From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest)
To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Subject: fegmaniax-digest V7 #487
Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org
Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk


fegmaniax-digest       Sunday, December 27 1998       Volume 07 : Number 487



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  what satan claws brought...           [dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich)]
  Re: Songs of Christmas             ["Capitalism Blows" <etews@hotmail.com>]
  part 1                             ["Capitalism Blows" <etews@hotmail.com>]
  two critically hurt                             [Eb <gondola@deltanet.com>]
  part 2                             ["Capitalism Blows" <etews@hotmail.com>]
  San Fran                                  [tanter <tanter@econs.umass.edu>]
  Re: Cheese Alarm (Re: Hey Eddie)                        [Insomnboy@aol.com]
  Observation, wishes                                [overbury@mustang.cn.ca]
  RE: Have you heard of this? & Favorites of '99.  [Patrick Welker <matisse7]
  compliments                             ["she.rex" <she.rex@lycosmail.com>]
  Florida                                 ["she.rex" <she.rex@lycosmail.com>]
  Tim Curry, Leif Garrett and Hair*       ["she.rex" <she.rex@lycosmail.com>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 18:07:48 GMT
From: dwdudic@erols.com (David W. Dudich)
Subject: what satan claws brought...

On Sat, 26 Dec 1998 10:41:21 -0500 (EST), you wrote:

>-----------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 20:46:39 -0800 (PST)
>From: VIV LYON <vivlyon@yahoo.com>
>Subject: booty call
>
>Well, looks like it's the season to crow about your RH-related
>Christmas haul. Dave got me the Rhino re-issue of Eye and also the A&M
>Greatest Hits. 

I just got the Rhino reissue too...
I'VE BEEN TOLD IT WAS THE LAST COPY OF IT RHINO RECORDS HAD!
It's out of print now...yike!

I *luv* 'Queen Elvis 2'.
	-luther

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 10:31:40 PST
From: "Capitalism Blows" <etews@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Songs of Christmas

<by "its kind" i think i meant the kind of long, inspirational,
long, feelgood fegfest travelogue we all aspire to, that's really very
long.>

ah, *that* kind.  the first of that kind was definitely the flosshilde 
diaries.  remember all the gnashing of teeth, and the suggestions that 
the quail had abused the list and so on an so forth?  quail even 
received a death threat or two from lj!  that was a landmark post, 
really.  the list hasn't been the same since.  


<How could everyone forget my *very* favorite Xmas song: Emerson, Lake &
Palmer's "I Believe in Father Christmas"? I always play that incessantly 
at
this time of year. :)>

did i just miss it, or did nobody, not even eb (sorry, reflex.  i meant, 
not even *susie*) mention Father Christmas?


so i was flipping through the seattle times' weekly arts magazine the 
other night, and there's an article called, "some music-giving ideas for 
the last-minute shopper," by jonathan takiff for knight ridder.  it's 
got twenty or so albums listed, including STOREFRONT, which: "captures 
the iconoclastic robyn hitchcock solo in a most entertaining concert 
performance.  (different takes of the same material were the basis for a 
1997 jonathan demme documentary film on the artist, which is sadly 
gathering dust on a shelf.)"  but the thing that *really* knocked me out 
was that the article was accompanied by one and only one picture:  of 
robyn!




______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 11:35:41 PST
From: "Capitalism Blows" <etews@hotmail.com>
Subject: part 1

<Hey, I'm not arguing!  I'm no libertarian.  Why do you think I used the
word "supposedly"?>

then i think you're missing the point.  it's got nothing to do with how 
much or little *you personally* agree with it.  it's objectively 
freedom-inhibiting, therefore on the right.


<What I see you doing is saying
that anything you like is left-wing, and anything you dislike is
right-wing.>

how?  i just said that if you favor freedom, you're toward the left, and 
if you don't you're toward the right.  where's the value judgement?


