I turned up when I did a "whois"search of x-mission.com: > >It seems to me that this domain's sole intent is to send anonymous >mail. The fact that the administrative and technical contacts numbers >are unavailable bolsters this theory. Well, let me supply this bit of information, then. I also subscribe to an "exotica" mailing list (lots of Claudine fans THERE ;)), and the list's domain is xmission.com. Or are x-mission and xmission entirely different? Let's not get TOO riled up about this guy unless we see him *again*, all right? I mean, if I went on a witch hunt for every person who sent me a porn spam.... Tews tooled: >just out of curiosity, eb...let's see, i'm going to guess that you gave >IN THE AEROPLANE OVER THE SEA 17 out of 20. but what did you give >CONTACT FROM THE UNDERWORLD OF REDBOY? Well, I gave Aeroplane a 16 at the time, but now I'm leaning toward 17. Yep. Is Contact... the new Robertson disc? I haven't heard it. I dunno, I liked his first solo album a lot (though maybe just because it sounded so much like Peter Gabriel) but the next two didn't grab me. So...I'm not overly eager to hear the new one. Is it on Capitol? >well, the first thing i thought when i read your post, eb, was that you >actually did know the title of the song, and were just pretending not >to. but even if that weren't the case, you have to admit that it's >exactly the *type* of thing you'd say around here, just to get a rise >out of people. That would be an incorrect assumption. Why *would* I know it? I don't collect concert tapes, I haven't seen RH live *that* many times (uh...five, I think?) and the song is otherwise unreleased. You'll probably tell me that someone once posted the lyrics to the list, but to be frank, I don't read tab and lyric posts too closely. As for "getting a rise out of people," I would never dream that not knowing a song title would irk anyone. You'd have to be pretty obsessive to get Indignant about such a lapse. The song said "Being just contaminates the void" about 63 times, so I speculated that this was its title. Um...oops? John wrote: >Dammit, you've got to tell them... it's PEOPLE! Soylent Green is made out >of PEOPLE! Ahhh, Phil Hartman flashback. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 20:06:17 EDT From: Viccicraig@aol.com Subject: Re: Online Tuneage well if its really a large concern, make it so the music can be heard for free but not downloaded.....i.e. like the radio station setups already on the internet, if there is no profit and no transfer of data, i really dont see how anyone could say anything to you about it. It would be as if you and friends heard the same album together....each person listening does not have to purchase the album..... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 98 17:05:28 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Online Tuneage On 6/22/98 4:43 PM, Bayard wrote: >In determining whether the use made of a work >in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall >include: >1.the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a >commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2.the nature >of the copyrighted work; 3.the amount and substantiality of the portion >used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4.the effect of >the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. >_____________ Taken point by point with regard to something like "More Chinese Boys": 1. nonprofit 2. music performance - possibly archived for future release. 3. all of it, albeit sonically degraded 4. this is the one that gets me. What if Robyn someday wants to release an "Uncarved Pumpkins" of his own? Or what if I use "Jewels For Sophia" and it shows up in six months on a Warner's release? Does my "publishing" of it effect the market value of Robyn's/Warner's use of it? > >I should note that Mark & I are being very careful about sending RH the >royalties he's owed from the tribute discs. You'll notice I'm taking the time up front to ask these questions. It's not that I don't want to get sued - of course I don't - but I want to do the right thing. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 19:22:23 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: *That*... >tanter dixit: > >> He's probably either a 12 yr old who just saw Penthouse for the >> first time and copied it out of there or he's a 45 yr old man in a >> mid-life crisis who's impotent. >> > >I don't recall ever reading anything like that in Penthouse (and >I've read my fair share of 'em). As a matter of fact, I don't recall >ever reading anything like that at all -- ANYWHERE. Glen has a point here. Ya see, ok, I'll cop- I've read some Penthouse too (though probably not as much as yer average guy has). And I've never seen anything that flat out gory in it. Penthouse actually isn't all that hardcore at all. They think they're -way- revolutionary and outre because they show pictures of women peeing. Woo woo. If it were to appear in a commonly available porn mag, it would probably be "Hustler", but I think it's most likely too gross even for them. Those impish folks at Spy Magazine once submitted parts of Bret Easton Ellis's "American Psycho" to Hustler as a joke, and they rejected it saying something like "This is too gory and frightening for our magazine, but you write very well"(!). So I don't think that this type of story would appear there either. Probably he got the idea from the whole Jake Baker fracas. The only difference is that Jake Baker is a