From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #477 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, December 21 1998 Volume 07 : Number 477 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: king of siam [Ethyl Ketone ] Re: Who Hates Love? [Tom Clark ] Re: king of siam/ I got the trouble frying/ I'm not the devil [Mark_Glost] Re: 90% political rant. please ignore. [Eb ] Re: Who Hates Love? [BC-Radio@corecom.net (Brett Cooper)] We. Snow. Yay. ["Capitalism Blows" ] Re: We. Snow. Yay. [Eb ] Winter Love is Almost Here [dsaunder@islandnet.com (Daniel Saunders)] Re: 90% political rant. please copy and distribute. [VIV LYON ] Re: king of siam/ I got the trouble frying/ I'm not the devil [desmond in] Re: We. Snow. Yay. [desmond in a tutu ] Re: 90% political rant. please copy and distribute. [Christopher Gross ] LONG and BORING ["Capitalism Blows" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 10:29:51 -0800 From: Ethyl Ketone Subject: Re: king of siam At 9.37 AM -0800 12/21/98, lj lindhurst wrote: >Americans behave horribly, I agree! My favorite example of this was when I >was touring the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam, and this fatassed American >with a CAMCORDER in front of me turns to his wife and says, "Oh, this >doesn't look so bad." Oy! I didn't speak another word for an hour for >fear that someone would find out I was an American! Yikes! I recently had the good fortune to see a 5,000 year old spectacular "womb" tomb built miraculously in a hill in Ireland. This American comes out of the tomb while I was waiting to go in. His pals on the tour said "What's it like Bill? His answer? "It's a rock". I too kept my mouth shut for awhile... Be Seeing you, - - Carrie - sneaking in one last post before the ride arrives to go to the airport... "Questions are a burden for others. Answers are a prison for oneself." **************************************************************************** M.E.Ketone/C.Galbraith meketone@ix.netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 10:28:35 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: Who Hates Love? On 12/20/98 2:49 AM, Joel Mullins wrote: >Has anyone seen the latest video by that sexy horror queen Jennifer Love >Hewitt? Why does anybody on this list even watch videos anymore? - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 10:32:09 -0800 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: Re: king of siam/ I got the trouble frying/ I'm not the devil El Jayed: >responding to things Mark Gloster said: >>Iraq: Saddam H. is the out-of-wedlock love child of a perverse >>incestuous love triangle.... >Here is my question: Why hasn't someone KILLED Saddam Hussein yet? I >mean, hell, the US gov't has all kinds of covert and evil activities going >on around the world, why couldn't we get a sniper, or a double agent or a >smart bomb or SOMETHING to just nip this thing in the bud once and for all? >Or if not us, why hasn't some kind of nutty fundamentalist group gotten rid >of him yet? 3 reasons: 1- official: it is illegal. 2- incompetence: twentysomething DOCUMENTED attempted hits on Fidel Castro- zero results. 3- our bombs are only a little smarter than the CIA >>Americans: I am constantly embarrassed by the conduct of some >>of my fellow countrypersons. >Americans behave horribly, I agree! My favorite example of this was when I >was touring the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam, and this fatassed American >with a CAMCORDER in front of me turns to his wife and says, "Oh, this >doesn't look so bad." Oy! I didn't speak another word for an hour for >fear that someone would find out I was an American! My brothers have traveled abroad with Canadian maple leaf t-shirts- just in case. One of them can be terribly irritating, so if I were Canadian, I would not be happy about this. >>Sex: I'm with Susan here, that is to say that I agree with >>Susan. I don't know or care if it's genetic, but I really >>believe that some personal "ways of life" views happen early in >>life. >I agree on that point-- I think some people are predisposed to particular >tendencies from birth. And I do believe this includes dominant and >submissive traits. But I will have to side with the Quail here though-- it >is insulting to equate the struggle for b/d/s/m "acceptance" ("education"?) >with homosexuality. It is NOT the same thing. For anybody outside of "normal society," they come up against all kinds of fears and lack of understanding. It sounds like a similar struggle to me, which is not to say that they are equal or the same thing. I think it is a good thing to illustrate with