From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #362 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, September 18 1998 Volume 07 : Number 362 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #361 [edoxtato@ssax.com] Re: Literary Trappings [Terrence M Marks ] Librafeg? No... [Carole Reichstein ] Born under a bad sign [Natalie Jane Jacobs ] THE POSSE & LIST CONTENT ONLINE. [dlang ] Re: Born under a bad sign [Ross Overbury ] Re: Born under a bad sign [amadain ] Re: Bad Seeds Live [Ethyl Ketone ] Re: Born under a bad sign [Natalie Jacobs ] Re: Born under a bad sign [Ross Overbury ] Re: Born under a bad sign [Natalie Jacobs ] Re: Born under a bad sign [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Re: Born under a bad sign [Ross Overbury ] Re: Born under a bad sign (oops!) [Ross Overbury ] Fwd: Re: Born under a bad sign ["Gene Hopstetter, Jr." ] Re: Born under a bad sign [JH3 ] zero content [Ken Ostrander ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 15:53:54 -0500 From: edoxtato@ssax.com Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V7 #361 >Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 08:18:38 -0700 (PDT) >From: Capuchin >Subject: Librafegs. >Eb and gnat and Dan-Yell and this monkey. >Who else? >- --J. Me... (12 October) - -Doc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 19:40:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence M Marks Subject: Re: Literary Trappings > Hmmm . . . here's a few, but they are biased in my musical and literary > direction! > > Syd Barrett's "Golden Hair." -- Lyrics by James Joyce! > > Jefferson Airplane, "Rejoice" -- based on Joyce's "Ulysses" > > Kate Bush's "Sensual World," based on Molly's soliloquy in "Ulysses." Add'l: Donovan's "Under the Greenwood Tree" -Lyrics by W. Shakespeare The Favourite Colour's "V in Love" -Lyrics by Thomas Pynchon RH's "Knife" - Based on MacBeth Terrence Marks normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:38:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Carole Reichstein Subject: Librafeg? No... ..not quite. Almost. Born Sept.22nd, which means I'm a Virgo on the cusp of Libra. And yes, this goes for my sister as well! In case you didn't know. Carole (who shares her birthday with, er. Scott "Chachi" Baio) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 21:09:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Natalie Jane Jacobs Subject: Born under a bad sign >For what it's worth, I don't know OR know of any astrologers >who use/believe in Ophiucus- they may exist but if they do they >are as common as whangdoodles and definitely operate on the fringes >of astrology. I see skeptics talk about it a lot more often actually. I know way more than I should about astrology, and I've never heard of Ophiucus... I assume it's supposed to be an extra constellation in the zodiac or something? (I have heard some guff about extra planets and things like that, but not very often.) So Robyn has his moon in Libra... astrologically speaking, the moon represents needs and emotions, and the sun represents the self or main personality, which means that Robyn's emotions coincide with Librafegs' selves. Or something. n. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 21:07:00 +0930 From: dlang Subject: THE POSSE & LIST CONTENT ONLINE. Dear Fegs, Its me again, rabbiting on about my Robyn webpage.You may recall, its the one with surreal quailspewdreamsreviewsinterviews, etc nearly all extracted from the bowels of this beknighted list. Its is not available 24 hours a day,or glitchfree ( do not invade the womad portion of the site, a major problem with links exists due to either netscape or windows Nt , or both ) but most of it is functional and I warn ye, the surreal posse content is large, so if you dislike tentacles , don't venture into that part. But most of you are there, one way or another, so if you fancy seeing yourselves immortalised for all the countless millions on the net to see, go venture boldly forth to,etc, etc..... a warning. Because our server has just been upgraded to an isdn connection, we have not sorted out our new setup as yet , so at present the connection goes off line if there is no activity. Which occurs when we all go home of an evening........ Thus , the webpage is only available from 8-00 am to around 5pm, Australian time . So I expect you overseas bods will have to access it at 3-00am or some ungodly hour. As far as I can see the Rh portion works, although i have not had time to explore all 60 odd pages at work. So , if you want to give it a try, by all means us the link below and if its the right time, it should work. I have had untold problems getting this monstrosity to work , mainly due to Mac/microsoft incompatibility problems , but i am going to ftp all the robyn site to good sir bayard tomorrow and hopefully we can get it going round the clock. Dave Visit my Robyn Hitchcock, Australian Deadhead, Beefheart, Richard Thompson & Womadelaide webpage for contacts, links ,photos , setlists and reviews ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 17 Sep 98 23:48:19 EDT From: Ross Overbury Subject: Re: Born under a bad sign > > >For what it's worth, I don't know OR know of any astrologers > >who use/believe in Ophiucus- they may exist but if they do they > >are as common as