<I agree with you on some points, so I'm left-wing?  No, I'm
not.  I don't believe in a lot of the things you believe in.  What am I
then, right-wing?  No, I'm not right-wing, either.  I'm neither.  
Politics
are too complicated to be boiled down into a left-wing/right-wing,
either/or scenario.>

i thought we were talking about a *spectrum*.  i thought i said that the 
*more* you favor freedom, the more you *tend* toward the left, and that 
the *more* you disfavor freedom, the more you *tend* toward the right.


<Eddie, you probably disapprove of Michigan's own Michael Moore>

i surely don't like that he crosses picket lines.  but TV Nation was 
about the most subversive (and one of the funniest) things ever seen on 
a network.  and i liked his book pretty good, too.

 
<Obviously Eddie is going to have an easier time of it than me! 
Since Tewsian Socialism does not exist, it has never done anything bad 
(or
anything else).>

true enough.  but i always say, there is NO WAY IN HELL it could 
possibly be worse than what we've got now, so we may as well try 
something like it, no?


<I'll agree that there's no such thing as a perfectly free market, 
except
in Libertarian theology.  But I support the imperfectly free market
economy that we have.>  

i know i keep harping on this.  but it's nothing even resembling a "free 
market."  no capitalist economy could exist without GARGANTUAN state 
intervention to bail and/or prop up the rich.


<A market economy is one that functions through
people voluntarily buying and selling what they want, based on their own
estimations of cost and benefit, without reference to an imposed plan.>

ok, so when you go down to the store and buy your can of pepsi, does it 
inform you on the side of the can that the product uses a sweetener made 
with scab labor?
when you buy your beenie-baby, does the clerk tell you how much the 
person who made it is making an hour?
when you buy your pork chops, do you see anything anywhere telling you 
about conditions in slaughterhouses?
when you buy your hamburger, are you in any way made aware that 85 
percent of topsoil loss is directly associated with livestock raising, 
and that an acre of trees disappears ever 8 seconds, and that while 60 
million people will starve to death this year, 56 percent of u.s. 
agricultural land is used to produce beef?
and does the market tell you *anything* about how a gun might be used?
does the market tell you where your electricity came from, or how much 
mess has been made producing it?
but don't you think these are the *types* of things that one might want 
to consider before making a purchase?  of a system that claims to offer 
"perfect information"?

and where is the "free" market when, if it weren't for water subsidies 
from the u.s. government to the beef industry, hamburger would cost $35 
a pound?
where is the free market when taxpayers are paying $35 million to bail 
out the s&l's?  or bailing out the mexican, russian, korean, and 
brazilian economies?
where is the free market when big business gets to write off $37 billion 
a year to accelerated depreciation, or when agribusiness receives $18 
billion a year in subsidies, or the media $8 billion a year in 
subsidies, or the mining and oil industries $6 billion a year? (to touch 
the tip of the iceberg.)

and where is it reflected in the price of anything that there's no 
old-growth forest left, or no fish left, or that we get to eat chemicals 
in our food, or that there's a hole in the ozone, or that hanford is the 
most toxic place in the hemisphere, or that you might get mad cow 
disease from eating a hamburger?  (oh wait, i forgot.  "free market" 
means that profit is privatized, but costs are socialized.  cancer is 
called an "externality" in the economics lingo..."

and this is leaving out vertical integration/price fixing/cartels.  it's 
leaving out intrafirm trade (for example, gm america shipping some parts 
to mexico, where they're assembled then shipped back.  never once do the 
see the "market."  yet 40% or so of what we call "trade" is of exactly 
this type.)  it's leaving out advertising and copyrights/patents 
(*slight* "market distortions," woldn't you say?)  it's leaving out 
economies of scale (quick!  what is the most superior operating system 
ever devised?  and which is the best selling?)  it's leaving out waste 
(for just one example: while much of the world starves, we destroy food 
to keep prices artificially high.)