examples to make a point. If it's hyperbolic, that's cool too. To force someone to justify their position seems to me to be a bit harsh and polarizes the discussion. > It sounds like Susan has run across some cranks and some ne'er-do-wells >who are trying to use any excuse possible to cause trouble for neighbors or >ex-spouses, but overall it is INSULTING to equate that sort of thing with >the hostility and backlash your average homosexual has to contend with in >this lifetime. Once you are persecuted (your an artist, you must relate) arbitrarily, you find amazing correlations between yourself and others. I truly believe that she has felt the brunt of a considerable amount of anger, etc., and to her this is real. I'm not in her shoes. I don't know if I'm capable of telling her what she is or isn't going through. In a way, it is like me telling Terry M. why he shouldn't like the Beach Boys, or commenting on exactly how persecuted he should feel for liking them. I can't fathom his opinion, any of it is absolutely valid from his perspective. >Oh, and as far as being "radical" or "perverse", come on! Please-- maybe >b/d/s/m was radical in 1974, but I think it is a pretty well-accepted >sexual practice these days. She's in the midwest. Maybe in a few years it will be. ;-) >>It's kind of too bad that Susan's personal sex life has >>to be under such scrutiny here from time to time. It is >>ridiculous that she is forced to defend doing what she wants to >>with other consenting adults. >Let me say **oh please** once again-- no one is FORCING HER to constantly >bring up her sexual preferences-- she has made it very clear that this is >the sort of thing she likes to talk about a LOT. Very true. She brought it up. She made some statements that may seem hard to swallow. She does talk about this on occasion. By the same token, the amount of reaction to her words seemed disproportionate and not totally wrapped in regard to her personal feelings, which are relevant to the dialogue. Standing in the middle of some of my favorite fegs. Ow, cool it with the whips- I should be wearing chainmail for this. Happies, - -Markg ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:18:09 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: 90% political rant. please ignore. Isn't it predictable that after Danny Barkhouse launched all this political sludge, he has contributed absolutely nothing to the debate? Ebby ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 10:33:28 -0900 From: BC-Radio@corecom.net (Brett Cooper) Subject: Re: Who Hates Love? >On 12/20/98 2:49 AM, Joel Mullins wrote: > >>Has anyone seen the latest video by that sexy horror queen Jennifer Love >>Hewitt? > >Why does anybody on this list even watch videos anymore? Because they have women like Love in them!!! :P I can't get enough of you, baby... Brett ************************************************************** Cooper Collections P.O. Box 876462 Wasilla, Alaska 99687 (907) 376-4520 BC-Radio@corecom.net http://www.corecom.net/~no6pp/Cooper_Collections.html ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 11:50:03 PST From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: We. Snow. Yay. your contention is provably preposterous. <>contains the phrase "...even Eb"? ;)> > >can we take this to mean, cher ebbard, that you are retracting your >statement that, "i'll always be a fan, but i'll never be a feg"? How could the above possibly indicate a "retraction"? As a matter of fact, I was asserting my non-Fegdom to Susan quite recently, in private.> i don't see any reason why it couldn't. it honestly hadn't occured to me that you might have meant it to be taken any other way. but if so, then it seems your question answers itself (maybe it was rhetorical?) okay, i've slept on it, and here are my favorite non-robyn records of the '90's: 1. dan bern, SMARTIE MINE 2. the velvet underground, LIVE MCMXCIII 3. nirvana, NEVERMIND 4. lou reed, MAGIC AND LOSS 5. the mr. t experience, MILK MILK LEMONADE 6. sugar, BEASTER 7. tool, AENIMA 8. mark ross, LOOK FOR ME IN BUTTE 9. smashing pumpkins, GISH 10. crash vegas, STONE 11. violent femmes, WHY DO BIRDS SING? 12. queensryche, PROMISED LAND 13. u. utah phillips, I'VE GOT TO KNOW 14. DAN BERN 15. jello biafra & mojo nixon with the toadliquors, PRAIRIE HOME INVASION honorable mention: ODELAY, THE INTERNATIONALE, DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME, SOUL ROTATION, LIVING IN CLIP, LIVE TOTEM POLE EP, FOO FIGHTERS, PREMONITION, STEADY DIET OF NOTHING, SHRINKWRAPPED, IN THE AEROPLANE OVER THE SEA, IN UTERO, UNPLUGGED IN NEW YORK, THE LONG MEMORY, THE PAST DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE, CONTACT FROM THE UNDERWORLD OF REDBOY, DIG ME OUT, MELLON COLLIE AND THE INFINITE SADNESS, WHAT GIVES?, COPPER BLUE, BESIDES, DIARY, POST WORLD HANDBOOK, FLOOD, SPOOKYDISHARMONIOUSCONFLICTHELLRIDE, SLEEPS WITH ANGELS, BETTER READ THAN DEAD, "Pulp Fiction" Soundtrack, SURVIVAL OF THE FATTEST. i prefer peanut butter and jam (as opposed to jelly.) oh, by the way, according to imdb, it's *A* Slipping Down Life, which really changes the meaning quite a bit. to me, at least. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:23:27 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: We. Snow. Yay. Eddie: >more capable of writing songs which comment on today's culture and >society, and better able to put aside the "here's my own weird little >universe" >tactic.> > >your contention is provably preposterous. Nah, the "here's a few exceptions to the rule" argument never holds much water with me. Especially in this case, because I didn't say that Robyn *never* writes culturally relevant songs -- only that he's not very good at it in those instances when he does. ><>>contains the phrase "...even Eb"? ;)> >> >>can we take this to mean, cher ebbard, that you are retracting your >>statement that, "i'll always be a fan, but i'll never be a feg"? > >How could the above possibly indicate a "retraction"? > >i don't see any reason why it couldn't. I make a comment that implies some other posters perceive me as a Feg. You view it as an "personal admission of Fegdom." Whatever.... Why I am not a Feg: 1) I don't really consider Hitchcock a "focus artist" for me. I think being a Feg indicates that you regard Robyn in an elite class at the top of your record collection. I don't. 2) A Hitchcock release has not had a significant impact on me since Element of Light. (Yes, Eye was excellent, but it didn't really offer anything new so the "impact" was minimal. It was more like "Cool...Hitchcock did a great album this time.") 3) I admire Hitchcock's consistency and longevity more than his "genius." I don't consider him a genius, and can't name one song by him which I would call "genius." He has a fine knack with folk-derived melodies and an ability to write entertaining (and occasionally touching) lyrics. But he hasn't expanded my perspective on music and art, in the way that some other artists have. 4) I rarely listen to his albums, once their newness has worn off. 5) I don't collect concert tapes...don't have to see him every time he comes to town...etc.... 6) B+ ;) I should write something more articulate than this, but I'm not in the mood today. >okay, i've slept on it, and here are my favorite non-robyn records of >the '90's: What, no Dio? Eveneb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:13:11 -0800 From: dsaunder@islandnet.com (Daniel Saunders) Subject: Winter Love is Almost Here IT SNOWED TODAY!! Yay! To celebrate I put on I Often Dream of Trains, the first time I've listened to it in months. IODOT when I'm in a good mood, Eye when I'm not, that should get me through the winter. - -- Daniel Saunders Put your faith in god, he won't expect you. Put your faith in death, because it's free. If you believe in nothing, honey, it believes in you, And for god's sake don't waste any faith on me... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:34:14 -0800 (PST) From: VIV LYON Subject: Re: 90% political rant. please copy and distribute. - ---Eb wrote: > > Isn't it predictable that after Danny Barkhouse launched all this political > sludge, he has contributed absolutely nothing to the debate? > Dude! I beg to differ- it was I who point-blank insinuated that I'd like to know what various political orientations were represented on the list. It was only after that transparent attempt to rabble-rouse that Mr. Barkhouse had an opening for his poorly-presented instigation. And it is I who am pleased to see the effluorescence of political musings on the list despite his ham-handedness. Chris Gross, in particular, has surprised me with his well-thought-out, honest remarks (though I don't neccessarily agree with him). Chris, you get an A+, my boy. As for being a socialist: I feel as non-euclidian as Natalie. There has to be a 'third' way (or seventh, or eighth way), and I'm damn well sure capitalism doesn't fit into it, but I'd be hard put to label it or even define it with the jargon currently at hand. As for the sex-thang: Jeezum Crow! I know this is supposed to be dead, but I want to come down firmly on Susan's side here. S/D is an orientation, not a choice. Whether or not a person practices it is a choice, but not how they ultimately feel. As for "I'm being oppressed!