From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #99 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, March 15 1999 Volume 08 : Number 099 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: the evil empire [BC-Radio@corecom.net (Brett Cooper)] The last word on the Phish Phan debate... [Michael Wolfe ] Re: great myths of our time no. 237 [amadain ] Re: the evil empire [amadain ] Re: the evil empire [Ben ] Re: the evil empire [Eb ] Re: Seven Deadly Words (long, no RH, but curiously fascinating) [Aaron Ma] Re: the evil empire [BC-Radio@corecom.net (Brett Cooper)] Re: the evil empire [BC-Radio@corecom.net (Brett Cooper)] Re: the evil empire ["JH3" ] Re: the evil empire [amadain ] Re: the evil empire [BC-Radio@corecom.net (Brett Cooper)] Re: No headbangers allowed? [Eb ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 11:01:44 -0900 From: BC-Radio@corecom.net (Brett Cooper) Subject: Re: the evil empire >an uncomfortable bind. They don't want to be restricting speech,> I disagree here. When I was 16, I ran a radio station out of my bedroom, helped the community, got people interested in radio, and the FCC felt it was their duty to shut the whole operation down, and pick on a 16 year-old. Haven't they got anything better to do than shut down 1/2 watt stations? Luckily, the field office that shut me down got theirs several years later--due to less government spending, the office was shut down! >>i know you mean it in a different sense, susan. but it must be noted >>that the fcc *is* in the business of restricting speech --to those that >>can purchase it. and its goons are in the business of (often quite >>violently) shutting down those that cannot purchase it, yet attempt to >>aexercise it all the same. Agreed. But I think it should be also noted that there are those who try to excercise their freedoms responsibly by being a responsible broadcaster, and those who do things on the air that earn them complaints, and give everyone else who does positive things a bad name. My motto was always to sound just as, if not more, professional than a big-time station, and I succeeded. >I believe more stations probably incur fines from things like people not >signing operating logs (a useful thing IMO) or not consigning enough time >to public service programming (a bit of a silly thing, IMO, especially >since commercial stations usually cram it all into one program that's on on >Sunday morning from 4-7 am), a few highly publicized obscenity cases >notwithstanding. And in any event, practically speaking, the system does >actually often work in favor of smaller outlets in one respect- they don't >get nearly the attention that outlets that carry Howard Stern do, the >thinking being I guess that it's damn hard to get blood from a stone. You forgot the infamous KROQ "muder hoax" incident in the early part of this decade. It was even showcased on "Unsolved Mysteries" and I'll bet the two DJ's were sweating it out majorly. In that case, then yes, the FCC should and did take action. But the issue is an unlawful harrasment of citizens that are using their rights to freedom of speech--responsibly. >I guess where I'm differing with people is that I don't view the FCC as >being on a crusade to stamp out speech. Especially since they could fuck >with most college stations bigtime if they so desired, but I haven't heard >of it happening. It has up here in Alaska, but then again, I live in the Bible Belt of the state, so I guess it depends on where you are coming from. >Now if you're talking about pirate stations, that's a whole nother kettle >of bananas. Personally, while I'm sympathetic to the cause itself, and many >people who set them up are Good People (tm), I'm not real hep on the idea >of any goof who wants to setting up their own broadcasting facility. Can >you imagine the mess that would be? The airwaves are -limited-, so you'd >still have to determine who got to use them by -some- means, otherwise >everyone would be trampling over each other and no one would get heard >beyond a few blocks from their house. Right now, if you can afford to get >the proper equipment and licensing, you can make a go of it. And sure, that >does leave out people who can't afford it, it's difficult to purchase a >frequency as well, especially in markets like Chicago, where there aren't >exactly a shitload of vacancies. Money and politics do play a part in that. True, but if we are speaking of low-power stations, then it is more practical due to the fact that several low-powered folks can occupy one frequency without trampling over each other because of the limitations of their equipment. Like I stated earlier, you need to broadcast responsibly. Big cities like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, are major markets for pirate stations. Already, there is the possibility of legislation for low-power stations. Canada, for example, allows 1-watt unlicensed stations. >But I still think that we'd end up with a much worse system than we have >now, whatever problems I may have with the current incarnation of the FCC >(and I DO, despite the devils' advocating here :)). And I think money and >politics would still play a huge part in who got to be on the air, only in >a less regulated system it would be about 50,000 watts of trampling over >smaller stations trying to use the same frequency you are. That remains to be seen. Perhaps time will tell. 