From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #251 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, July 15 1999 Volume 08 : Number 251 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: uk fegs, uk geog [Michael R Godwin ] geography ["Ghost Surfer" ] Re: Summertime ["Russ Reynolds" ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V8 #250 [toby ] Re: summertime [Michael R Godwin ] This is the dog talkin', now ["Russ Reynolds" ] Re: Summertime [Michael R Godwin ] Re: re: ligion [Paul Christian Glenn ] more religion [Michael Hooker ] Re: more religion [Paul Christian Glenn ] Re: This is the dog talkin', now [Christopher Gross ] Re: This is the dog talkin', now [g ] Re: This is the dog talkin', now [g ] That Old-Time Religion [Vivien Lyon ] Re: distinction [Eleanore Adams ] ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray [DDerosa] Re: This is the dog talkin', now [lj lindhurst ] turn on [Joel Mullins ] RE: attn Portland Fegs! [Michael Wolfe ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 13:04:47 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: uk fegs, uk geog Tony Blackman suggests that the time is approaching for a UK fegfest. I could probably manage to get to one of the following Hitchcock gigs: Dingwalls Wednesday 22 September Winchester Friday 24 September Oxford Tuesday 28 September I guess that Dingwalls would be the preferred venue for most fegs, although my own favourite would be Winchester. Are these dates firm or are they still subject to alteration? On Wed, 14 Jul 1999, Capitalism Blows wrote: > is it monford hall, in liverpool, or mountford? This doesn't ring any bells with me. You wouldn't be referring to the De Montfort Hall in Leicester, would you? - - Mike Godwin PS I haven't been to Dingwalls since I played there in 1976[?] with Rocky Ricketts and the Jet Pilots of Jive ... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 05:27:51 PDT From: "Ghost Surfer" Subject: geography >Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:51:50 PDT >From: "Capitalism Blows" >Subject: uk geography q > >is/was the clarendon hotel (and by extension its ballroom) in london, >or >in >hammersmith? Yes. Hammersmith is in London. The Clarendon is no longer there though. The whole area of Hammersmith was re-developed by London Underground who owned the land. On it's site now is an office block occupied by Systems Union. The "ballroom" was above the pub and was reknowned for being VERY hot.. RH played there in '85 supporting the Rain Parade, also on the bill were Mood Six who chose not to perform "Destroy you" that night. The Egyptians set was quite short and RH said something about having problems reaching the venue in his balloon! Could be wrong though, it was a while ago. - ----------------************************************************------------ "There are times when i can't think about the future, when all my days seem so dark and life seems cruel" - Mojave 3 & "Make a moment last forever, gaze across the ocean to the sun" - Unknown !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 06:00:37 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: Re: Summertime jmbc: >A friend of mine wants to collect as many versions of the old Porgy and >Bess standard Summer Time as possible. Any suggestions. If you find one that's better than the Zombies' version let me know. I believe I own versions by Dave Edmunds (w/ Love Sculpture?) and Paul McCartney (on "Choba B CCCP"). Those two don't appear to be listed among the 864 versions noted on the All Music Guide. What brand of blank tape will your friend be using? I want to buy stock before he/she gets started. http://allmusic.com/cg/x.dll?UID=8:43:18|AM&p=amg&sql=HSUMMERTIME Porgy and Bess didn't write the tune, by the way. Their creators, George and Ira did. - -rUss ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:08:19 +0100 (BST) From: toby Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V8 #250 > From: "Capitalism Blows" > hadn't looked closely at the new uk gig listing until today. robyn is > scheduled to play the portland arms on september the 27th. i can state with > some confidence that the last time robyn played this venue was with the soft > boys, in 1979! That seems pretty likely; in the two years that I've lived in Cambridge, there hasn't been a gig there that I've been at all inclined to go to (in fact, I don't even know where it is). Any other UK fegs going to this gig, by the way? And does anyone have a clue when tickets for the Dingwalls gig (indeed any of the gigs) go on sale? toby ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 14:13:18 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: summertime On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, jbranscombe@compuserve.com wrote: > A friend of mine wants to collect as many versions of the old Porgy and > Bess standard Summer Time as possible. Any suggestions. There are four versions for a start on "By George (and Ira)": (1) Stan Getz Quartet, (2) Charlie Parker, (3) Janis Joplin with