From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #408 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, October 28 1998 Volume 07 : Number 408 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Up with Floyd Coen Hitchcock [Mark_Gloster@3com.com] tower [Russ Reynolds ] Re: Grannie Gets The Point [Michael R Godwin ] Re: Up with Floyd Coen Hitchcock [Mike Runion ] Storefront Review [Tom Clark ] vinyl to CD? [griffith ] first impression ["Capitalism Blows" ] Re: Catfight [Capuchin ] Re: going forward with jesus [amadain ] Storefront Hitchcock, Greatest Hits, Interview.... (100% R.H.) [Stephen B] derivative music and The Apples in Stereo (and Of Montreal) [Ken Sabatini] leave it to rage against the machine ["Capitalism Blows" ] storefront Quailspiracy [Miles Goosens ] Re: syntax (was: first impression) [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Re: posturing [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Re: Storefront Hitchcock, Greatest Hits, Interview.... (100% R.H.) ["Capi] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 05:48:44 -0800 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: Re: Up with Floyd Coen Hitchcock >I think all of us on FEGMANIAX have heard tapes with even better >performances of these songs, or spoken-word bits of which we're more fond, >so we tend to nitpick. This blinds us to the fact that STOREFRONT is >hardly a SONG REMAINS THE SAME-like embarrassment. If the CD is a reliable >guide, I think STOREFRONT will thrill fans as well as curious non-fans.* Two thoughts here: 1) It is a good flick with good movement and changes. I'm absolutely positive that some of the artflickcrowd will go and enjoy and become fans. 2) Robyn Hitchcock _actually_ tunes his guitar and sings _in the same key_ as the song he's playing on the guitar, therefore, this is no Song Remains Disdain. later, Thanks for the kind words Miles. Happies, - -the jester of confusion ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 98 08:26:00 -0800 From: Russ Reynolds Subject: tower Chris Gross fumes: >pppps: Tower wants $17.99 for _Storefront Hitchcock_, the bastids. My >momma told me, you better shop around. Miles responds: >Yeah, same as our fucking Tower. You have one on your town too? Me & the wife used to go to the local fucking tower a lot before we were married. Now we just do it at home. - -rUss ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 17:29:54 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Grannie Gets The Point On Tue, 27 Oct 1998, Stewart Russell 3295 Analyst_Programmer wrote: > I was struck that it could have been an > influence on 'Point it at Gran'. Y'see, the basic storyline of "Grannie > Gets The Point" is of Grannie, who refuses to use the new (in 1971) > decimal currency. She plans to moulder in her room until the money > reverts to LSD standards, but is pulled out of her gloom by her > annoyingly clever grandson. Seems very likely, especially if it's a gloom that congeals so greasy and thick you could stir it around and around with a stick. And if a gang of fireman come in, squirt Gran with a firehose and then slap her in the face with a flan I would describe it as conclusive! Just my one and elevenpence ha'penny worth - - Major Cholmondeley-Warner PS to catfight fans: check out the Marlene Dietrich - Una Merkel scrap in "Destry Rides Again". ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:12:32 -0800 From: Mike Runion Subject: Re: Up with Floyd Coen Hitchcock Miles wrote about new REM: > But then the next thing I knew, I saw the readout of the player flash "10" > and realized that my mind had completely wandered during a sequence of (you > guessed it) umpteen ballads in a row. I perked back up for "Daysleeper" > through the end of the album, but I'm fearful that we've got another DON'T > TRY THIS AT HOME on our hands. Learn from Billy Bragg's mistake: if you > string four or five or six midtempo songs together, your album becomes a > snoozearama, no matter how good the individual ballads are. My sentiments exactly. I took to the first four songs okay, then it all just blurred together. I'm pretty disappointed with it so far. They claimed that they were trying to sound as unlike REM as they could get, but all I hear is sorta tired retreads of older songs. The refrain to "The Apologist" is "I'm sorry / so sorry"...um...haven't you used that already guys? Another song sounded like a weak "Nightswimming". I liked New Adventures, and Up is making me think I *loved* New Adventures. Is it a coincidence that UP sounds like POP? > instead I seem to be liking them > even better than I used to. I will admit that I've moved away from my > teenage infatuation with THE WALL and THE FINAL CUT and more toward the > space noodling of UMMAGUMMA, MEDDLE, and OBSCURED BY CLOUDS. Same here. Strange. I'll stick up for 70's Floyd as well. After years of neglect, I rediscovered them a year or two back and got totally sucked in again. And I'll side with Eddie, I think THE WALL is a master work, though Meddle is still my fave. > I think all of us on FEGMANIAX have heard tapes with even better > performances of these songs, or spoken-word bits of which we're more fond, > so we tend to nitpick. This blinds us to the fact that STOREFRONT is > hardly a SONG REMAINS THE SAME-like embarrassment. If the CD is a reliable > guide, I think STOREFRONT will thrill fans as well as curious non-fans.* Yeah, to side with Eb-ish vibe a bit, I kinda with I hadn't heard all these "new" songs before. I found myself singing along note for note just like with any number of bootlegs instead of enjoying any freshness that might be there. Still, I think the average RH fan will like it, and hopefully it will be new to them. It was unexpected, but Storefront satisfied me immensely more than Up. - -- Mike Runion Cocoa, FL, USA /******************************************************************\ | VCM: http://www5.palmnet.net/~mrrunion/cones.htm | | Fegmaps: http://www5.palmnet.net/~mrrunion/fegmaps | | Spoken Word Tape: http://www5.palmnet.net/~mrrunion/wordtape.htm | \******************************************************************/ "Wait a minute. Time for a Planetary Sit-In!" - Julian Cope ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:17:41 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Storefront Review Just got the new issue of Consumable Online, which has a short "Storefront" review. It's webbified at http://www.westnet.com/consumable/1998/10.28/revhitch.html Thundering, - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:51:00 -0800 (PST) From: griffith Subject: vinyl to CD? Okay, I tracked down a vinyl version of "Storefront" during my lunch hour. Who out there in Fegland knows how (or where) I can get this 2LP set burned on to a CD? Any suggestions on or offline would be most appreciated. thanks as always griffith (who doesn't own a record play, but owns some vinyl) PS - I guess I'd like to get Mossy Liquor burned too. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Griffith Davies hbrtv219@csun.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 13:43:10 PST From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: first impression ok, i'm just finishing listening to STOREFRONT for the first time. (very surprised to have gotten it for $13.98.) i like it very much. and it usually takes me a few listens to starting liking any given new robyn album (though this is a little different, i suppose, because these songs are so familiar.) i will say that the recording isn't as great as i'd thought when watching the movie. there's a bit of a background hiss, isn't there? and he's still using hessu, who did such a masterful job with GIVE IT TO THE THOTH BOYS and WHERE ARE THE PRAWNS? and what's with the damned electric overdubs (i guess you'd call them "underdubs") on 1974 and I Something You? that's pretty friggin' annoying. i like the pictures that are included, though i'm not too keen on the overall design of the booklet. in fact, i don't like the cover at all (although it's cool that "storefront hitchcock" is printed in mirror image. too bad they didn't do it that way on the spine, too.) and i think there should be more and bigger pics. is that snail-mail address antwoman's, or something new? oh, and robynhitchcock.com, i think they picked that because bayard had already nabbed robynhitchcock.edu! minor quibbles, all. but, "unlisted track numbers denote spoken introductions." this can't be syntactically correct, can it? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 14:47:00 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Catfight Um. This is crude and terrible. On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, dlang wrote: > So we have had to > move it elsewhere. But never fear, it is secreted somewhere where the Quail > will NEVER find it . In LJs underpants? (or was that her mouth?) Feeling all dirty inside, but happy to beat Tom to the punch, J. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 15:46:06 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: going forward with jesus >Random nod: "Sports Night" is the only good new show of this television >season (that I've seen, anyway). Oh, and speaking of couch potatoism, a >central plot point of tonight's "Mad About You" was a character dying >of...A BEE STING. Ooooooooooooh. Gilmour, are you behind this? If he is, I need to talk to him. My family's beloved westie dog Angus once nearly died from anaphylactic (sp?) shock from a bee sting and we had to take him to the emergency vet. Now I know who to blame. Incidentally, there is a mention of someone being allergic to bee stings in "Speed of Things". It's all too scary. Re: the Paul Fox thing. Yes, we're all adults. Yes we can handle it. It's not the picture that's at issue, at least for me. What irritates me is that this was a juvenile, malicious little "fuck you" directed right at us. It's sort of the net equivalent of shooting us the finger. I'd like to see the fellow tracked down and inconvenienced some, myself. I don't mind the list being moderated for a brief time while woj beefs up the anti-goof measures, either, but I agree it shouldn't stay that way. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:21:06 -0500 From: Stephen Buckalew Subject: Storefront Hitchcock, Greatest Hits, Interview.... (100% R.H.) I just picked up these two CD's (have'ta get the rekkid store to order the vinyl). Comments: Based on all the lukewarm responses to Storefront Hitchcock, it's better than I thought it was going to be. I have some tapes of the recent live shows that have been going around. And all and all it stands up to them pretty well. Some tracks lack a little energy, and some spoken tracks are a little weak for Robyn, but considering that he was under the pressure of that mystical beast known as "Camera", it's pretty good. Being on the camera spot affects any human being...even someone presumably as comfortable with performing as R.H. So it seems less spontaneous because it's *non-spontaneous spontaneity?* It's like, "at 11:00am when the camera roles...I have to produce spontaneous banter" (yikes). I'm fairly comfortable anymore playing in front of an audience, but put the camera on me...and I get all stiff....Deer in the Headlights. I wonder if it would have been better as a documentary of many of his live shows? Even then, he has his off days. We've all seen shows that were better than others. I might have to settle for the video...it'll never come to my town :-( Our theaters usually have two or three theatres simultaneously showing "Titanic"...and NO independent films allowed. I also bought the A&M greatest hits to check out the alternate tracks...as I didn't have any of them. Any comments from Fegs on the remastered sound of this album? It does seem a little "fuller" than the A&M CD's that I have. Ever notice when Robyn covers a Byrd's song.....he replicates it almost exactly...doesn't play with it at all...talk about reverence. Someone's probably mentioned this already...but there is a new interview of R.H. on the Onion's AV site on the web at http://avclub.theonion.com/index.html. When the interviewer asks him if "1974" will show up on the next album...he says no...that it'll be all new songs. Wonder what he means by "new" songs...doesn't he usually try songs out live first? I know my own songs have to "age" for quite a while in performance before they are ready to be recorded. What's his track record on this? I'll bet "Jewels for Sophia" won't be on it.... Does anyone else love "Let's Go Thundering" as much as I do? Maybe I'm a sucker for simple pop melodies.... S.B. ***************************************************************************** "...everythings all on...it's rosy...it's a beautiful day!"--Syd Barrett **************************************************************************** * ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:52:04 -0500 (EST) From: Ken Sabatini Subject: derivative music and The Apples in Stereo (and Of Montreal) Said LJ on Oct 26: >I have the Apples in Stereo album, which is much-favored by snooty >rock-crit types; now if you ask me, that is the biggest Beatles ripoff >album in the world, but they get PRAISED for copying the Beatles. Why is >that? Because they have credible highbrow indie-rock status, and Oasis >just wants to make some fucking money and snort cocaine and fuck some >groupies and be as obnoxious as they want? What does that have to do with >THE MUSIC? A side comment: I will surely not turn to LJ for advice on indie-pop/rock bands. :) I recall her not so recent scathing of the Athens band Of Montreal that was in some part due to their dress style--not being "attractive enough" or something. I'm not sure what "the Apples in Stereo album" is that LJ refers to above, but to clarify, the Apples in Stereo have 3 full-length discs: "Science Faire"--a compilation of early singles and eps; "Fun Trick Noisemaker"; and "Tone Soul Evolution," being the most recent. Of course