/You're not as bad off as X" well, you never really know what it's like to be in another's shoes. I suggest that it is meaningless to opine, without personal experience of either side, whose lot is worse, the fag or the perv. And that's that. Vivien _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:49:15 PST From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: Re: We. Snow. Yay. if i thought there were only a "few" exceptions, i wouldn't have used the word "preposterous." i'd have used something like, uh i dunno, "kooky"? at the risk of plunging us into a semantic debate which we've already had in the not-too-distant past, and which most people detested: not ranking robyn as more than a B+ artist, or not naming him as a "focus" artist, or what have you, is a far different animal from not being a part of the "feg community." you're a major --perhaps THE major-- contributor to this list. and that, in my eyes, makes you a very important part of the feg community, whether you choose to accept it or not. and that's why i took your original comment as a lamentation. long live eb the feg! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:30:04 -0500 From: desmond in a tutu Subject: Re: king of siam/ I got the trouble frying/ I'm not the devil also sprach lj lindhurst: >But I will have to side with the Quail here though-- it >is insulting to equate the struggle for b/d/s/m "acceptance" ("education"?) >with homosexuality. It is NOT the same thing. this sounds suspiciously like black civil rights leaders stating that equating gay rights with racial equality is insulting. one can claim that the color of your skin or even whom you fuck is somehow more important than how you fuck, but the fact is that people are hurt for all three reasons. the first reason may be more common than others, perhaps, but that doesn't lessen the pain. i just don't buy this some-rights-are-more-civil-than-others nonsense. woj n.p. grupa -- 15 years ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:34:46 -0500 From: desmond in a tutu Subject: Re: We. Snow. Yay. also sprach Capitalism Blows: >okay, i've slept on it, and here are my favorite non-robyn records of >the '90's: >10. crash vegas, STONE whoa! this sticks out like a sore thumb from the rest of the stuff on your list, eddie. care to elaborate? woj, who blew off seeing crash vegas the one time he was (consciously) in montreal ps. do fans of claudine longet have a communal nickname? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:43:43 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: 90% political rant. please copy and distribute. On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, VIV LYON wrote: > Chris Gross, > in particular, has surprised me with his well-thought-out, honest > remarks [snip] Which part did you find surprising, the thoughtfulness or the honesty? ;) I'm pleased to see so many list members taking a non-Euclidean approach to the political spectrum. Very Lovecraftian of y'all! - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 17:00:45 -0500 From: LORDK@library.phila.gov Subject: Perversion, identity and spirituality I only get the digest, and only read it when I can, so Im coming in real late on this one. I have alot of respect for Quail, and alot of respect and affection for Susan--and between them they-ve hit on a real big issue, which be;ieve it or not, Im going to try to tie into both the spirituality bit, and the the politcs. There are two things in America at this time which can cut a person to the quick( and very quickly at that) A sexuality that, when first realized, at least appears to go against every decent thing you've ever learned and treasured, and 2, an experience of the self which goes against every concept of identity youve been exposed to Someone coming of age sexually is like someone being loaded onto an airplane, and you're already in the air when you get told your destination. So there you are, expecting Tahiti, or Paris, maybe even Amersterdam - --only for the pilot to announce you are about to disembark at Dachau(and please, no comments that Im trivilizing the holocaust, Im just setting up an emotional simile) the first response, after disbelief abd denial, is rage, hatred,horror, terror, self-pity, oh, and a host of other varieties of Pandorian pets.