Big Brother and the Holding Company, and (4) R&B star Billy Stewart. - - MRG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 06:14:48 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: This is the dog talkin', now You mean to tell me that "Stinkfoot" and "Wey Wey Hep Uh Hole" are really the only two songs EVER that feature talking dogs? Usually when a call goes out like this we get a list of 10 or 15 others right off the bat. Eb is good for half-a-dozen. Have we finally been stumped?? - -rUss, who's thinking maybe "Snoopy vs the Red Baron", but even if Snoopy does shout "curse you red baron" somewhere in the song I don't think they ever mention that Snoopy is a dog. DOG: "master, she all full of holes" MASTER: "more than usual?" (this line always kills me!) DOG: "yeah" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:23:10 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Summertime On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Russ Reynolds wrote: > Porgy and Bess didn't write the tune, by the way. Their creators, George > and Ira did. George always wrote the tunes and Ira the lyrics. However, I was surprised to find that 'Summertime' is not credited to Ira, but to D. Heyward-G. Gershwin. See http://www.wam.umd.edu/~losinp/music/miles/porgy.html However, 'Bess you is my woman now' and 'I loves you Porgy' are credited to D Heyward and _both_ Gershwins. Who is D Heyward? - - Mike Godwin Royal Guardsmen PS: I think the line 'He challenged the German to a real dog fight' strongly implies that Snoopy is a dog, even if it is not stated explicitly. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 9:23:6 -0600 From: Paul Christian Glenn Subject: Re: re: ligion At 7/15/99 3:15:00 AM, you wrote: >Paul, leaving aside for a minute your dismissal of the several arguments >posted here against religion as, variously, 'simplistic,ineffective,empty, >vacuous, shallow and silly (strange, many of them, and not just mine(!) >struck me as complex, strong and effective) "Dismissal" is an unfair word to use. I've *not* dismissed the arguments, but rather discounted them until they can be shown pertinent. I've not ignored them, I've answered them and demonstrated *why* they're not acceptable. If you want to convince me of their truth, give them a little substance. I'm not in opposition to these arguments because of what they are, but because of what they can (or, more to the point, *cannot*) show. >I think the central >epistemological question to address is how you know you had an >undeniably >real experience with"God"<. And there it is. This is the question which every atheist (I've encountered so far) ultimately resorts to. It's a fair question, in a sense, but it's always disappointing when the opponent abandons their argument (built from a foundation of it's own merit) in favor of "Oh yeah? Prove it!". Where are the rebuttals? *Why* do you believe what you believe, and *how* do you justify it? *sigh* These are the same unanswered questions which caused me to become so frustrated with the *church*. >I don't want personal details if you don't want >to give them, more a philosophical justification of your certainty. Unfortunately, I won't be baited. I'm sure you're aware that it is impossible to philosophically justify an absolute certainty of *anything*, including our own existence, and eventually this branch of the conversation would deteriorate into an excercise in psychological deconstruction. The point is this: You want me to philosophically justify the certainty of my experience, when in fact the reality of the experience *is* the justification. On an experiential level, perception is, indeed, reality. I cannot make my experience a reality to *you*, and, fortunately, it isn't necessary, because I'm not trying to convert you. (If I was attempting to "prove" that God exists, it would be a different story, but to attempt to do that would be to commit a profound contradiction. If the God that I believe in exists, he *cannot* allow his existence to be proven - that would, on a theological level, nullify the necessity of faith and, on a logical level, eliminate the existence of free will. There is a *reason* that God doesn't show up at your doorstep with angelic attendants and an ID badge.) Finally, my singular experience should not (and, in reality, *cannot*) influence your decision to believe in, or disregard the idea of, God. My experience constitutes part of the reason I believe. The question, once again, is *why* do you disbelieve? That was the original question (which you skirted, BTW), and I have yet to see an answer that isn't circular and self-referencing. For the record, jmbc (and to anyone else reading this), I'm not here to make enemies, and I'm really enjoying this conversation. I just like a good jaw, and I hope that no one is getting hot under the collar, but if so, just lemme know, and I'll be happy to drop it. The *real* reason I'm here is because I really dig Robyn's music, and over the last few months, I've come to dig the company of his