<Which part of that do you want to change?>

i want to take profits completely out of the equation.  i don't want 
there to be any incentive to exploit workers, or put unsafe products on 
the market, or to pollute, or to displace people from their homes, or 
what have you.  i want economic decisions to be based on human needs, 
not profits.  and i want those decisions to be democratic.


<> his or her ass.  

I'm always impressed by the respectful way that you deal with opposing
views! ;)>

yes, i know i can be mean, and i know that's a major flaw.  and chris 
and natalie, i love you both, and would hang out with you any day of the 
week.
but there are *oceans* of blood on our hands, and it's like pulling 
teeth to get americans to even *acknowledge* that fact, let alone trying 
to do something about it.


<Anyway, "some of" the most evil deeds ever committed?  Sure,
I'd buy that.  I just don't buy all the unspoken assumptions: that
everything unpleasant that the US has done was an avoidable crime>

well, give me some examples of unavoidable crimes, and i'll see what i 
think.


<that
the US is the worst criminal in history>

i said before, not because our intentions have been any more (or less) 
evil than everybody else's.  but, because we happened to have been the 
most powerful country around at the same time that technology has 
allowed us to put that power to such horrifying use.


<that socialism as you define it
is the only way to make things better.>

don't think i ever said that.  if you've got some better ideas, let's 
hear them!  meanwhile, i'm certainly not going to be opposed if, for 
example, somebody wanted to make the tax code just a little bit less 
regressive.  or to try to decrease the number of people living in 
poverty.  or whatever.


<It's *not* that simple, though.  Why is your definition of socialism
privileged over those of millions of other socialists over the past
century and a half?>

it's not *my* definition, it's *the* definition.  do a web search for 
the definition of socialism and see if you agree.  
i'll be the first to admit that it's one of the most misused and 
incorrectly defined words in the language (although that's more true in 
this country than in others.)  but that's even more reason to be such a 
hard-ass about it, in my opinion.


<have
been advocated or practiced by numerous socialist parties and 
governments,
ranging from Sweden to Cuba.>

i believe that sweden calls itself "market socialist," and that cuba 
calls itself "communist."  but, again, we call ourselves "democratic," 
don't we?


<Okay, fine.  So, if other Fegs do not want "communal ownership and 
control
of the means of production," then they aren't as far left as you.  
Agreed?>

yes, i was exaggerating the point, just as you were exaggerating the 
point that, compared to me, every feg is a drooling dittohead.
  

<First, Saddam Hussein is more dangerous than you think.>

i don't buy it.  but even if so, the threat posed to the region (and the 
world) by iraq and its weapons of mass destruction is so negligible 
compared with the threat posed by the united states and its, that's it's 
ridiculous to even discuss them in the same breath.
and, even if so, it still has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with u.s. policy 
toward iraq.  the united states, which spends more on the military than 
the rest of the world combined, and which spreads those weapons far and 
wide.  which supports/subsidises/arms the most repressive and 
irresponsible regimes in the world. 


<Second, denouncing US crimes is not the same as proving that your ideal
socialism would be any better, assuming it would work at all.>

huh?  so, we *shouldn't* denounce u.s. crimes? 


<> only if they get rid of mr. toad's wild ride. 

But they did, didn't they?>

no.  disneyworld did, but not disneyland.  


<Oh, okay, so you *don't* support us aiding the opposition, democratic 
or
otherwise, in Iraq.>

by the united states?  no, its none of our business what goes on inside 
iraq.  now, it *is* the business of the united nations.  but that's a 
different story (except in this world, where, as madeleine albright put 
it, "we will act mulitlaterally where we can, and unilaterally where we 
must.")

  
<Your earlier statement made it sound like you did.>

i would have been *thrilled* to have seen the democratic opposition 
topple saddam after the war.  but that point was moot, because the 
united states was opposed to such a turn of events, and, "what we say 
goes."



