From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #48 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, February 10 1999 Volume 08 : Number 048 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Atlas said, "Terrence, pull my finger and you can feel the wind in your hair" [Mark_Gloster@3c] frightening [Mark_Gloster@3com.com] Re: frightening [Capuchin ] Re: Links-a-go-go [Stewart Russell 3295 Analyst_Programmer ] Phil and Grant [Natalie Jacobs ] Re: Books ["she.rex" ] live ["Chaney, Dolph L" ] Re: Thank you for the music [VIV LYON ] Unix without high voices. [Capuchin ] Re: Atlas Sneezed [Aaron Mandel ] Re: Fegbooks [Michael R Godwin ] RE: Fegbooks [dr john halewood ] Re: Economics and geekstuff. [Capuchin ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 21:58:07 -0800 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: Atlas said, "Terrence, pull my finger and you can feel the wind in your hair" Whenever economic theory comes up, there seems to be a common polarization. Even among those that think frighteningly alike. It turns into something like Rand vs. Marx in the battle for the soul of the world (on Pay Per View: Sunday sunday sunday....) The Rand position sounds frighteningly like Kyle's dad's (South Park) take on "Gods and Clods" vs. a comical "Ruttle Corps" Marxist view of giving everything anybody wants to them. Emotionally, I nodded to everything that Michael Wolfe said, but much of my experience leans toward Jeme's analysis. Bill Gates was, indeed, not a great example of what's wonderful about capitalism. I find Rand to be an even more frightening one. I don't think that Marx is necessarily the perfect image of social justice. In any case, the pragmatic view always must include the harsh realities of dealing with human beings- a society. Bill Gates is an emblem of the ravages of capitalism. A marketing genius, who never invented a single thing in his life, with a substandard suite of products is one of the richest men in the world by savagely attacking, lying, swallowing companies, etc. Almost every boardmember of each of the top companies is chosen for their adherence to these methods. Only in Berkeley, CA and parts of China, there remain only the tiniest remnants of Marxism- and it's virtually impossible to see much likeness in the character. They manifest themselves as totalitarian states with little economic freedom- okay, not Berkeley, that was for a laugh. The reality of people in the equation complicates matters: A socialist system removes incentives for achievement Rampant capitalism removes social barriers to rape and plunder (I can go farther to say that in communism, you get to experience both at once) There are many more, but those define the absolutes. I am well aware of how demotivating it is when pay is unrelated to one's effort/achievement/success. Meanwhile there seems to be (to me) a direct correlation between the excesses of consumption/ capitalism and hunger/starvation. I believe in a frightening system which combines free enterprise with compassion and truth. I am a liberal to the core, yet I don't think it's wrong to own some nice things. I am generally somewhat libertarian in my views, but that is heavily tempered with my fear of conglomerates and trusts and what they will do to workers, land, air, and water, and the raging capitalists will not police themselves. I want to be rewarded for my brilliance, but I don't want to take my reward away from those less fortunate if that is the equation- and guess what, it usually is the equation, it just shouldn't have to be. Reality is what's left when ideals have to wrestle with one another. We live somewhere between, but I think that capitalism is going unchecked. Don't get me started about how the media control has killed the institution of journalism. People talk in fear and loathing about socialism, but nobody has thought about it seriously since the seventies, our society has removed social justice as a pillar of it's economic foundation- this frightens me. It also frightens me how the liberals have gone into hiding. Yes, I include myself here. All I hear (from liberals too) is "my taxes are too high" (in a whine like the sound of all the air farting out of a balloon.) Maybe we're all just too tired and don't think we can make a difference. I think this all started around 1974.... Oh Christ! - -Markg ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 22:18:42 -0800 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: frightening That's the word. I used it a lot in my last post. Sorry. - -Markg ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 23:47:22 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: frightening On Tue, 9 Feb 1999 Mark_Gloster@3com.com wrote: > That's the word. I used it a lot in my last post. Sorry. You know I love you, Mark. Here's my last word on the subject for a month or so, I promise: The world's pretty fucked up. We need to make things better and more fair and just and not let people fuck other people. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. I just think it'd be a whole lot nicer if all of the pressure to DO something about it was social and none of it legislative. I think it can be done. I don't think it's a big leap to turn leisure time into community improvement time. If there's time to sit on your ass, there's time to help out. If there's money for twenty percent bonuses company wide, make it ten grand per person and give everone at the bottom a raise for actually doing the fucking work. But you can't legislate morality. We've found that time and again. Yay... goodnight. And I'm going to write to Michael privately (or just sit down at McMenamin's and chat with him) and try to clear up some of the things I said in passion. And yeah, I replied to Joel's bit to clear up anyone's thoughts that I was a cold, Randian sociopath. (OK, I might reply to one tiny thing on Michael's post publicly, but I'll have to reread and find out.) Je. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:50:48 +0000 (GMT) From: Stewart Russell 3295 Analyst_Programmer Subject: Re: Links-a-go-go >>>>> "Bayard" == Bayard writes: Bayard> I didn't find the saw playing, where is it? Sigh... http://freeweb.pdq.net/headstrong/saw.htm I liked the egg bit, but it didn't involve any egg throwing (shame). Rolling rotten eggs down an inclined concrete plane is also amusing; keeps me happy for hours. - -- Stewart C. Russell Analyst Programmer, Dictionary Division stewart@ref.collins.co.uk HarperCollins Publishers use Disclaimer; my $opinion; Glasgow, Scotland ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:07:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Stewart Russell 3295 Analyst_Programmer Subject: Re: death of the record companies >>>>> "Capuchin" == Capuchin writes: Capuchin> Well, the free Solaris is one thing . . . Capuchin> And then there's GNU/Linux and all the new similar Capuchin> things. For every working product, there is a clone Capuchin> that does it just as well for free. Replace 'just as well' with 'better', and you're nearer the mark. I have to use Solaris at work, I choose to use Linux at home. Yeah, they both suck, but they suck less than everything else. If Linux was a falafel, it wouldn't have hair in it. - -- Stewart C. Russell Analyst Programmer, Dictionary Division stewart@ref.collins.co.uk HarperCollins Publishers use Disclaimer; my $opinion; Glasgow, Scotland ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 05:21:11 EST From: Insomnboy@aol.com Subject: Re: you gotta love these guys! Eddie quoted some misguided MoFo thusly: > "We strongly support the rights of those who speak out against > homosexuality. We believe ... the hiring of homosexual teachers ... > would create an emotional and mental health hazard for children. We also > oppose legislation providing for the Gay Bill of Rights." Who exactly is spouting this shit? I know Jerry Falwell just came out against the TeleTubbies(tm), but what is this? Russell in Los Angeles (really fucking tired of being accused of all of the USAs' evils just because of my sexuality, which really is no ones business, but the "moral majority" wants to be everyones business, I mean come on already) Sorry for the brief rant, but this shit pisses me off......................... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 12:54:07 +0000 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Economics Just as a matter of interest, how many other economists are there out there? a) Stuff costs something to produce; b) People who make stuff try to sell it; c) Whether they sell it or not depends on whether it appeals to other people (this is the concept of 'demand', which Marx missed out); d) The people who made stuff which nobody wanted go out of business, or switch to making different stuff, or something; e) The people who make stuff which appeals to other people can charge for it. If they have any sense, they will charge more than it cost. As long as they can keep on selling stuff for more than it cost, they are likely to stay in business; f) Difficult bit: this came under the heading of 'economic rent' in my textbook. Some people supply a product which is so desirable that customers bid up the price of it way beyond what it cost. As a result, these suppliers start to make much more money than they actually need to keep them in business. Superstars are a good example: for some reason, the way they sing, or act, or direct, or whatever, makes people say 'we _must_ sign REM (or Paltrow, or Kubrick) - no-one else will do'. The superstars can then more or less write their own cheque. Craftsman-made objects are another example. Violins cost quite a lot, but the price of a violin made by a top craftsman such as Amati or Guarnerius just shoots through the roof (it doesn't keep them