fans. :) Paul Christian Glenn | "Besides being complicated, trance@radiks.net | reality, in my experience, http://x-real.firinn.org | is usually odd." -C.S. Lewis Currently Reading: "The Complete Stories" by Flannery O'Connor ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 17:52:39 -0500 From: Michael Hooker Subject: more religion hi, i feel i have to write again. poster paul ( not thr apostle) wrote: ***************************** That's a ludicrously inclusive statement. To begin with, nobody "runs" religion. People run denominations and sects and cults and organizations, but those things have very little to do with true religion. It is true that some of those people have abused their power, but millions more have used that power to better their communities, to reach out to the poor and the powerless, to bring together those who are hurting and point them in a new direction. That's the reality. ***************************************** i think people definately run religions. those at the top put their own personal stamp on the theology, which is why there are changes through out history, and groups splinter off . he says it has nothing to do with " true religion". to me , the true religions to me are the ones we can perceive, that impact lives in various ways, the reality of religion on our societies. if religion is not run by people, why does the theology evolve? why is choosing a pope, or anyone to head a religion, such a big deal? if what he says is true, it shouldnt matter one bit. i also wrote: >by demanding more >and more " faith" as we learned what was going on around us. paul wrote: No more faith is required today than was required 4000 years ago. Unless you can show otherwise, that statement seems a tad silly. silly? you actually think it was no easier believing in the supernatural 4000 years ago than it is now? i'd like to hear others opinions on that one. i also wrote: >i wont even get into all the pain and >suffering caused on our world in the name of religion. paul replied: And what would that have to do with anything? ask that question to the families of anybody who was burned at a stake, murdered in a sectarian war, persecuted for being a " witch", killed in a crusade, ect. paul calls my statements " simplistic". absolutely. religions want to complicate matters like this to the extreme, to obscure the arguments against it. its isnt really complicated at all. the only thing complicated are the reasons religions come up with to support themselves. Mike Hooker ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 10:5:29 -0600 From: Paul Christian Glenn Subject: Re: more religion At 2/15/99 5:52:00 PM, you wrote: >>That's a ludicrously inclusive statement. To begin with, nobody >>"runs" religion. People run denominations and sects and cults and >>organizations, but those things have very little to do with true >>religion. It is true that some of those people have abused their >>power, but millions more have used that power to better their >>communities, to reach out to the poor and the powerless, to >>bring together those who are hurting and point them in a new >>direction. That's the reality. > >i think people definately run religions. Who runs Christianity? Who runs Buddhism? Who runs the "New Age" spirituality? >those at the top put their own >personal stamp on the theology, which is why there are changes through out >history, and groups splinter off . Again, you're referring to sects, organization, and "movements". You're right, those are often run by people. But this is not religion. It is, in fact, the very thing which the scripture abhors. >he says it has nothing to do with " true >religion". to me , the true religions to me are the ones we can perceive, >that impact lives in various ways, the reality of religion on our >societies. Religion does not (and cannot) have any *direct* impact on society. Religious organizations can and do (sometimes to the benefit, sometimes to the detriment). Religion affects individual lives, and then *people* affect society. Also, I'm curious as to why you would think that true religions are the ones we can percieve? If you don't perceive my religion, then I'm not truly religious? How does that logic work? >if religion is not run by people, why does the theology evolve? Because religion is *believed* by people, and people think. (Well, *some* people think ). >why is choosing a pope, or anyone to head a religion, such a big deal? if >what he says is true, it shouldnt matter one bit. It *doesn't* matter one bit. When the Pope dies, I have no idea who the next Pope will be, and I don't care, either. >paul wrote: >No more faith is required today than was required 4000 years ago. >Unless you can show otherwise, that statement seems a tad silly. > >silly? you actually think it was no easier believing in the supernatural >4000 years ago than it is now? That's precisely what I think. Both then and now, to believe in God required that you believe in something you cannot touch, see, or feel. It's a bit easier to "go with the