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 12:22:24 -0800
From: Eb <gondola@deltanet.com>
Subject: two critically hurt

So Eddie...I trust that news of the latest Disney PR nightmare has reached you?

Eb, *still* coughing, sneezing and having chest pains

PS  Greg Lake may have recorded "I Believe in Father Christmas" on his own,
but it was released on an Emerson, Lake & Palmer album (either "Works
Volume 2" or "Works Volume 1," I forget which) so calling it an ELP song
isn't offbase. Otherwise, we couldn't call "Blackbird" a Beatles song, etc.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 12:29:43 PST
From: "Capitalism Blows" <etews@hotmail.com>
Subject: part 2

<Forget imagining Castro's propaganda radio!  Imagine what would happen 
if
some group of *Americans* started distributing anti-US propaganda in the
US.  Imagine if they had a newsletter -- entitled, say, Eat the State -- 
a
web site, the whole nine yards!  Geez, our capitalist overlords would
really leap into action then!  The paper and web site would be shut down
before the second issue came out, the staff would be arrested and
sentenced to long terms of hard labor for anti-state agitation, their
subcribers would be rounded up....  Man, it would be ugly.>

ever heard of the palmer raids, chris?  ever heard of cointelpro?  ever 
heard of sacco and vanzetti and mumia?  ever heard of kent state?  ever 
heard of the hollywood blacklist?  ever heard of fred hampton.  you're 
aware, yes, that pirate radio stations are getting violently shut down 
as we speak?  ever heard of the everett massacre?  or the ludlow 
massacre?
i'm *not* suggesting that internal repression in this country is 
anything even remotely resembling the scale that it was in the soviet 
union.  but i *am* suggesting that:
- --it's on a larger scale than we're probably willing to admit.
- --it's on a *much* larger scale in our imperial holdings.  (what exactly 
do you think they're teaching at the school of the americas, chris?  
leapfroggin'?)
- --most importantly, we use a different method of keeping the masses in 
line.  viz., propaganda.  i won't get into it too much.  but you could 
check out the work of alex carey, for starters.  or Selling Free 
Enterprise, by elizabeth fones-wolf.  or chomsky's Necessary Illusions, 
or chomsky and herman's Manufacturing Consent.  or bagdikian's work.  or 
the business press, especially in the immediate postwar era, which 
talked quite openly about the need to "control the public mind."  
the dissident press in the soviet union (where you got your head smashed 
in for disseminating it) was read by a *much* higher percentage of the 
population than it was (and is) in the united states (where, at least if 
you're white, you're largely free to say anything you want without fear 
of getting blown up.)  so which is the more effective method of thought 
control:  the "manufacture of consent," or the gulag?
and, are you *honestly* saying that were castro to start beaming 
anit-u.s. propaganda into florida, that we would just sit back and 
laugh?  


<Now, compare
that to the fate of a pro-capitalist newspaper once Tewsian socialism is
instituted.  They'd be free to propagandize to their hearts' content, 
the
People's Communal Paper Mill would give them paper to print on, People's
Communal Trucking would distribute their paper, People's Communal 
Telecom
would give them a web site, and everyone would be happy.>

apart from all the silly jargon, yes.  a society that doesn't *actively 
encourage* dissent is a society i don't wan't want anything to do with.  
and it's not democratic by any stretch of the imagination.

 
<Well, what you're arguing here is for a *new* left-right spectrum.>

no, i'm arguing for one that makes some sense.


<(I
could suggest some more: maybe the more internationalist you are, the
farther left you would be, and nationalists like Ho Chi Minh would be on
the far right.)>

yeah, and we could all sit around and jerk off.  or we could try to 
communicate with each other.  i've seen some pretty devastating left 
critiques of ho chi minh, by the way.  although my own personal feeling 
is that it's at least a bit unfair to expect much of *anything* from 
somebody who's got a thousand pound gorilla sitting on top of him and 
beating his brains out.