there's also the Robert Schneider solo recordings collection under The Marbles called "Pyramid Landing and other favorites." Anyways, The Apples are certainly criticized for sounding too close to their influences. Even on this list, the issue has been recently explicitly discussed. I seem to recall Gene Hopstetter coming to the Apples defense with a well-written explanation for why he likes 'em. For me, I appreciate the enthusiasm and sincerity to their approach and am amazed at all of the funky songs they come up with, even if they are within a fairly narrow genre. said Gene Hopstetter on Oct 26: >Sure, it can be derivative AND enjoyable. Apples in Stereo are derivative >of the 1910 Fruitgum Company, and Oasis are derivative of the Beatles. >That's how popular music is, right? And art, too? And literature? (cut). >But the difference, IMNSHO, is their attitude. Oasis are arch Rawk Stars. >Robert Schneider, the leader of Apples in Stereo, is not. He's a dood. >I'm sure he'd rather sit at home with his 4-track and some friends and >listen to old 45s,whereas Liam would rather pull birds and drive Bentley's >into his swimming pools. Schneider's a nice, humble guy. I met him, and >he didn't even beat me up. He'd probably even have let me take a picture >of him without any major litigation. I don't want to get within 100 yards >of any of those Oasis people without a loaded gun handy; so why the fuck >should I buy their records and reinforce that behavior? Exactly. Yeah, this behavior is secondary to these bands' music, but their music is surely an extension of their personalities. So maybe Robert Scheider gets the benefit of the doubt here and there--maybe some people give him credit for his homespun pop, his do it yourself ethic, his extensive touring to get his music heard, his creation of Elephant 6 records and involvement with bands like the Olivia Tremor Control (co-producer) and Neutral Milk Hotel (co-producer). Speaking of Elephant 6, I highly recommend seeing The Minders if they come to your town. They hit Athens a few months ago and I was very impressed with their live sound. If you've heard their ep's, which tend to be acoustic and not so dynamic, you may be surprised at their edgier live show. I haven't yet found their recently released full length disc, but they're coming back to town this Friday, so maybe they'll have it with them. Let me end with several lines from a recent local review of Of Montreal's latest disc "The Bedside Drama: A Petit Tragedy" (on Kindercore Records): "( . . . ) You have to keep your eye on Barnes (singer/songwriter). His songs seem overly simple and childlike--e.g., "I am a happy yellow bumble bee"-- but, like those of his idol Brian Wilson, after a few listens the depth and complexity escapes. The sudden key changes and untraditional vocal harmonies are all bathed in a warm 8-track sound so soft it's easy to overlook the mastery. (. . . ) It's a childlike charm that may leave some wondering where all the testosterone has gone. But shelve those thougths and realize what you have in your hands is something delicate and beautiful. Elephant 6 and Kindercore are peforming some kind of soft revolution that Of Montreal is very much a part of." Last time I checked, the Athens-based Kindercore records label could be reached at "www.members.aol.com/kindercore/index.htm" They do mail order. Ken "who still can't decide if he's up for tonight's Belle & Sebastian show" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:58:56 PST From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: leave it to rage against the machine the current Rolling Stone asks a bunch of very important persons (i.e., movie and tv stars, and musicians,) what they think of "the clinton affair." i don't know how many, but it's quite a few. and you wanna talk about fucking idiots. i think maybe waylon jennings says they should run him out of town. and then everyone else just says, "oh, he's doing a good job, and that's the most important thing..." even lou reed says this. and worse still, billy bragg. billy fucking bragg calls clinton a, "progressive moral force." unbelievable. i'm just glad they didn't ask robyn, 'cause i fear he would've said something along the same lines, which would have depressed me no end. eddie vedder said something EXTREMELY stupid, but i don't remember exactly what. there were two exceptions. susan sarandon said that we ought not to be worrying about the president's morals when there are so many starving people abroad and at home, though she doesn't mention that clinton is a leading light in propagating this state of affairs. (but i did see her on charlie rose once say that noam