microscopic degree less of a weenie IMHO because he actually signed his er, work with an easily traceable identity, rather than throwing a bomb and running away. How cowardly. This stuff is rather common on the net, actually. Being as the net, for all it's virtues, IS somewhat of a refuge for anti-social personalities (NO! The hell you say!) and this sort of porn, the "woman as zombie under my complete power, muhahaha!" is pretty typical of guys who probably are too scared to even say hello to a woman in real life, you see a lot of it. See, a woman with free will intact would probably tell them to take a hike because they haven't brushed their teeth in a month and can't hold a conversation, so this is the only kind of woman they could get anyway, and that's why they're so attached to the fantasy. I've also noticed that I've never seen anything like this that appeared to be written by a woman. Love on ya, Susan Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 17:16:37 -0700 From: Mark Gloster Subject: Re: Online Tuneage... I would be fearful as an individual to put up even sound bytes from songs on the internet. I think that a fee has been negotiated for putting music on web sites, but don't know any more than that. I think that ASCAP and BMI have fought hard to make sure that their members intellectual property is protected, but they are not the only special interest in the political battle, so I'm sure somebody else gets into the pockets too. I only know a little bit about this, but the record companies, the performance rights organizations, and the publishers all have way too many lawyers for me to take them for granted. - -Sharkboy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 20:13:51 -0400 From: tanter Subject: Re: *That*... I didn't really mean Penthouse--sheesh. I've never even read Penthouse--I just said that because from what I've heard it's "harder" than Playboy. If I knew the name of an S&M mag, I would have used that. Marcy :) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 17:35:17 -0700 From: Mark Gloster Subject: Have a great time in Seattle... I have wanted to go to Seattle to see the city again, to see the wonderful feggiepersons, to drive the coast, and to just 'go thundering.' The printed circuit design elves have not made this easy or possible for me. It seems that when I take time off from work, nothing gets done on my project. This makes me sad, because when I'm in meetings, nothing gets done on my project. When nothing gets done on my project they put the leeches on me again and tie me to the whippin' post and other Allman Brothers songs. But you really don't want to hear about that- two drummers and eleven guitarists all at slightly different tempos and tunings, it's like the grateful ducking fed and they don't even wear those happy summer colors. Be thankful, however, good fegs that in my place will be that wee bit of silence- no that giant amorphous glob of silence that my big mouth tends to chew until there is constant flappage of gums and wobbling of teeth and nobody else can make clever witicisms. No. This fegweekwest will be done without me, except for my mute ghost who will be riding in Tom's van- the poor bastard- he can't say all the clever things that come to his mind to make Jeme laugh. He just has to sit on them and chortle in his audio vaccuum. Go forth good fegs and use that amorphous glob of silence in a way that will do me proud. I don't even have a beer to cry in and salty lemonade isn't as good as the sweet stuff. I'll miss y'all. Hope to see you soon. I think a westcoast feg party will happen soon. Really. I'll keep ya posted. I think I'll be the organ doner- no that's organ I zer. Happies, - -Markg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 20:00:34 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: *That*... >I didn't really mean Penthouse--sheesh. I've never even read Penthouse--I >just said that because from what I've heard it's "harder" than Playboy. If >I knew the name of an S&M mag, I would have used that. HOOboy! I gotta go through splaining all this again :). I have a congenital inability to let this type of thing pass. Bear with me. I don't wish to bite anyone's head off, and this isn't meant as a slam on Marcy personally at all, because this is a pretty common misconception. It seems I have to explain this to someone like once a week or so, at least. I should really write up some kind of form letter or something :). You see........*ahem* Consensual S&M is not this shit. This shit is not consensual S&M. Bungee-jumping is closer to what 99 percent of bdsm people do/think about than this is. You will not find something like this in yer average S&M mag because your average S&M person is not any more interested in zombie sex bots (and the disembowelling/brain-eating thereof) than anybody else. In fact, consensuality is a -huge- bone of contention in S&M circles, and you better believe that if say, Carter Stevens (a major mainstream S&M publisher) were to publish a story of this nature he'd be hearing about it from now to doomsday. I'm really very tired of this common misconception that S&M consists of "anything that is sickening" or "that weird shit I saw on Springer". This is not true at all. Good. Now I feel better. Love on ya, Susan resident spokes-pervert ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 20:47:57 -0400 From: "mr. pointy" Subject: you know what fegs, i'd like to offer a sincere apology for the rather tasteless