<But I still think that the old, traditional spectrum
doesn't work.  Ideologies near each other on the traditional spectrum
don't necessarily have much in common.>

again, examples.  offlist if you want -- hell, chris, you're probably 
the only one reading this, and that only to see if i'll mention the 
word, "pubis." 


<Do you think they felt very free living under Communism?>

i think that's what they wanted.  as did eisenhower, who said that we 
couldn't "allow" vietnam to hold the election that was explicitly called 
for in the geneva accords, because ho chi minh would walk away with it.


<And if
capitalism is so exploitive, you'd think twenty years of no trade with 
the
US would be the best thing that could happen to Vietnam.>

you know what?  i've been saying the *exact* same thing for years!  even 
though they were put at a major disadvantage (to say the least) by the 
destruction and misery we rained upon them, given that the imf didn't 
get its hooks into vietnam until quite recently, the state of the 
economy is a massive indictment of the communist party.  but it wasn't 
ever socialist, or even really close.  if you're interested, the best 
(and, yes, most depressing) analysis of the postwar years is kolko's 
Anatomy Of A Peace, which was published about one year ago.
as for cuba, it's never been socialist, either.  in fact, i'm sure it's 
quite a bit further to the right than i'd like it to be if i lived 
there.  but it *is* interesting to note that the only country in the 
region *not* dominated by the united states also has far the best 
standard of living in the region.  in fact, right after the war, the 
united states set up brazil, literally, as an "experiment," to test 
textbook economic theory (while at home, of course, the same old same 
old:  military keynesianism, corporate welfare, imperialist wars, 
protectionism, etc.)  brazil was probably the most resource-rich country 
in the hemisphere, but after fifty years of free market capitalism, it's 
one of the most poverty-stricken nations in the world, with an economy 
bordering on complete collapse.
and it's interesting to note that during hurricane georges' rampage 
through the caribbean earlier this year, cuba, which took a direct hit 
along with everyone else, was the only country that didn't suffer 
massive deaths and human suffering.


<> the multinational coroporation is probably the most totalitarian 
> institution ever devised. 

Wow!  That's a pretty sweeping statement, even allowing for Tewsian
hyperbole.  Better watch out that you aren't thrown into the Exxon-Mobil
concentration camp (so much more totalitarian than Hitler, Stalin and
Mao's versions).>

well, i was actually talking about their *internal* structure (when's 
the last time you voted for your boss, eh?)  i apologize for not having 
made that clear.  but, since you bring it up, your scenario is pretty on 
the mark.  apart from maquiladories and oppressive factory conditions 
quite similar to concentration camps, shouldn't we also hold 
multinationals culpable for imf-mandated austerity programs and 
imperialist wars -- which are carried out on their behalf?  and which 
certainly rival, and almost surely surpass, the scale of death and 
misery caused by hitler, stalin, and mao.


<But your brand of socialism itself is not going to
happen>

agreed.


<and wouldn't work if it did>

well, that's every bit as speculative as saying it could work.  and, the 
only time it was ever really tried, the spanish revolution, it *was* 
working quite well, until it was destroyed by outside force.


<so effort spent promoting it is just
so much effort pissed down the drain without helping anyone.>

thanks. 


<No, it's not.  Why is the Soviet regime considered left-wing?  Because 
its
leadership were Marxists and employed Marxism as a guide to society>

i feel quite confident in stating that marx would've been horrified by 
the soviet union, and *mortified* that his name was associated with it.


<because it abolished private ownership of the means of production>

and put them in the hands of...the people?  no!  the fucking state!  the 
soviet union was a fucking class society.  and not starting from stalin.  
starting from *lenin.*


<By every commonly accepted
criterion used at the time by leftists themselves, the Soviet regime was
leftist.>

in other words, you simply have not read contemporary critiques of the 
soviet union, or subsequent historical analyses.