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, 15 Mar 1999 19:51:03 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: The last word on the Phish Phan debate... Both sides have made compelling arguments, but I think this seals it: - -Michael Wolfe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:28:41 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: great myths of our time no. 237 Terrence: >San Francisco: Lothar & the Hand People: "Presenting...", Spirit: >"Spirit", "The Twelve Dreams of Dr. Sardonicus". >I'd suggest checking out Moby Grape and the Electric Prunes (technically >from Washington, but West Coast is West Coast) Uh-huh...anything "West Coast" from the '60s is automatically good, right? >Upon further observation, it seems that there's more 60's-influenced >material from the 70s and 80s in the collection than there is actual 60s >material. Right. Why listen to the original stuff, when you can listen to the backward-looking tribute bands instead? Susan: >Supposedly this winner was then taken to a >hospital where surgery was done so that he would resemble McCartney even >more, and HE was the replacement. > >Incidentally, I was listening to the first disk of my brand new and already >much-loved Nat King Cole box set today. There's a song called "Save The >Bones for Henry Jones" which contains the line: "Save the bones for Henry >Jones/Cause Henry don't eat no meat (He's an eggman!)". > >Obviously this ties into the conspiracy. And also that whole "Nat King Cole is Dead" hoax. Are you college-station debaters aware that there's some major legislation bouncing around Washington, regarding low-power radio stations? The FCC is debating being much more free about licensing <1000 watt stations above the 92 FM limit line. I gather that Jenny Toomey (Tsunami, Liquorice, Grenadine, the recently folded Simple Machines label) is devoting her life to this proposal right now -- I got cc'ed a HUGE email from her a couple of weeks ago, on the subject. Damn, I wish I could remember the URL for further details...it may just be www.lowpowerradio.org. It's lowpowerSOMETHING.org, certainly.... Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:45:00 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: great myths of our time no. 237 >>Bones for Henry Jones" which contains the line: "Save the bones for Henry >>Jones/Cause Henry don't eat no meat (He's an eggman!)". >> >>Obviously this ties into the conspiracy. > >And also that whole "Nat King Cole is Dead" hoax. Nat King Cole was the Walrus. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 15:43:42 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: the evil empire >>>an uncomfortable bind. They don't want to be restricting speech,> First off, may I say that although I don't think Eddy meant this to happen, this chop is getting taken a bit out of context. What I actually said is, they are caught in a bind between free speech and the kind of regulation that IS necessary, with free-speech advocates, bible-types, community activists, and child-protection advocates all shouting at them. I'm not saying they're doing the best they can, but they are in a bit of a difficult position with respect to having to accomodate so many different people, most of whom have valid concerns. Radio is a difficult medium- on the one hand, you can do the "just switch it off" thing, but on the other hand it isn't LIKE books, which people can choose to go out and buy or not. A 9 year old probably isn't running out to the bookstore to buy "Penthouse", but a 9 year old may just have the radio on when Dice Clay comes on, or an adult may have it on in the background and not be paying as close attention to what has just come on as the curious child is. It's a little easier for the parent to be responsible when they hear a warning, or are aware that during these hours there may be stuff they don't want the kid to hear. >I disagree here. When I was 16, I ran a radio station out of my bedroom, >helped the community, got people interested in radio, and the FCC felt it >was their duty to shut the whole operation down, and pick on a 16 year-old. What if everyone in your neighborhood decided to have one? What if lots of kids in your city decided to? They should make an exception for you because? This is getting