in business any more though, because they've been dead for 200 years). My understanding of the Microsoft phenomenon is that Gates made one really smart move, which was to agree to license MS-DOS to any manufacturer who wanted it. Apple knew that their product was better, and they believed that they could keep people buying their own software+hardware package by refusing to license the software. This was a bad mistake, because all the new companies who came in during the 80s hardware boom opted for MS-DOS, and installed it on ever-cheaper hardware. This one error by Apple established Microsoft as the biggest company in PC software. Once that lead was established, Gates maintained it by various strategies, some of which were probably unethical and/or illegal. But I agree that it was marketing tactics which got Microsoft where they are. - - Mike Godwin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:33:53 -0500 From: Natalie Jacobs Subject: Phil and Grant >Yes--Phil Dick definiatly goes on the list , I would say for Scanners Live in >Vain, and the one about the repair guy on Mars who can see peoples innards. >Maybe also Flow my tears, the Policeman Said. But defianatly Scanners, which >is one of my all time favorite novels. Dick does pathos better than anyone >since Dickens--the end of Scanners is like a druggies version of the death of >Little Nell. I think you're thinking of "A Scanner Darkly," not "Scanners Live in Vain," which is a Cordwainer Smith story. "A Scanner Darkly" is a heart-rending book - the premise is Kafka-esque (a drug enforcement agent goes undercover, becomes an addict, and ends up spying on himself) but the horror of it is pure Dick. (And please don't compare Dick to Dickens - remember what Oscar Wilde said, "It would take a heart of stone to read of the death of Little Nell without laughing." :) In the realm of comics, I would also recommend Grant Morrison - everything he's ever done, but especially Doom Patrol (a superhero comic thrown into a surrealistic blender) and The Invisibles, about a team of anarchist terrorists and the coming Apocalypse. n., who dreamed she was one of the Invisibles last night ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:04:26 From: "she.rex" Subject: Re: Books Daniel Saunders wrote: >Hey, great list! I just wanted to add... > >> Stanislaw Lem - Viv, Daniel Saunders, Natalie & Aaron commented on him >Of these, the Cyberiad, Star Diaries, and The Futurological Congress are >by far the most entertaining. Some of his other stuff is more >philosophical, and although the books are just as brilliant (Fiasco >describes a bizarre first contact scenario that makes Contact look like >Independence Day) the first three are much more accessible. > >As for my own favourite authors, apart from George Orwell, one I really >like is Terry Pratchett. If you're a fan of Douglas Adams, you'll really >dig it. Same sense of humour, but with actual characters and plot lines >along with the ideas, in a fantasy rather than science fiction >scenario. He's written tons of them, and they're almost all delightful, >but I think maybe his best is Reaper Man, about what happens when Death (a >prominent character in the books) gets fired. Great stuff. Thanks for the suggestions! Someone on the TC list is a published author and one of many things she wrote for the list was a series of short stories based on Pratchett's style. It was so cool I bought one (_Guards! Guards!_), but haven't read it yet. I'll move it to the top of the pile now. She.Rex - ------------------ In the moonlight I'm fighting with the night It's a rip-off Kissing all the slain I'm bleeding in the rain It's a rip-off Rockin' in the nude I'm feeling such a dude It's a rip-off Dancing in the dark With the tramps in the park It's a rip-off Such a rip-off, yeah... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:47:52 -0500 From: "Chaney, Dolph L" Subject: live Of course of course consider the source... but I find myself agreeing occasionally with how Andy feels. (from http://www.tvtrecords.com/xtc/xtcbio.html) Dolph - ---------------------------------------------------------------- True XTC fans know that the band hasn't toured since 1982, when Partridge suffered nervous exhaustion onstage in Paris, and later suffered a nervous breakdown in California due to intense stage fright and continuous panic attacks. For those still wondering, Partridge emphatically states that he still has no interest in touring with XTC. "I find performance too related to show off mentality. I'm more interested in backroom boy thinking. I really don't get any thrill out of waving any part of my anatomy and saying, 'Hey look at me, aren't I great. Worship me." I'd much rather people went home with the album of their choice and just got into it on a personal level. In my opinion very little live music is really rewarding. A lot of the live situation is people getting off on the buzz of the mass audience or some very juvenile idea of hero worship. And I'm not into that at all." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 07:11:22 -0800 (PST) From: VIV LYON Subject: Re: Thank you for the music - ---James Dignan wrote: > > I want to thank all of you for indirectly inspiring my latest song. I wrote > it last night in the shed(? Perhaps it's an old English folk-song), and > it's still a little rough around the edges. I present it here for your > perusal and edification. That was beautiful. > > PS - who came up with that line anyway? ME! ME! I did! It was a result of running Executioner through AltaVista's Babel Fish. Vivien _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 08:21:33 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Unix without high voices. On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Stewart Russell 3295 Analyst_Programmer wrote: > Capuchin> Well, the free Solaris is one thing . . . > Capuchin> And then there's GNU/Linux and all the new similar > Capuchin> things. For every working product, there is a clone > Capuchin> that does it just as well for free. > Replace 'just as well' with 'better', and you're nearer the mark. I > have to use Solaris at work, I choose to use Linux at home. Yeah, they > both suck, but they suck less than everything else. If Linux was a > falafel, it wouldn't have hair in it. I have the exact same scenario here. Solaris at work, Linux at home. And yeah, I'll probably take Linux most days, but that doesn't mean every piece of open source software is, at present, better than the commercial counterpart. I mean, I LOVE The Gimp, but I think Photoshop is better at some things. Dig? And where the HELL is the open source thingie that was supposed to do what Illustrator does? Je. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:28:33 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: Atlas Sneezed On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Joel Mullins wrote: > Come on, man. What exactly are you saying here? You don't think Bill > Gates should get paid what he does? if i understand correctly, your use of the word 'should' tosses Objectivism out the window. howevermuch money you can make, that's how much you deserve. A=A. > Why go to college or study or invent shit when you can make the same > amount of money picking strawberries. as other people have said, it's because picking strawberries SUCKS. if all that matters about a job is how much money you make, then every single college grad would apply to law school and med school. fortunately, the pay differential is not yet so overwhelming that things work this way. > Considering you have a computer and use the internet and most likely > have Windows, I don't see how you can say any of those things. if you think using the internet means you're using Microsoft, you seriously need to learn your shit. that's like saying "i know you went to movie theaters a whole lot last year, so don't tell me you didn't like Titanic!" sure, most people in movie theaters liked Titanic, but when it's already obvious that you're arguing with someone who didn't... > I mean, I can live without strawberries, but cars and telephones and > computers have made this world a much better place. you've got your proportions wrong. you cannot, in fact, live without food. > Have you ever seen a Robyn show, Michael? Well, if you start paying > people according to what they need, then you never will again. i don't follow your logic. (i'm not disagreeing, i just don't get it.) > Let's be honest about who gave Bill Gates his money. We did. i think i know someone who uses Windows, but they aren't on this list. a ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:03:43 +0000 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Fegbooks On Tue, 9 Feb 1999, Natalie Jacobs wrote: > Mervyn Peake, of course, goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. "The > Gormenghast Trilogy" is sheer genius. (The first two books are much better > than the third, though.) Well, the third was written after the Parkinsons's(?) disease had started to take effect. I went to a Peake exhibition once, which included drafts of the fourth volume. Unfortunately each draft basically consisted of the number '4' written elaborately, followed by half a sentence or so which soon petered out. Tragic. And have you seen his illustrations for Treasure / Island etc? Watch out Gustave Dore! > The late great Angela Carter is the queen of the magic realists. I > recommend "The Infernal Desire Machines of Dr. Hoffman" (like a Bosch > painting in prose), "The Bloody Chamber" (twisted re-writes of various > fairy-tales), and her short stories, which are collected in one volume that > I can't remember the name of. I rather like The Magic Toyshop. I once saw a film of it, which wasn't bad, featuring Tom Bell IIRC. And of course there's a film