<We've been over this in previous discussions, but the problem is that 
you
attach emotional rather than structural definitions to "left" and 
"right." 
Why can't a leftist regime be bad?>

it can be bad, from someone else's eyes.  i honestly can't figure out 
why you guys are so hung up on this point.  if i define an "apple" to be 
an object with certain properties --red, roundish, seeds in the middle, 
tastes like thus and so...whatever-- where is the agenda?  
supposing i say to you, "behold!  in my hand is an apple," then take a 
bite out of it and continue, "it is delicious."  and then if you take a 
bite out of it, not finding it delicious, do you say, "this is not 
delicious at all.  thus, it is not an apple"?
more to the point, what if i'm holding in my hand an object with the 
properties to which we have attached the word, "lemon," and i say to 
you, "behold!  in my hand is an apple"?  do you then later walk up to 
bayard and say, "ah, bayard, i see you are holding in your hand an 
object with the properties which we have attached to the word, 'lemon.'  
however, i was talking to eddie earlier today, and he was holding an 
object with the exact same properties, only he told me it was called an, 
'apple.'  therefore, the object you are holding in your hand is not a 
'lemon,' but is, in fact, an 'apple.'"?


<Can't you at least call the Soviets a
"perversion of the left" or something?> 

i'll go this far and no further:  the soviets used a lot of the 
*rhetoric* that we associate with the left.  and they made assertions 
that the statist phase of the regime was only temporary.  and many 
sympathizers the world over were (probably still are) in denial about 
the true nature of the regime.  and, in a conscious or unconscious 
effort to associate leftism/socialism with a soviet-style tyranny in 
people's minds, propaganda would have you believe that the soviet union 
was leftist.
and so, yes, it can be confusing.  but we're grownups here.  and most of 
us, i suspect, are quite privileged grownups.  grownups can think 
independently.  and privileged gronwups and do independent research.  so 
it's a bit of a weak excuse, in my opinion, to cry that, "this is what i 
learned in school!"

but i'll say it again:  fuck the labels if they're so damned confusing.  
i am *for* a society that puts people before profits.  i am *not* for a 
society based on illegitimate authority.  i don't care what we call it.  
i have absolutely no emotional attachment to the *word* "socialism."  i 
promise.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1998 20:52:10 -0500
From: tanter <tanter@econs.umass.edu>
Subject: San Fran

Happy Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy 1999 all!  I'm going to San Francisco
for a few days as of tomorrow.  I'm at the Hilton Towers (or whatever it's
called) so feel free to leave a message and maybe we can have a drink or
something???

Marcy

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 22:34:41 EST
From: Insomnboy@aol.com
Subject: Re: Cheese Alarm (Re: Hey Eddie)

In a message dated 12/24/98 11:28:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
tclark@apple.com writes:

> How 'bout the Levi's ad with the wannabe clarinet player who works in a 
>  cheese shop?  He starts naming 50 cheeses, but never mentions a chedder 
>  in a muslin rind!
>  

How about Venezuelan Beaver Cheese?

Russell in Los Angeles

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 22:54:46 +0000
From: overbury@mustang.cn.ca
Subject: Observation, wishes

OBSERVATION:
Listening to Beck's Mutations for the first time.  Has he had his CD 
player stocked with the Electric Prunes and Taj Mahal for the last 
year?  This stuff isn't exactly culturally relevant.

Honestly, I'll need more than one listen to know what I think about 
this one.  That makes it pretty different from Odelay.

WISHES:
I'd like to wish you all Wallydraggle, Mummery Feg Winple 
Soupcon-type relief now and throughout the coming year.
And healthy gums.

- -- ol' Lefty


PS:  I re-read the Manifesto.  Yup!
- --
Ross Overbury
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998 21:05:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Patrick Welker <matisse72@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Have you heard of this? & Favorites of '99.