(especially as you get the fun of deciding who youd rather be, ralf Fiennes or the kids in the shit bath) Nobody wants what our society characterizes as Dachau, nobody chooses it. But it happens . Most kids working this sort of thing thru go thru alot of darkness before getting to acceptance. And alot of real damage can be done during that time. If our society was alittle less self-righteously "moral" about S/M, B/D, and all such modes( and there are more than just a few initials can convey:-)) , If there were positive "out" role models to show that a stable meaningful life can be achieve, if that kid knew from the beginning, that it really wasnt going to be that bad afterall... then being a perv wouldnt mean being a true subversive. But for now, with the way things are, it does. So, Im backing Susan on this one. And , IMHO, shes a brave woman for saying it. No time to get to my rant on identity, mood disorders, and subversion, let alone how they both relate to politics and spirituality. Im gone for a week( among other things--I get to be a royal(kings are sexist) in my local church pagent) so-- Merry Christmass And Blessed Be The turning of Your coming year. Under the Mercy K ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:09:47 -0600 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: We. Snow. I'm stuck in frigging Peoria Chris G. writes: >I'm pleased to see so many list members taking a non-Euclidean >approach to the political spectrum. Very Lovecraftian of y'all! Okay, but are you saying simply that H.P. Lovecraft disagreed with the linear model of politics, or that those of us who also feel that way are really creepy blokes who like to write about unpronounceable ancient amphibious god-creatures? (Either way is OK with me; I'm just curious...) ...and woj: > ps. do fans of claudine longet have a communal nickname? SPIDERBLASTERS! - -JH3 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 14:12:04 PST From: "Capitalism Blows" Subject: LONG and BORING market economies *do* suck. but one shouldn't mistake a capitalist economy for a market economy. one thing marx was spot-on correct about was that capitalism simply *does not work* on its own terms. the purpose of the state is to protect capitalists from the free market. nothing could be truer. revolution, yes. violence, no. i know you're joking. but, i have NEVER stated that the soviet union, to take one example, was anything other than an evil empire. it's not the fact of the existence of the united states that *causes* evil. but anybody who would deny that the u.s. is a MAJOR perpetrator of some of the most evil deeds ever committed has got his or her head pretty far up his or her ass. as susan mentioned, it's not a competition to see who's more radical than the next. just because some other fegs are not as outspoken --or even as active (and, as susan also mentioned, activism can take many forms. i'm a very strong believer that even trying to live one's life in accord with one's principles is very political)-- as i am doesn't invalidate them. we've had this argument before. but, why do you insist on labeling as socialist every state that *purports* to be so? the policies you mention are *not* socialist policies, simple as that. communal ownership and control of the means of production. democratic polity. it's pretty basic. this is the nixon doctrine, of course, and it's terribly important: get the house nigger to do the serious repression. the vietnam war wrecked the american economy, and threatened to destroy the bretton woods system entirely, not to mention that it was just plain messy and bad pr, and that some americans got killed in the process. so we decided to have the "local cop on the beat" (melvyn laird's phrase) do the dirty work for us. and they often do a "better" job of it than does "police headquarters" itself. true enough. but i could certainly think of a few who are higher. starting with those that have used them the most frequently... look, saddam is a local thug. and pretty minor as local thugs go, really (which is not meant to be taken as an endorsement.) further, whatever he is, it's because we made him that way during the '80's. as we have made and/or supported so many other thuggish regimes and major human rights violators -- in indonesia, israel, russia, haiti, brazil, columbia, turkey, south africa, nicaragua, china, mexico, iran, guatemala, chile, burma...the list goes on. and on. and i suppose it's worth mentioning that the united states itself has the worst social health indicators in the industrialized world, and the most people incarcerated, per capita, in the entire world (i think we recently passed somebody else for the "honor." singapore, maybe?) our onslaught of iraq has NOTHING to do with principle, except the principle, as geo. bush so charmingly put it, that, "what we say goes." why did saddam suddenly transform from trusted ally to "another hitler" on aug. 2, 1990? very