called 'Company of Wolves' which is based on two stories from the Bloody Chamber. I didn't think that the Christmas card-y sets in the film were very effective, though. Talking Anthony Burgess (which we were, sort of), he is much more than just the author of Clockwork Orange. His Keats novel 'Abba Abba' is great; his Shakespeare in love novel 'Nothing like the sun' is pretty good; the Enderby books are extremely funny; and I really enjoyed the two volumes of memoirs that I read (Little Wilson and Big God and the other one). But he wrote a lot of books and some of the other stuff is less good. - - Mike Godwin PS The greatest personality of the 20th century is of course de Selby, who would have swept the board if he hadn't turned into a bicycle :) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:25:03 -0000 From: dr john halewood Subject: RE: Fegbooks The confused Michael R Godwin wrote >Well, the third was written after the Parkinsons's(?) disease had started >to take effect. I went to a Peake exhibition once, which included drafts >of the fourth volume. Unfortunately each draft basically consisted of the >number '4' written elaborately, followed by half a sentence or so which >soon petered out. Tragic. And have you seen his illustrations for Treasure > / >Island etc? Watch out Gustave Dore! I don't think it was Parkinson's. IIRC he picked up the illness during childhood in China and it came and went sporadically thereafter. It was some form of progressive wasting disease. There was a BBC program on him a few months back which went into it (and the books and the illustrations) in some detail. of course i didn't tape it and have now forgotten it entirely... >PS The greatest personality of the 20th century is of course de >Selby, who would have swept the board if he hadn't turned into a >bicycle :) yes. the presupposition of night being caused by the accretion of black sooty particles in the atmosphere was very original. However he kind of blew it by failing to adequately explain the reverse step... cheers john ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:37:52 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Economics and geekstuff. On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Michael R Godwin wrote: > Just as a matter of interest, how many other economists are there out > there? Um... Sayer's an economist... but he's not on the list. Damn. > a) Stuff costs something to produce; > b) People who make stuff try to sell it; > c) Whether they sell it or not depends on whether it appeals to other > people (this is the concept of 'demand', which Marx missed out); > d) The people who made stuff which nobody wanted go out of business, > or switch to making different stuff, or something; Or something is the interesting bit. If the manufacturer has enough time and money, they can create demand. That's the Great Market Imperfection. Advertising and marketting. Blech. Been there, hated that. > My understanding of the Microsoft phenomenon is that Gates made one really > smart move, which was to agree to license MS-DOS to any manufacturer who > wanted it. That's not entirely accurate. IBM was in a pinch. They needed a personal computer to market because they were THE COMPANY and there was a growing demand for personal computers (the PET was doing well and the first Apple home computers were gaining fast). They didn't have time to engineer one from the ground up, so one fellow at the company put together a personal computer made from off-the-shelf parts. IBM wrote the bios and tried to license the OS that was used in their prototype boxes. They couldn't do it (because of a very odd interaction between some IBM guys and a software fellow's wife, if I recall correctly). So Bill Gates, whose company Microsoft made the BASIC programming language compiler that was used on said operating system, stripped the other company's name from the operating system product and licensed it to IBM along with the compiler they wanted anyway (thus creating the monopoly from the start... in my opinion, the same company should never be allowed to make any combination of the three elements of software: operating system, application software, and developer tools... at least not until the market can balance a little. Sort of like the way AT&T was split up. You can do long distance, but not local loop and vice versa). When those clever kids at Compaq made the luggable (OK, they called it a portable, but today we call them luggables) computer (remember the big box with a handle on top and the keyboard that flipped down from the front panel? You see them in thrift stores now and again), they just reverse engineered IBM's bios and bought all the same parts off-the-shelf that IBM had in their PC. The first 100% compatible was born. So it wasn't really anyone's brilliant marketting move, it was IBM's short-sightedness. > Apple knew that their product was