whangdoodles and definitely operate on the fringes > >of astrology. I see skeptics talk about it a lot more often actually. > > I know way more than I should about astrology, and I've never heard of > Ophiucus... I assume it's supposed to be an extra constellation in the > zodiac or something? (I have heard some guff about extra planets and > things like that, but not very often.) Deja vu! I did this about 3 years ago. It must be in the stars for me to do it again. OK, you asked ... Ophiuchus (alternately spelled Ophiuchus) is a zodiacal constellation. Not an extra one, but a modern one. The earth wobbles about on its axis over a period of a few thousand years -- that's called precession. The effect is pronounced enough that my Burnham's Celestial Handbook set, written for epoch 1950 will be replaced by an epoch 2000 version soon (or has it already?). Vega, the brightest summer star in the constellation Lyra, was the north star about the time of the building of the pyramids. It follows that if you accept that astrology is the study of the effect of the physical positions of the stars, the outcome of one's birthdate should have changed since the development of that "science". Ophiuchus is one of the constellations that borders Libra, so that some of the people said to be born under Libra or under Saggitarius are actually born under Ophiuchus. If the lot who came up with astrology did so today, they'd have undoubtedly come up with a set of attributes based on the physician/surgeon/musician Aesculapius (also known as Ophiuchus). Would it be any more valid? Astrology buffs don't talk about it much either out of ignorance or embarassment, as near as I can tell. Skeptics ask because it's a good question that deserves a good answer. Skeptics ask about *everything*. Why make an exception for pet concepts? I wish more astrology buffs would redirect their efforts to the heavenly bodies themselves, rather than astrology's dusty old assumptions. It's beautiful up there, and we're losing it to light pollution so quickly! - -- Ross (not Rush) Overbury Montreal, Quebec, Canada email: rosso@cn.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:44:06 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: Born under a bad sign >Astrology buffs don't talk about it much either out of ignorance or >embarassment, as near as I can tell. . OK, I'm not gonna say a lot about this, I promise. The tropical zodiac (the one most commonly in use in the West and what most people think of when they think of astrology) is for me a fixed symbolic system. Ophiucus is not part of that codified system. Adding it would be like adding extra runes to runemal or more numbers to the I-Ching. A lot of people who do/study astrology feel that way. This is why Ophiucus is not talked about much. To say that it's out of ignorance of its existence is not quite right. To me this is more into questions of faith vs. not-faith rather than science vs. pseudo-science, because I don't think there ARE that many astrologers/students who would claim that it's got a scientific basis. Well there are some (there are always some in every crowd :)) who would, but they're a little um, off. Incidentally there are sidereal astrologers who attempt to use modern astronomy for "scientific astrology", but I personally feel that that kind of misses the point. >Skeptics ask about *everything*. Why make an exception for pet concepts? Well, actually, skeptics JOKE about it more often than they ask IMX :). Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 00:54:23 -0700 From: Ethyl Ketone Subject: Re: Bad Seeds Live At 9.29 AM -0700 9/17/98, upstart wrote: >I had the great fortune of seeing Nick Cave live in Seattle the other >night, and >I have to say that it was pretty much the greatest show of any kind that >I have ever seen. Whew! Just got in from the show and am I wired! Jesus. If I had ANY idea Nick was such a performer I would have robbed a bank to see him in a smaller venue back in my starving student daze. For those Nick Cave fans out there - this show was AMAZING. Though maybe not the greatest (I saw Pink Floyd on the Meddle tour AND the Dark Side of the Moon tour) it was definately one of the best shows I have ever seen - even better than the Egyptians show I saw at the same venue a few years back (sacralige, sorry), or that time I saw the Pogues and Shane McGowen collapsed and couldn't make it so Joe Strummer filled in for him. (Well, maybe not quite as good as Bob Marley and the Wailers in '75 in Santa Barbara but this is such a different genre how can I compare?) I mean this was great! He played nearly and hour and then proceeded to do not less than 4 encores ending with an unforgettable rendition (fairly acoustic) of "Your Funeral, My Trial". Geez, he played a few old ones and lots of "the kindler-gentler Nick" which made me want to go back and listen. Oh, and a few Murder Ballads for those of us who are fans of such things. A word about the Bad Seeds. They are an incredibly tight band and great musicians. I kept wondering what a studio session was like with these guys. Or what an improv jam would be. They rocked. Chris was there I hear so maybe he has a set list or other stuff I never follow. I'll just say that Nick Cave is worth twice the price of admition - live. I feel better already. Be