post from our buddy beavis. for reasons which i shall explain, i was expecting something like and tried to prevent it, but by bypassing the list, he still managed to get it out to some of you. saturday morning, beavis@m-net.arbornet.org attempted to post something similar to his pornography post to the list, but it was bounced to me since he was not subscribed. shortly afterward, he attempted to subscribe, but his failure to follow the confirmation directions alerted me to his activities. i immediately blocked his address from posting to the list. the block, in fact, worked -- his post to the list was bounced to me for approval. alas, as susan and jh3 have noted, he bcc'd some of you. since only a subscriber could get a list of addresses subscribed to either fegmaniax or fegmaniax-digest, my guess is that he must have grabbed some addresses from the archived digests. i did not receive a copy of the post (other than the one which was bounced from the list), so i imagine that more than just a few of you missed out on this "great" fun. if any of you still have a copy of the post, please forward it to me (or at least forward the headers). i realize that some of you have already complained to the various domains involved, but i'd like to throw my weight around some too. if anyone who complained received a response, please forward that as well. finally, i've disabled the "who" command (the one which allows subscribers to retrieve a list of addresses subscribed to a list) for all of the fegmaniax lists. the "which" command (which allows people to search the subscriber list for a particular address) is still enabled for subscribers only. i know this is a pain in the ass, but i'd rather err on the side of safety in this case. sorry again, woj n.p. sully -- i have too much to report ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 21:00:25 -0400 From: tanter Subject: Re: you know what woj--i never blamed you or even thought it was your fault at all. your omniscience isn't absolute. ;) Marcy :) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 18:17:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: you know what On Mon, 22 Jun 1998, mr. pointy wrote: > saturday morning, beavis@m-net.arbornet.org attempted to post something > similar to his pornography post to the list, but it was bounced to me since > he was not subscribed. shortly afterward, he attempted to subscribe, but > his failure to follow the confirmation directions alerted me to his > activities. i immediately blocked his address from posting to the list. > since > only a subscriber could get a list of addresses subscribed to either > fegmaniax or fegmaniax-digest, my guess is that he must have grabbed some > addresses from the archived digests. i did not receive a copy of the post > (other than the one which was bounced from the list), so i imagine that > more than just a few of you missed out on this "great" fun. I haven't read my mail in a few days, so I had most of the weekend's posts to run through this afternoon. I read them all (as a good fegmaniax subscriber should). When I came upon the beavis post, I read the first paragraph and laughed, thinking someone had accidentally posted their alt.sex.stories.tasteless (or whatever) post to the mailing list. I thought it was a terribly embarrassing accident. Then I read the second paragraph and realized it was a TRULY nasty post and that this went beyond embarrassing into downright disgusting. (There's a fine line between nasty habits and filthy ones.) So I started just flipping pages and reading sample phrases from the paragraphs until I got to the punchline or the "surprise!" section... when there was none, I got a little woozy. So here are my issues: The subject line of the post. The subject line was current and appropriate. When did the first Robyn-as-spaz post hit the list? Was that the subject line on the original bounced post you received, woj? Someone was paying attention... I don't know how frequently digests are compiled and added to the archive, but I didn't think they were all that quick. This one's awful and could be my mistake, but --err... don't hate me--, wasn't JBJ's wise-cracking friend from Utah? He obviously pays attention and obviously subscribed for a short time with one phony address. Isn't that a fine way to get a list of subscribers? > finally, i've disabled the "who" command (the one which allows subscribers > to retrieve a list of addresses subscribed to a list) for all of the > fegmaniax lists. the "which" command (which allows people to search the > subscriber list for a particular address) is still enabled for subscribers > only. i know this is a pain in the ass, but i'd rather err on the side of > safety in this case. I'm guessing the offender did subscribe for a short time and probably got the addresses from the who listing. A list this size and of this kind of public nature by rights SHOULD disable the who command for safety. I know it's fairly easy to download a few digests and cull all the addresses in sight, but I would think this would be a necessarily incomplete and in accurate way of collecting addresses. I also didn't see one lurker post saying the offending message was not received. On Lobsterman's pal: If it was said friend, nobody blaims John, I'm sure. Some people just make bad judgments and you aren't your friends' keeper. Also, all you folks that have gone on about what kind of sicko would have written such a thing are surely wasting your time. The odds are very, very good that the sender was not the author as all manner of offensive and twisted fiction is available in newsgroups and websites all over the place. Probably the sender just read parts of it, saw how nasty and offensive and sicko it was and sent it to raise some hairs. I think this tasteless post was just a tasteless joke. > sorry again, And nobody blames you either, Woj. That's ridiculous. I blame the poster... and really only for VERY poor judgment (unless this was with malicious intent, in which case the poster's a sick fuckin' bastard). J. -- the consentual type all the way, thank you very much. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 15:33:07 +1200 From: james.dignan@stonebow.otago.ac.nz (James Dignan) Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #232 >>I still don't know how he managed to crack his way into >>the list without subscribing, since that's what it looks >>like he did. > >Isn't there a command on the smoe.org e-mail server that returns the e-mail >addresses of all subscribers? If there is, he probably just pasted them all >into the Bcc: (blind-carbon-copy) line of a regular e-mail. That would >explain why people on the digest weren't exposed. Otherwise, he could also >have gotten many of our e-mail addresses off the web from archived digests. the fact that it didn't make it to us on the digest (no, thank you, I would NOT like to see a copy) seems to indicate that this is what happened. After all, if he (I think it's fairly safe to assume it's a he)'d gone for the archives, some of us on the digest who are pretty noisy (ahem) would probably have been hit with his slime too. James ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 22:27:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Portland and Seattle! OK... so we've decided in mini-list what the plans are for Portland and Seattle. We now need to inform everyone so that folks that we forgot or didn't know about can catch up. If you're going to either show, please speak up and let me know so we can at least meet up for photos or something. Portland: The Aladdin Theater. Due to the earliness of the show and work and other obligations, the gathering will be after the show. Doors are at 7pm. I'll be there by then... waiting out front. I suspect I'll be with eddie and I know I'll be with my group of four friends. JBJ, the Reichsteins, and Michael K. will also be in attendance. Michael and his lovely wife will be arriving slightly after doors and we may or may not be saving seats for them (Michael?). After the show the real gathering begins. We'll probably be heading to Dot's on Clinton Street for drinks and food. I'm going to see if I can warn them ahead of time... they don't do reservations (oh how it's not that kind of place!), but we can see what's up from there and maybe with a heads up, they'll be able to accomodate us. The food is good. I do believe they serve alcohol. They have the best lime rickies in town. The cheese fries are reknowned (however one spells that). Seattle: The Crocodile Cafe. Doors are at 9pm (?). The gathering will come before the show at eddie's restaurant. Hopefully eddie or someone like him will read this before the show and post the details. We'd love to get an accurate headcount of the preshow gathering, so if you know you're coming, speak up! We'd like to have dinner at 6:30 to give eddie time to clean up and head out with us to the venue. The show will be excellent. Robyn will be joined by Peter Buck and they will play Hendrix, Dylan, the one Baez tune, and a surprise R.E.M. number. People will laugh. Nobody will get hurt. So that's that! I hope I didn't give away any secrets (or secret identities). If you're coming, LET US KNOW! Here's to a fantastic weekend. Phew. Jeme. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 00:39:18 -0700 From: Marc Holden Subject: Hitchcock and Demme In the July issue of MUSICIAN magazine, there was a preview stating that in August the "Private Lesson" section would feature "video tips from Robyn Hitchcock and Jonathan Demme--Two unique artists explain how to make the camera love you". Needless to say, the August issue did not include said article, maybe we'll have better luck in September. I had a chance to talk to Robyn for a little while Saturday night after the Largo show. He mentioned that he plans to discontinue using the Thoth symbol and will be replacing it with something like a light house with a tomato on top (which he then drew on the cover of "Black Snake Diamond Role", which someone nearby had convenient for Robyn's doodling needs). He also said that the whole cone thing is done--he did about 300 of them, and he is planning some new merchandising items. At this point, his favorite item seems to be a "floating" pen--the type with the fluid compartment that has a scene and an object that moves when you rock the pen back and forth. Lastly, it would be really nice to see a little more real content in the Fegmaniax digest. Some of the non-Hitchcock content is cool--Syd Barrett discographies, etc., but some of the recent topics have been lacking--100 top American movies of all time, celebrity deaths, NMH, Eb and his musical knowledge (Gosh!, we're all impressed down here!), etc.