better, and they believed > that they could keep people buying their own software+hardware package by > refusing to license the software. This was a bad mistake, because all the > new companies who came in during the 80s hardware boom opted for MS-DOS, > and installed it on ever-cheaper hardware. This one error by Apple > established Microsoft as the biggest company in PC software. I don't think this is true at all. I kind of feel they had different markets from the start. Apple was aiming for homes and schools (get 'em while they're young!) and IBM (not Microsoft) was aiming for programmers and engineers and accountants at work who want to work from home, too. Business software was developed first and better. Visicalc made the Apple ][, but somehow wasn't enough. Recall that the operating system was NOT considered the heart of the machine. In fact, those kinds of things weren't even commodities. There was the OS that was inextricably bound to the hardware and the two were considered a single machine type. Today we can say "Solaris on an Intel processor" or "MacOS on a 68K" or "DOS on Intel" or "Linux on Alpha" or whatever. That wasn't the case in those days. The market hadn't matured. If Apple had openned its doors to different hardware vendors (or OS vendors, for that matter), things would definitely be different, but not necessarily better. I'm of the mind that a monopoly really helps an emerging technology gain popular acceptance by standardizing and coordinating resources. However, as we all know, a monopoly is terrible for innovation and pricing and more or less anything involving the consumer (except screwing the consumer. Monopolies are good at that). So we have situations like Standard Oil (misguided as they were... it was a long time ago.), Bell, and now Microsoft. I could easily imagine an alternate universe where RCA had to be broken up in the seventies due to their lock on the television industry. Oh... speaking of computers and television: I was thinking the other day about Killer Apps. For those who don't know, a Killer App is an application of a particular technology that justifies the cost of investment of the whole technology platform. Visicalc (or the spreadsheet in general) is considered the PC Killer App because people were buying PCs just to run that program. In the same sense, Netscape Navigator is widely considered the internet's Killer App because the web was the reason most folks got on the internet (some of us did it for email, but if we hadn't before, we'd've done it when the web went graphic and hit big. Beats the hell out of gopher, but I still use Lynx heaps). I read something interesting the other day that said a friend of the author bought a PC so that they could shop at Amazon.com. That's amazing to me, but it makes sense. Amazon is a Killer App for the whole PC/Internet thing for people that are practical, but not technical. Anyway, I've been thinking about the Killer App for other technologies. Those that came before the term itself. I think I've concluded that Milton Berle was television's Killer App. I'm wondering what might have been that for radio. What single program made people think they had to rush out and buy a radio? I've more or less decided that The Bible was the printing press' killer app. Indoor toilets were the killer app for running water (fuck baths and handwashing, I'm sure the people of the day said). Are there other examples? > Once that > lead was established, Gates maintained it by various strategies, some of > which were probably unethical and/or illegal. But I agree that it was > marketing tactics which got Microsoft where they are. Oh yeah... Microsoft and stuff. Um, yeah. The strategies Microsoft implemented were/are pretty fucking underhanded. I've worked with those people. They're not good. However, and this is the most interesting bit, they don't KNOW they're evil. See, Microsoft has this long habit of hiring what they call "the best and the brightest" and until recently, they couldn't afford to grab the best from other companies, so they started by hiring very bright college kids just out of school. They gave them the wage of an experienced employee and piled on the stock options (and made a whole lot of people rich for now). So you had a company filled with people who have never worked anywhere else and a justice department smartly looking the other way as a new technology grows roots. I find that most of the long-time Microsoft folks TRULY BELIEVE that the way they do business is the way everyone else does. It's creepy. So I'm not surprised that the DOJ case against Microsoft finds one witness after another from MS that just puts his foot in his mouth or blatantly admits to breaking the law on the stand. They don't know any better. Ok, so it's funny, too. Stuff. Je. ________________________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #48 ******************************