simply, because he stopped obeying orders. the first rule of middle east diplomacy is that the united states controls the oil. saddam threatened to break that rule, so we broke him. and why, following the war, did we allow him to crush the democratic opposition within iraq? because we *like* thugs. we *want* stability. we don't want the people of the middle east --or any-- region to get some crazy notion that maybe they're entitled to some of the fruits of their labor, and that some of their resources belong to themselves. and house niggers/local cops on the beat --amply stocked with u.s. weaponry, of course-- are very good at keeping their populations in line. that's an all-too-brief overview of the situation, but i hope it didn't come across as cynical or "hyperbolic." because these are the facts. further, saddam serves the political role of sating the american bloodlust whenever we get too backed up and need another military ejaculation. noriega served that role for a while, as did ghaddafi. but saddam has been an especially fertile well. possibly because of his continued intransigence. possibly because of our irrational, cowering fear of "terrorist arabs." i really don't know for sure *why* we're able to keep going to the well without the american people finally saying, "enough is enough. we've completely obliterated the country. the embargo has killed over a million people. saddam poses no possible threat whatever. could you at the very least pick on someone else for a while?" but they don't. and i suspect that, until they do, we'll keep piling it on. which, as i've mentioned, is one of the more shameful deeds we've ever pulled off. even more disturbing this time around, to me, because it was so obviously timed to stave off the impeachment debate. by the way, before the onset of the gulf war, the two countries in the region with the highest literacy and lowest poverty rates were iraq and libya. the two countries with the lowest literacy and highest poverty rates were saudi arabia and kuwait. again, not trying to make any sort of endorsement of saddam here. just trying to shed a little more light on our so-called benevolence. well, at least you think it's "regrettable." madeleine albright says it's been "worth it." the only two countries that would even consider using nukes in the region are the u.s. and israel. terry, are you OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND???? this statement is so ridiculously false, i don't even know where to begin with it. i suppose i can recommend: gabriel kolko, Confronting The Third World chomsky and herman, The Washington Connection And Third World Fascism william blum, Killing Hope for starters. but this doesn't even really get into economic warfare/imf depravity, which is more destructive still. for that, i suppose you could begin with: kavin danaher ed., 50 Years Is Enough waldon bello, Dark Victory tons of good additional sources and contact info. in the danaher book. only if they get rid of mr. toad's wild ride. first, as i mentioned above, we want nothing to do with any sort of democratic opposition. if we would support any sort of takeover attempt, it would be from an authoritarian dictator type, differentiable from saddam only in that he'd be more willing to take orders. "somocismo without somoza." second, it's a pretty major violation of iraqi sovereignty we're talking about. as you say, not that we've ever in any way been above such a thing. but still... i use the terms interchangeably because i think the only genuine form of socialism is anarchism. as much as we like to believe in our technological superiority, we can't really make our weapons do what we want them to. see cockburn and silverstein, Washington Babylon for an especially comical (albeit horrifyingly so) look. he's right. it's a rough life, isn't it? again, a pretty major violation of iraqi sovereignty. how would we react, for example, were castro to start beaming anti-u.s. propaganda into florida? i see what you're getting at, but i'm not so sure i agree. i think you can say that the more you would like people to be free, you tend toward the left, and the less you would like them to be so, you tend toward the right. the begging question, of course, what about "libertarian" capitalists? it's a crock. a world controlled by those who own the most property doesn't sound anything like freedom to me. yes, some of them (maybe even most of them) say they're for the "small" business-owner. but this is hopelessly naive. even more naive than the socialist, methinks! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #477 *******************************