--you know, real chat room type material, but totally void of anything I want to use my time for. Maybe I'm missing the point, but this is a Hitchcock page, right? Thanks, Marc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 00:45:11 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Hitchcock and Demme > Lastly, it would be really nice to see a little more real content in >the Fegmaniax digest. Some of the non-Hitchcock content is cool--Syd >Barrett discographies, etc., but some of the recent topics have been >lacking--100 top American movies of all time, celebrity deaths, NMH, Eb >and his musical knowledge (Gosh!, we're all impressed down here!), >etc.--you know, real chat room type material, but totally void of >anything I want to use my time for. Maybe I'm missing the point, but >this is a Hitchcock page, right? "Eb eats school marms for breakfast" -- Eddie Tews ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 03:20:12 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: you know what >So here are my issues: > >The subject line of the post. >The subject line was current and appropriate. Yup. I think that was what made it such a nasty little stealth joke, actually. >When did the first Robyn-as-spaz post hit the list? and >I don't know how frequently digests are compiled and added to the archive, >but I didn't think they were all that quick. The Robyn body-language thread started the day before as far as I can tell. The first person to use the word spaz was Michael K, that night (7:23 pm ET), so I doubt it had made the digest by the time the other was sent (10:22 pm ET). I think you would have had to be on the list to have seen it, or known someone who was. Unless a digest -had- appeared on the page already with that post in it, sometime between 7:30 and 10:22. Had it? Actually if it had I'd be immensely relieved, because that only means someone read the webpage, and not -necessarily- anything with darker implications. I mean, I'm not saying I like that idea either, but it's better than some alternatives I could think of. >This one's awful and could be my mistake, but --err... don't hate me--, >wasn't JBJ's wise-cracking friend from Utah? He obviously pays attention >and obviously subscribed for a short time with one phony address. Isn't >that a fine way to get a list of subscribers? Personally I think that's just a coincidence, but though in one way I can see the connection (e.g. jokey faked or fake-looking address-using Utah-ans I guess), in another I can't quite make the jump to it. The difference is of course that lobstie's friend's prank was relatively harmless and not particularly tasteless or mean-spirited, so I don't really see a connection in that sense (actually I thought it was pretty funny). Incidentally,beavis@m-net.arbornet.org is not a fake address per se, it's just a damn difficult one to gather information on. I'm having quite a time tracing him back to xmission, cyber-west.com, and/or Weber U (all in Utah). *bangs head on desk* And arbornet has yet to respond to my complaint, not even with a "yeah, we received it" form letter. I'm a little put out by that. Anyone else gotten a response? I don't need to see anything definitive or anything, but it would be nice if they'd let me know they'd gotten it. >I'm guessing the offender did subscribe for a short time and probably got >the addresses from the who listing. I'm thinking the offender not only did that, but may possibly know someone who subscribes here or in some way has access to their 'puter. Of course, if the first "spaz" post was actually on the digest by the time in question, then that may not be true. I wonder too, what the reason was for being so determined to prank -this- list, when there are certainly thousands of others it could have done it to, with relatively less bother. I mean, after trying and failing to send spew to the list, and trying then to subscribe and failing, wouldn't yer average prankster just think "oh, I'll find another list to subscribe to and fuck with them instead"?. Why go to the trouble of pasting in the addresses, when it could just go subscribe somewhere where it could actually make a more spectacular splash with similar material, relatively speaking. Like say, a mailing list for people planning weddings or fans of The Family Channel? This makes me think the perp may know someone here, possibly, or in any event have SOME reason for picking us. >On Lobsterman's pal: >If it was said friend, nobody blaims John, I'm sure. Some people just >make bad judgments and you aren't your friends' keeper. As I said, I don't personally believe that. But if that is actually the case, of course nobody would. >Also, all you folks that have gone on about what kind of sicko would have >written such a thing are surely wasting your time. Eh, I didn't think so. The psychology of such people is kinda morbidly fascinating. Even though I think you are most likely right that that person didn't write it. When you first open it up you're thinking of it as a post someone wrote, rather than a "story" per se, and so one's natural reaction is to think that poster wrote whatever it is, if I'm making sense here. Anyway, I think that's why people (including me) originally thought that. >I blame the poster... and really only for VERY poor judgment (unless this >was with malicious intent, in which case the poster's a sick fuckin' >bastard). The fact that the poster seems to have made some effort to do this, and to do this -here- in particular, when they could have done it somewhere else with less bother, seems to me to point to malicious intent. YMMV. Love on ya, Susan giving up Sherlocking for bed :) ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #233 *******************************