Seeing You, - - Carrie "Questions are a burden for others. Answers are a prison for oneself." **************************************************************************** M.E.Ketone/C.Galbraith meketone@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 08:37:32 -0400 From: Natalie Jacobs Subject: Re: Born under a bad sign >Vega, the brightest summer star in the constellation Lyra, was the >north star about the time of the building of the pyramids. It follows >that if you accept that astrology is the study of the effect of the >physical positions of the stars, the outcome of one's birthdate should >have changed since the development of that "science". This is also the reason why the traditional dates accepted for each sign (e.g. Sept 21-Oct 21 for Libra) are no longer valid... due to the precession of the equinoxes, the sun is no longer in Libra at that time. Those dates were valid when the Chaldeans came up with them, several thousand years ago, but not anymore. >Astrology buffs don't talk about it much either out of ignorance or >embarassment, as near as I can tell. Or laziness. It's too much trouble to re-vamp the entire astrological system, y'know. The weird astrology theory that I heard once involved extra planets. There are two signs, Virgo and Taurus, which share planetary rulers with other signs, and some folks think this means there must be two extra planets to rule them. The one that rules Taurus is called Vulcan. Supposedly we'll discover them someday. I have also heard some talk about the planetoid Chiron (which orbits between Saturn and Uranus, I think) and how it's really important in a chart, except nobody uses it much. Then there's the astronomers' debate about whether or not Pluto is really a planet... And the science fiction problem of how to do a horoscope for someone born on another planet. (Robert Heinlein attempted this in "Stranger in a Strange Land," and got it totally wrong.) n., who believes that astrology is fun to mess around with, but not to be taken seriously ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 98 9:37:54 EDT From: Ross Overbury Subject: Re: Born under a bad sign > This is also the reason why the traditional dates accepted for each sign > (e.g. Sept 21-Oct 21 for Libra) are no longer valid... due to the > precession of the equinoxes, the sun is no longer in Libra at that time. > Those dates were valid when the Chaldeans came up with them, several > thousand years ago, but not anymore. > > >Astrology buffs don't talk about it much either out of ignorance or > >embarassment, as near as I can tell. > > Or laziness. It's too much trouble to re-vamp the entire astrological > system, y'know. Good point. I ignored the fact that a lot of people do this just for fun. I wouldn't bother with it myself when there's other ways (like fortune cookies, which offer such a gratifying side-benefit). But some people punch each other in the face for fun. I never will understand people! > > The weird astrology theory that I heard once involved extra planets. There > are two signs, Virgo and Taurus, which share planetary rulers with other > signs, and some folks think this means there must be two extra planets to > rule them. The one that rules Taurus is called Vulcan. Supposedly we'll > discover them someday. Pluto's discovery was predicted by wobbles in the orbits of the other planets. For years, there was a lot of talk about "Planet X", the existence of which was implied by the failure of Pluto's observed mass to account for all the wobbling. Not long ago, the math was checked out and found to be a tad off; Pluto accounts nicely for the wobble. I think the missing mass was Pluto's moon, Charon. If there's another planet past that, it's got no mass! > > I have also heard some talk about the planetoid Chiron (which orbits > between Saturn and Uranus, I think) and how it's really important in a > chart, except nobody uses it much. > > Then there's the astronomers' debate about whether or not Pluto is really a > planet... Yup. And the fact that astrology doesn't account for anything you can't see with the naked eye, and comets (I think), asteroids. And proper motion of the stars is gradually changing the shapes of the constellations and the distance of some of the stars to us. Picky, picky, picky. To take seriously the assumption that some diety might have arranged the stars so that they look like "water signs" or "earth signs" for the purpose of guiding the destinies of a few bits of walking meat out in the boonies of this galaxy seems (to me) shockingly egocentric. The constellations wouldn't look remotely the same to inhabitants of most of the galaxy who would have a view of them. > n., who believes that astrology is fun to mess around with, but not to be > taken seriously Ahhh! That's as good as coffee in the morning! - -- Ross Overbury, the Eddie Tews of rationality? Montreal, Quebec, Canada email: rosso@cn.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 10:06:29 -0400 From: Natalie Jacobs Subject: Re: Born under a bad sign >And the fact that astrology doesn't account for anything you >can't see with the naked eye, and comets (I think), asteroids. Actually, this isn't quite true. Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto can't be seen with the naked eye, and the most detailed astrological charts do include asteroids - mostly the larger ones that are named after goddesses: Vesta, Ceres, Juno. I have a book that interprets them. >> n., who believes that astrology is fun to mess around with, but not to be >> taken seriously > >Ahhh! That's as good as coffee in the morning! I used to take astrology quite seriously, until I realized that I would use it instead of thinking - to pre-judge people ("Oh, he's a Scorpio, he must be intense"), or as an excuse ("I can't do any writing today, Mercury is retrograde"). Some of my friends governed their whole lives this way. I still enjoy doing people's charts, and I often use astrology to help define the characters in my stories, as a sort of blueprint for their personalities (writer's secret revealed!), but that's as far as I'll let it go. Whether it's for real or not, it shouldn't be a crutch. The same goes for Tarot, etc. semi-skeptical n. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 14:34:01 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: Born under a bad sign In a message dated 98-09-18 09:55:05 EDT, you write: << To take seriously the assumption that some diety might have arranged the stars so that they look like "water signs" or "earth signs" for the purpose of guiding the destinies of a few bits of walking meat out in the boonies of this galaxy seems (to me) shockingly egocentric. >> Well, that seems kinda silly to me, too. It seems more likely that it just worked out that way, and that we humans have found a nifty little way of explaining observed phenomena. I guess I basically believe in astrology. I don't know a ton about it, but whenever someone's Sun, Moon and Rising are all taken into account, I've found that this generally paints a pretty good protrait of what that person's like. There are always going to be intervening variables, of course, and astrology is far from being a perfect art or science. But it's pretty neat. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were some scientific basis behind it that we'll one day discover. There are all those large masses out there in space, spinning around and complexly affecting fields of gravity. And, since we're all fairly small masses, it stands to reason that our bodies and everything inside (including neurochemicals and whatnot) could be affected by the gravitational pulls of all the planets in the solar system. Someone else who knows what the hell they're talking about has probably already neatly theorized this same thing out in much greater detail. And this is probably the same kind of scientific explanation for astrology that a couple of other people on the list were saying is bunk. But, I don't know, it seems moderately plausible to me. Surely there must have been some study conducted by now that compares astrological personality profiles to, say, MMPI profiles? It would be pretty interesting, I think, to see to what degree there is a correlation. - -------Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 98 15:27:38 EDT From: Ross Overbury Subject: Re: Born under a bad sign > > In a message dated 98-09-18 09:55:05 EDT, you write: > > << To take seriously the assumption that some diety might have arranged the > stars so that they look like "water signs" or "earth signs" for the purpose > of guiding the destinies of a few bits of walking meat out in the boonies > of this galaxy seems (to me) shockingly egocentric. >> > > Well, that seems kinda silly to me, too. It seems more likely that it > just worked out that way, and that we humans have found a nifty little way of > explaining observed phenomena. The problem is that when it's put to the test, it doesn't do better than chance. The believer finds things in his/her life that correspond to the reading, and declines to consider discrepancies between the two. I could present a case for the black cat/bad luck connection with anecdotal evidence. Not good enough. I'm sure you'll find just as much confidence in the reading of gnu entrails in those who practice that particular form of divination. To say that there's got to be something to it if enough people believe in it is demonstrably false. If it works, you can prove it. So where's the proof? Find me a study where it's been tested with proper controls and has proven itself. I can quote ones where it's failed, and I honestly don't know of any that support it in any way (with the exception you'll see below). > I guess I basically believe in astrology. I > don't know a ton about it, but whenever someone's Sun, Moon and Rising are all > taken into account, I've found that this generally paints a pretty good > protrait of what that person's like. It's been found through experimentation that when you give people random horoscopes and ask them how well it applies to them, they find enough in them that assume it's their real horoscope. IIRC, the more detail you ask them before giving the "reading", the more accurate they believe their reading to be. > There are always going to be intervening > variables, of course, and astrology is far from being a perfect art or > science. But it's pretty neat. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were > some scientific basis behind it that we'll one day discover. There are all > those large masses out there in space, spinning around and complexly affecting > fields of gravity. But these masses aren't considered in the computation of a reading. > And, since we're all fairly small masses, it stands to > reason that our bodies and everything inside (including neurochemicals and > whatnot) could be affected by the gravitational pulls of all the planets in > the solar system. There's more gravity exerted on your body by the crt you're facing than by Saturn. And light, and magnetic fields, and static electricity .... > Someone else who knows what the hell they're talking about has probably > already neatly theorized this same thing out in much greater detail. And this > is probably the same kind of scientific explanation for astrology that a > couple of other people on the list were saying is bunk. But, I don't know, it > seems moderately plausible to me. How can they theorize on how it works, if it can't be demonstrated to work in the first place? I read of a scientific attempt made to correlate personality types with events of astrological importance. None was found. Here's something interesting, though -- there was one personality trait that was linked to some attribute of Mars (proximity, retrograde motion, ... I don't remember what). To jump to the conclusion that there's a cause-and-effect relationship would be wrong, though. On the other hand, if you've got a concept that works, but don't understand the mechanics of it, the validity concept can be proven. Think of gravity before modern physics. IIRC, they still don't have a handle on exactly what makes gravity tick. But it works, and it works no matter who's watching. > > Surely there must have been some study conducted by now that compares > astrological personality profiles to, say, MMPI profiles? It would be pretty > interesting, I think, to see to what degree there is a correlation. > What's a MMPI profile? > Superstition has kept people much better and much longer than capitalism. PS: Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted Universe" expresses all this with much more eloquence than I could muster. Argue with him. - -- Ross Overbury Montreal, Quebec, Canada email: rosso@cn.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 98 15:46:51 EDT From: Ross Overbury Subject: Re: Born under a bad sign (oops!) > Superstition has kept people much better and much longer than capitalism. But I meant: Superstition has kept people *down* much better and much longer than capitalism. I breathe vi, but with a touch of asthma. - -- Ross Overbury Montreal, Quebec, Canada email: rosso@cn.ca ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:09:00 -0400 From: "Gene Hopstetter, Jr." Subject: Fwd: Re: Born under a bad sign >From: Ross Overbury >What's a MMPI profile? Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory? I don't know why I think I know that. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 15:39:36 -0500 (CDT) From: JH3 Subject: Re: Born under a bad sign Ross asked: "What's a MMPI profile?" Gene H. is correct - that's the "Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory." Anyone between 30 & 45 years old in the US probably took one during the 70's, back when such things were popular... Being Canadian, Ross probably never had to take one. (Yet another advantage of being Canadian? That and easier access to Rush albums...) It was developed by some behavioral psychologists at the University of Minnesota as a means of measuring people's personalties via quantifiable attributes. Of course those attributes are in and of themselves qualitative, but in their defense, these people were more concerned with the ideal course of a person's education than they were with their love lives or whether or not it's a good day to buy a lottery ticket. Oops, am I starting to sound dismissive again? Sorry. JH3 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 18:15:56 -0400 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: zero content >Now wait a doggone minute! Very few Zep songs could be described as "about >dwarves and trees" ...maybe a few others here and there. >But most of them are about sex, spirituality, sex, >dying, sex, coughing, and sex. years ago, a local classic (what else?) station did this hilarious splicing of robert plant's various moans and screams in what could only be described as an extended orgasm. i'd love to hear it again or maybe i can make my own since i have most of their albums. (gasp!) >I'm planning on making the trek from Texas to Chicago to see Elvis Costello >and Burt Bacharach at the Chicago Theatre on Oct. 16th. sounds wild. i've only heard the song that was featured in the movie _grace of my heart_ 'god give me strength'. tugs at the ol' heart strings. > Unfortunately, we are all Fegs of Little Brains when it comes to the >task of trying to analyze the relationship of all these bands to one another. >God only knows in how many dimensions one would have to be able to >conceptualize this in order to fully comprehend its magnitude. I mean, ya >throw the Charlie Daniels Band (crossover country?! dear god, no!) into the >mix and ya have to wheel out the ol' _Book of Stuff That Only Trekkie Staff >Writers Have Ever Thunked Up_! a big ass book, indeed. ken "classic star trek purist" the kenster ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #362 *******************************