chomsky was her political hero, so she's presumably well aware of it.) and tom morello...well, he said a LOT of good stuff, but the gist of it was, why are we worrying about who clinton's fucking today, and not who he's bombing today? then william greider, who's written some good things in his day, has an essay asserting that the problems in washington can be laid at gingrich's door. yeah, i think i'm gonna go and gag now. well factually, with the muslims, all you have to do is *stand in front of them* and it throws their whole prayer cycle outta wack. i've done this a few times, not always on purpose. looks like you line up pretty close with capuch'n. but your three least-favorite are my three most-favorite. oh, well. <4) THE HUDSUCKER PROXY (very very underrated IMO)> it was a critical flop, but EVERYONE i talk to LOVES it. it always used to amaze me quite a bit, because before it came out on video and got seen a bit more widely, i was convinced that i was the only person on the face of the planet that considered it a stone-cold masterpiece. same with LEBOWSKI. critics hated it, by and large. but now that it's out on video, lots of people are saying how much they love it. see, i'm not even sure i'd agree with this. for one thing, i'd never heard any of the spoken-bits before. i think he intentionally thought up a whole bunch of new ones to be used specifically for the film. and i thought the performances were dead on it. part of it was they did such a fine job recording the songs, and part of it was just the his-voice-has-never-sounded-so-good-as-it-did-in-the-fall-of-'96-effect. but i also think that in general, he just fucking NAILED every song. (remembering, of course, that they had four performances from which to choose.) also, there were a good number of fegs there. in fact, i think it was all the west coast fegs save: eb, who had apparently heard in advance that gloster was planning on leaving a 35% tip at the restaurant; .chris, who couldn't resist the urge to write an awfully witty poem explaining that he didn't wanna hang out with us, rather than actually hanging out with us (i *do* gotta admit it, that poem *was* awfully witty); and tom, who snubbed us for a stupid crummy hockey match. and to a hominid, every single one of us was blown away by the picture. plus which, robyn OWNS san francisco, so even though maybe not everyone there were listmembers, probably a lot of people had heard most of the songs before. i mean, i had been up for...let me think...well, roughly 30 hours. had driven nonstop from seattle. had spent the whole time laughing at capuch'n's outrageous accent. you'd think that these items, coupled with going inside a darkened theater, sitting in a comfy chair, and watching some guy sing a bunch of songs i'd already heard hundreds of times before would be the consummate recipe for putting me right to sleep. but i was GLUED to the screen for the entire length of the film. all of which is to say, i'm still quite befuddled about the could shoulder given the soundtrack. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 19:24:45 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: REM reminder My lukewarm initial reaction to UP notwithstanding, I'm psyched that the live REM show is supposed to air on MTV at 8 PM eastern. That's tonight. Like, in 30 minutes or so. So get the VCRs ready... later, Miles ================================================== Miles Goosens R. Stevie Moore website, now with sound! http://www.rsteviemoore.com My personal page, all silent all the time: http://www.mindspring.com/~outdoorminer/miles Join the Wire Mailing List: http://www.mindspring.com/~outdoorminer/wire ================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 19:56:07 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: storefront Quailspiracy In the upper right hand corner of the STOREFRONT cover are "points of light" (remember Geo. Bush's "lil' buddy") that clearly seem to form the letters UAL The most likely letter to proceed a "u" at the beginning of a word is "Q." And that leaves us only a mere letter short, a letter easily supplied by our fervid imaginations... later, Miles ================================================== Miles Goosens R. Stevie Moore website, now with sound! http://www.rsteviemoore.com My personal page, all silent all the time: http://www.mindspring.com/~outdoorminer/miles Join the Wire Mailing List: http://www.mindspring.com/~outdoorminer/wire ================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:11:15 EST From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: syntax (was: first impression) Eddie wondered: << but, "unlisted track