into "well, -I- did it responsibly". Not that I don't believe you. But not everyone's necessarily going to, and how are they supposed to tell the difference? They're supposed to be able to let you do it, but not the kid down the street because they don't like what s/he's putting on the air but what you're putting on the air is OK? What if your definition of responsible isn't someone else's and they decide to shut you down and let the kid down the street keep going even though you personally feel his/her station doesn't do as much good as yours? The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike, sometimes. I hate this cause I feel like I'm advocating for the black hats here, and that's not fun. But is it at least clear what I'm trying to say? Selective enforcement wouldn't be any more fair. >You forgot the infamous KROQ "muder hoax" incident in the early part of >this decade. Well, actually I consider KROQ a big-time station. It's certainly a lot more corporate than the 100 watt powerhouse I work for :). >>with most college stations bigtime if they so desired, but I haven't heard >>of it happening. > >It has up here in Alaska, but then again, I live in the Bible Belt of the >state, so I guess it depends on where you are coming from. How much do you wanna bet that it wasn't just the FCC picking on people? I'd bet dollars to donuts that some self-proclaimed community standards groups and suchlike people got together to bitch to the FCC and make them give the station in question a hard time. These tend to GET government involved, when they would no doubt otherwise prefer to sit in their office and read Newsweek or something. >>a less regulated system it would be about 50,000 watts of trampling over >>smaller stations trying to use the same frequency you are. > >That remains to be seen. Perhaps time will tell. Ferchrissakes, I'm not on the side of the 50,000 watt giants! Like I said, I work for a mighty 100 watt wonder. As jazz format chief I used to put in up to 20 hours a week of unpaid time working there. I also got exposed to some more of the practicalities in that capacity (as I was also a member of the Operating Board), however, so maybe that's why when I hear "Free radio for everyone who wants to, right now!", I don't think "hey kids, let's put on a show!" but more along the lines of "sounds great, how ya gonna make it work?". Personally I think if you want your own station, net radio is the way to go. You won't have all these problems with crowded frequencies, for one thing, and for another, nobody's stepped into regulate it and most likely it will be seen as impractical to even try. Plus I think it's the way of the future, and I'm looking into doing it myself, not that that biases me or nothin' :). Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:22:38 -0500 From: Ben Subject: Re: the evil empire Brett Cooper wrote: > > >an uncomfortable bind. They don't want to be restricting speech,> > > I disagree here. When I was 16, I ran a radio station out of my bedroom, > helped the community, got people interested in radio, and the FCC felt it > was their duty to shut the whole operation down, and pick on a 16 year-old. > Haven't they got anything better to do than shut down 1/2 watt stations? In a word, no. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 13:38:24 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: the evil empire Susan: >>I disagree here. When I was 16, I ran a radio station out of my bedroom, >>helped the community, got people interested in radio, and the FCC felt it >>was their duty to shut the whole operation down, and pick on a 16 year-old. > >What if everyone in your neighborhood decided to have one? What if lots of >kids in your city decided to? They should make an exception for you >because? Anyway, I suspect that "...helped the community, got people interested in radio..." is the equivalent of fudging on one's resume. Helped how, exactly? By giving them 4 hours a day of solid Alice Cooper? Heh heh. >I'd bet dollars to donuts I can't believe you just said that. ;) I checked: The URL *is* http://www.lowpowerradio.org. You folks should check it out. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 16:39:49 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: Seven Deadly Words (long, no RH, but curiously fascinating) note to eb and others: it is indeed www.lowpowerradio.com... in these situations, i find www.domainsurfer.com to be incredibly useful. On Sat, 13 Mar 1999, amadain wrote: > So actually, I don't see the FCC as "the evil empire" here- I see them > as being in an uncomfortable bind. They don't want to be restricting > speech, and yet they also have to protect the kids a bit [...] that's not what i object to; it's the way they do it. the system is that they tell you THEY think you might've broken the law but if you want you can contest it, since the FCC is not actually the deciding authority on what they are allowed to ban. when and only when (or rather if, since it had never happened as of 1995, and i believe still has not) the FCC goes to court to get the money from the station, the station is entitled to a trial on the question of whether or not the broadcast was indecent. the FCC also has increased fines for repeat offenders even when the first alleged offense was still pending. a case in which the DC Circuit Court, to my eyes, basically agree with the complaints against the FCC while nevertheless deciding against the complainants for what seem to be mostly procedural reasons is here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search& case=/uscircs/DC/935178a.html (including a lengthy dissent). anyway. a ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 12:53:41 -0900 From: BC-Radio@corecom.net (Brett Cooper) Subject: Re: the evil empire Eb writes: >Anyway, I suspect that "...helped the community, got people interested in >radio..." is the equivalent of fudging on one's resume. Helped how, >exactly? By giving them 4 hours a day of solid Alice Cooper? Heh heh. On the contrary, articles in local newspapers were done about the station and its community service, all of which I would be more than happy to send copies of to anyone at their request. I can't ever change your mind about Alice Cooper, Eb, I realize that. I'm going to assume that you meant that comment in a humorous fashion, not as flamebait. For being a brat refusing to act your age... 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, 15 Mar 1999 13:02:52 -0900 From: BC-Radio@corecom.net (Brett Cooper) Subject: Re: the evil empire >What if everyone in your neighborhood decided to have one? What if lots of >kids in your city decided to? They should make an exception for you >because? This is getting into "well, -I- did it responsibly". Not that I >don't believe you. But not everyone's necessarily going to, and how are >they supposed to tell the difference? They're supposed to be able to let >you do it, but not the kid down the street because they don't like what >s/he's putting on the air but what you're putting on the air is OK? What if >your definition of responsible isn't someone else's and they decide to shut >you down and let the kid down the street keep going even though you >personally feel his/her station doesn't do as much good as yours? Obviously, you're unaware of the clause in the FCC's Part 15 rules where it does state that if your unlicensed station provides a community service of sorts, it can be allowed to continue and be granted a conditional operating license. There was a case in Oregon where a guy was operating a 10 watt statio, well above the legal limit, and was playing records for an old folks home, and was allowed to continue by the FCC. So you see, they can tell the difference. There is a pretty widely accepted definition of "responsible" and I think most people realize that, so to debate that word is irrelevant. >The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike, sometimes. I hate this >cause I feel like I'm advocating for the black hats here, and that's not >fun. But is it at least clear what I'm trying to say? Selective enforcement >wouldn't be any more fair. Tell that to the FCC. They have been doing it in several cases for years. >>You forgot the infamous KROQ "muder hoax" incident in the early part of >>this decade. > >Well, actually I consider KROQ a big-time station. It's certainly a lot >more corporate than the 100 watt powerhouse I work for :). True. >How much do you wanna bet that it wasn't just the FCC picking on people? A year's salary. >I'd bet dollars to donuts that some self-proclaimed community standards >groups and suchlike people got together to bitch to the FCC and make them >give the station in question a hard time. These tend to GET government >involved, when they would no doubt otherwise prefer to sit in their office >and read Newsweek or something. Yes and no. While it is true that the FCC must investigate any complaints against a station, they also have to do things that will quantify their existence on the payroll. Again, this must not have been the case because a vast majority of field offices around the nation were shut down about 3 years ago. >Ferchrissakes, I'm not on the side of the 50,000 watt giants! Like I said, >I work for a mighty 100 watt wonder. As jazz format chief I used to put in >up to 20 hours a week of unpaid time working there. I also got exposed to >some more of the practicalities in that capacity (as I was also a member of >the Operating Board), however, so maybe that's why when I hear "Free radio >for everyone who wants to, right now!", I don't think "hey kids, let's put >on a show!" but more along the lines of "sounds great, how ya gonna make it >work?". I'm not Stephen Dunifer, okay? I'm not a radical. However, if the FCC would continue with the push for legislation towards a low-power license, it would make it so that those who want it bad enough can get on the air, and those who treat it like it's a fad would get discouraged by the paperwork and leave it alone. There is some middle ground. >Personally I think if you want your own station, net radio is the way to >go. You won't have all these problems with crowded frequencies, for one >thing, and for another, nobody's stepped into regulate it and most likely >it will be seen as impractical to even try. Plus I think it's the way of >the future, and I'm looking into doing it myself, not that that biases me >or nothin' :). Time will tell. 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, 15 Mar 1999 16:30:27 -0600 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: the evil empire I usualy try to steer clear of these threads... >On the contrary, articles in local newspapers were done about the station >and its community service, all of which I would be more than happy to send >copies of to anyone at their request. ... >Obviously, you're unaware of the clause in the FCC's Part 15 rules where it >does state that if your unlicensed station provides a community service of >sorts, it can be allowed to continue and be granted a conditional operating >license. It's been years since I worked across the street from the FCC (they had a really nice cafeteria too), but IIRC, they used to only go after unlicensed stations when a licensed operator complained that the so-called pirate was stepping on their frequency band; otherwise they'd leave you alone unless you were being really blatant. I can't imagine that someone in Alaska, of all places, would have a problem finding an unused frequency for a transmitter with a range of only a few miles. But if you were in the newspapers, that would probably draw their attention. Is it possible that someone within your listener radius thought something you were broadcasting was objectionable and complained to one of your elected officials? One problem with Alaska is that the two senators and one (or is it more now?) representative have a huge amount of influence in Washington, way out of proportion to the state's population. That normally works in your favor, but perhaps not in this case. If someone in your radius complains to one of your elected guys, all that guy has to do is forward it to the FCC on the letterhead of their own oversight committee and you'd be hosed, without your ever knowing who was behind it. Then again, I'm severely paranoid, so what do I know... Personally, I'm totally in favor of increasing the 1/2-watt restriction or whatever it is. (Not that it would help me any...) John H. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 17:13:27 -0600 From: amadain Subject: Re: the evil empire >Obviously, you're unaware of the clause in the FCC's Part 15 rules where it >does state that if your unlicensed station provides a community service of >sorts, it can be allowed to continue and be granted a conditional operating >license. And community service is also something you would have tangible proof of if you were providing it. Like, for example, the guy who played records for an old folks home. That's something more tangible than just "neighborhood people liked it and liked to DJ there sometimes", which is well and good, but not "public service" exactly. >tell the difference. There is a pretty widely accepted definition of >"responsible" and I think most people realize that, so to debate that word >is irrelevant. I wasn't debating the meaning of the word responsible. What I was trying to say was that it's a problem to let any old person operate a home radio station whenever they feel like it, and without the current regulations, there would have to be new ones, otherwise the situation I was positing (where there wasn't a clear way of knowing who should be operating and who shouldn't, causing a new kind of mess as bad as the one we have now) would occur. >>How much do you wanna bet that it wasn't just the FCC picking on people? > >A year's salary. Again, that's not what I was saying at all. What I was TRYING to say was that usually they are acting on a complaint from someone. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I would still think it's quite rare that they just go out to squash you for shits n grins. I know of a few pirate stations right here in Chicago that have never been in trouble with the FCC, mainly cause no one's had cause to complain. And I think they'd probably LOVE to be licensed and can't be under existing law. >it would make it so that those who want it bad enough can get on the air, >and those who treat it like it's a fad would get discouraged by the >paperwork and leave it alone. There is some middle ground. Fine, OK, all I was looking for was to hear some practical notion of how it might be done, rather than the usual "the government stomps on us because they are big assholes" ranting. This is a start. But you realize, we're still talking about people who have enough money to get equipment and licenses here (though naturally this would be less costly for a smaller station), as well as people who are willing to dedicate time/money to keep it on the air. This is still going to exclude some people. The problem isn't regulation per se, the problem is that existing law needs some rehaul, and the limitations of the medium itself need to be taken into account. Licensing smaller stations is fine and dandy. I just don't like the idea of thousands of hobbyists deciding to take to the airwaves on a whim, or people being pissed off at the fact that there are rules and practical limitations. Can you see where I'm coming from here, or are you just determined to write me off as a proto-fascist meanie? Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 14:02:48 -0900 From: BC-Radio@corecom.net (Brett Cooper) Subject: Re: the evil empire >It's been years since I worked across the street from the FCC (they had a >really nice cafeteria too), but IIRC, they used to only go after unlicensed >stations when a licensed operator complained that the so-called pirate was >stepping on their frequency band; otherwise they'd leave you alone >unless you were being really blatant. I can't imagine that someone in >Alaska, of all places, would have a problem finding an unused frequency >for a transmitter with a range of only a few miles. But if you >were in the newspapers, that would probably draw their attention. That is true, and that is what drew the FCC's attention. My transmitter was phase-lock-loop, which is to say that it wouldn't drift, so it was well over 1MHz away from any licensed facility. >Is it possible that someone within your listener radius thought something >you were broadcasting was objectionable and complained to one of >your elected officials? One problem with Alaska is that the two >senators and one (or is it more now?) representative have a huge amount >of influence in Washington, way out of proportion to the state's >population. That normally works in your favor, but perhaps not in this case. No, I actually asked the FCC if there had been a complaint lodged against me, and that was not the case. It's funny that you mention senators, because when Alaskan Senator Frank Murkowski learned of the station's demise, he wrote letters to the FCC on my behalf, all of which are available at anyone's request. Furthermore, it was ironic that I got a letter from the Governor at the time saying how great he thought the whole set up was. >If someone in your radius complains to one of your elected guys, all >that guy has to do is forward it to the FCC on the letterhead of their >own oversight committee and you'd be hosed, without your ever >knowing who was behind it. Very true, but like I said, that wasn't the case, and it was actually the opposite. 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, 15 Mar 1999 15:17:34 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: No headbangers allowed? >> By JOHN SOEDER >> PLAIN DEALER ROCK WRITER "ROCK." Might as well have spelled it R-A-W-K. OK, this underscores his bias. A freebie mag, I'm guessing? >> Does Black Sabbath belong in the rock hall >> with them? >> >> "Absolutely," says Sharon Osbourne, wife and >> manager of Black Sabbath singer Ozzy >> Osbourne. They've been married 18 years. Oh, good. He asked a disinterested bystander, for an objective opinion. Heh heh. So Alice influenced Rob Zombie, Pantera and Marilyn Manson, eh? Shouldn't that ALONE be grounds for being banned from the Hall of Fame? ;) Seriously, there are SO many acts not in the Hall of Fame yet. The time for griping about this or that act being overlooked is far in the future, if you ask me. Not that I give a DAMN about that whole apparatus, anyway. I think it's deeply silly. It's soooo un-rock 'n' roll to fuss over this token little merit badge. "Hey, Willie Dixon! You've spent 50 years making the rounds of dingy nightclubs, playing to a few hundred people while witnessing racism, drugs, corruption and violence at every turn. Well, baby, it was all worth it -- here, have a plaque!" Sheesh. I still maintain that the amount of deliberation which anyone gives this "Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame" issue is directly proportional to the likelihood that said person will be invited to the induction dinner. I think that's a pretty quotable theory too, I might add. (Note that the writer is from Cleveland -- think he's not frustratingly stuck on the waiting list for tickets?) Eb ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #99 ******************************