>>Man, this Christmas has been really kick ass!  My girlfriend got me
the
greatest gift.  It's a 12" record called Robyn Hitchcock: The Man Who
Invented Himself.<<

 I've got it. It's a boot. Sound quality sucks, doesn't it? 

Favorites of '99;

The Church:- "Hologram of Baal/Bastard Universe" 
Guy Chadwick:- "Lazy, Soft & Slow"
Robyn Hitchcock:- "Storefront Hitchcock" (vinyl version)
Spinanes:- "Arches and Isles"
Neutral Milk Hotel:- "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea"
I.E.M.(Incredible Expanding Mindfuck):- "The Gospel According to
I.E.M." (This is a reissue)
Bob Dylan:- "Live 1966-Bootleg Series Vol.4 "(another reissue)
Cat Power:- "Moon Pix"
Body Lovers:- Untitled

 Pat.
 



_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 13:03:55
From: "she.rex" <she.rex@lycosmail.com>
Subject: compliments

Hi all!

Just wanted to compliment Jon, Mark G. & Quail on the poems and stories - 
great work, guys!

She.Rex

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1998 13:05:32
From: "she.rex" <she.rex@lycosmail.com>
Subject: Florida

This question may have beenb asked already but, does anyone know if RH will
be coming to Florida or anywhere near it when he tours for JFS?

Thanks,

She.Rex

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1998 10:41:24
From: "she.rex" <she.rex@lycosmail.com>
Subject: Tim Curry, Leif Garrett and Hair*

Tom Clark wrote:
>>(TC fans call themselves Timbos, in case you're interested.)

>Well, around here TC fans call themselves Mark, Nick, Russ, Glen, Quail, 
>lj, woj, the list goes on...

>- -tc  "If I may be so bold..."

>p.s. Welcome Ms. Rex!

Great - I'm in good company! And thanks for the welcome, all of you!

And Eb commented:

>PS TIMBOS??? Eek. ;)

Hi, Eb! Actually, I wouldn't have mentioned this, but I figured a true 
introduction should include my major passions (though I left out gardening -
there's too much floating around about that on the Net already). And there 
seemed to be a slight thread about fan designations, so you might have been
mildly interested in a real one. But don't worry: I'm not here to talk
about Tim Curry - that's what the TC list is for. (Have to remember that TC
means something different here as well - Hi Tom!)

Eb, thanks for posting the Leif Garrett piece - this cracked me up! What a 
blast from the past, eh? I can't recall a single line or note, much less an
entire tune, but I do remember the posters on a friend's wall (this was 6th
grade!). 

The only thing I dug about Leif was his hair - I love long hair on a man! 
(Speaking of which, Tim has terrific hair, though it is short now, and did 
you know his first job was in a stage production of _Hair?_ - Oops! BAD GIRL!
BAD! BAD! THWACK! Ok, sorry about that...) But if you are a guy and don't 
have hair, don't sweat it. It's nice but not necessary. Lots of girls (and
guys)
couldn't care less. And the worst thing you can do is any variation of the
old 
comb-over trick! Cutting it really short actually makes it look thicker. Or
just 
shave it - who needs hair? Unless, of course you have some wierd skull 
deformities like Mark mentioned. In that case, I can't help you.

She.Rex

(off to engage in some therapeutic self-flagellation - hey Quail, got any
more of those cones?)

- ---

*Why? Because it's possible these three have never been mentioned together
before.
This comes of spending my life with Andy, who likes to sit around thinking up
sentences/word combinations that have never been uttered on this planet.
Why did
I marry him? Good question. Quite simply, because he keeps me entertained.
This 
is better than youthful beauty which fades [insert poetic earwax] and
guarantees
the match will be good at least until one of us loses their mind. Which may
have
happened to both of us already, in which case it will be good indefinitely.
Incidentally, Andy has almost no hair left and cuts it to 1/4 inch all over
- - looks
great - brings out his beautiful eyes...

------------------------------

End of fegmaniax-digest V7 #487
*******************************