numbers denote spoken introductions." this can't be syntactically correct, can it? >> Maybe it would *connote* instead? Or were you questioning the sentence structure? "unlisted track numbers" = subject; "denote" (no matter how questionable) = verb; "spoken introductions" = object. Maybe it would read better in the passive voice (ick, I know, but it *might* work). "spoken introductions are denoted by unlisted track numbers." Whaddya think? - ------Michael K., who can make the smallest of details even more tedious than they were to begin with :-) - ------Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 21:21:28 EST From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: posturing In a message dated 98-10-28 20:07:32 EST, you write: << And the problem with "rockstar posturing" is...? I can't see the problem. >> Let's be honest here. If you already don't like a band/artist, then everything about them is derivative, riddled with posturing, and basically just plain stupid. On the other hand, if you're predisposed towards a band/artist, then their work is "inspired by" so-and-so, their stage moves are exciting, and even the most exasperating of them are "intriguing." It's mostly perspective. By the way, for the creme de la creme of rock star posturing, you should really see Sleater-Kinney in concert sometime. A really fun show, and the guitarist (the non-lead-singer guitarist, that is) does all these great leg kicks and Pete Townshend pinwheel-armed power strums, whilst all the while seeming like the shyest girl on the face of the planet. She's cool. - -------Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 18:35:57 PST From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: Re: Storefront Hitchcock, Greatest Hits, Interview.... (100% R.H.) oops. he meant to say, "semantically correct." the syntax is fine, i guess. looks like we *all* might have to settle for that, judging by the interview lobstie linked us to. excellent interview, though. thanks john! i assume he means, songs that have never been released in any form, which 1974 now has. but an electric version of 1974 sounds tantalizing enough! has anyone heard him do it electric? i might even go out on a wire here and say that he has never performed the song electric, and that the version of which he speaks must be some sort of studio thingy. yup! er, well, i guess i don't know *how much* you love it. could you maybe hold up a cue-card or something? anyway, i think it's great, and it always pains me to see it slagged of so here. i'll be whistling it all night long now, after having heard it earlier today. in fact, wasn't it the audience's response to this song at bayard's birthday gig that caused robyn to remark, "hearing us play together makes you want to go and get married, doesn't it?"? but, come on. ok, let's say you're driving along in your car (and i know you don't have a car, susan, but bear with me here. we are now in "for instance" land, a magical arena where even fegs without auto mobiles can said to actually be driving in theirs, just for the purpose of "illustration." this only works for fegs though, or so i'm told.) with a group of friends. hell, let's make it a group of *fegs*. yes, let's see...susie, hedblade, sumiko, and librik are driving along to the punk rock show, having a "gay old time," when, some dastard dressed up like andy metcalfe pulls alongside them and, for no apparent reason, flips them the "bird," and then peels rubber out of there. how will the fegs react? will they just shrug it off and go on about their business of driving to the punk rock show, or will they try to chase him down and let the air out one, some, or all of his tires? i suspect the former. really, i do. (although now that i think about it, this would be a fairly good topic for one of those "choose your own adventure" stories. i used to love those motherfuckers!) yes, it's juvenile. yes, it's rude. but i really can't see the harm in it. and as i mentioned yesterday, it might even...ok, if we wanted to extend the motorcar analogy a little further...it could be that the fegs had reached a lull point in their conversation, and this flipping of the "bird" would be the kindling under the grille, as it were, from which would sprout new and interesting topics of conversation. maybe even, long after "andy metcalfe's" transgression had been forgot, they'd still be talking about things that they never would even have considered had not "andy" given them the "finger" in the first place. KEN "organ of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners" THE KENSTER ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #408 *******************************