flow" in a society that revolves around religious ritual, but that doesn't make believing in the supernatural any easier. It's a misconception that ancient people were more naive than people are today. We're tempted to believe that ancient people were more superstitious than we are, because it makes us feel secure in our religion of modernism, but there were just as many people who ambivalent about religion back then as there are today. For better or worse, humankind doesn't seem to change much. >i also wrote: >>i wont even get into all the pain and >>suffering caused on our world in the name of religion. > >paul replied: >And what would that have to do with anything? > >ask that question to the families of anybody who was burned at a stake, >murdered in a sectarian war, persecuted for being a " witch", killed in a >crusade, ect. And what would that have to do with anything? >paul calls my statements " simplistic". absolutely. religions want to >complicate matters like this to the extreme, This is the equivalent of saying that science wants to complicate physics to the extreme, or that artists want to complicate inspiration to the extreme. Reality is complicated. If that bothers you, you shouldn't ask questions. >to obscure the arguments >against it. This is an unsubstantiated assumption. You'll have to back it up if you're going for credibility. >its isnt really complicated at all. Not so long as everyone agrees with you. :) Paul Christian Glenn | "Besides being complicated, trance@radiks.net | reality, in my experience, http://x-real.firinn.org | is usually odd." -C.S. Lewis Currently Reading: "The Complete Stories" by Flannery O'Connor ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:18:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: This is the dog talkin', now On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Russ Reynolds wrote: > You mean to tell me that "Stinkfoot" and "Wey Wey Hep Uh Hole" are really > the only two songs EVER that feature talking dogs? Usually when a call goes > out like this we get a list of 10 or 15 others right off the bat. Eb is > good for half-a-dozen. Have we finally been stumped?? Maybe. When the question first came up, I thought it would be easy to think of several examples, but so far I've come up with nary a one. Songs with talking dogs are something that you just feel *has to* exist (this could tie in to the religion thread), but hey, feelings can be wrong. ...Though there IS Skinny Puppy. Some of their music seems to be from the POV of a dog, even if there's no pretence that a dog is singing the lyrics. "-Where did they get the name Skinny Puppy? What does it mean? "cEvin had come up with the name Skinny Puppy even before he had met Ogre, while he was doing some experiments on his own (one of which was Meat Flavour). While the name can be interpreted a number of different ways and has many different levels of meaning, the basic idea is that of an abused, neglected animal who doesn't speak much but when he does it is a pain filled yelp. This concept may have been created after the name was already envisioned, but still holds true. Early on, the concept for the band was to look at the whole world through the eyes of a dog, "seeing through the keyhole", as it were. This resulted in Ogre's lyrics for K-9, which became what is in some ways the first Puppy song." (from the Skinny Puppy FAQ at: ) - --Chris (lay preacher in the United Church of Throgg the Chicken God) ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:21:45 +0000 (GMT) From: Vivien Lyon Subject: So many books, so few in print - --- Michael R Godwin wrote: > AUTHOR: Hitchcock, Raymond. > TITLE: The tunnellers > PLACE: London : > PUBLISHER: Constable, > YEAR: 1986 > PUB TYPE: Book > FORMAT: [192] p. ; 22 cm. > ISBN: 0094666806 : Robyn said that he thought this was his father's best book. I promise I'll transcribe the interview soon. Goddamn my lazy butt. Vivien _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:49:09 -0700 (PDT) From: g Subject: Re: This is the dog talkin', now On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Christopher Gross wrote: >On Thu, 15 Jul 1999, Russ Reynolds wrote: > >> You mean to tell me that "Stinkfoot" and "Wey Wey Hep Uh Hole" are really >> the only two songs EVER that feature talking dogs? Usually when a call goes >> out like this we get a list of 10 or 15 others right off the bat. Eb is >> good for half-a-dozen. Have we finally been stumped?? > >Maybe. When the question first came up, I thought it would be easy to >think of several examples, but so far I've come up with nary a one. >Songs with talking dogs are something that you just feel *has to* exist >(this could tie in to the religion thread), but hey, feelings can be >wrong. I mentioned "Fred" by Ray Stevens. Most of the song is from Ray's point of view, but there is a part in the song where Fred comes home and tells Ray that he's "taken a wife and she's in a family way". But really, I think we've finally been stumped. Cheers! - -Glen- "If white people are allowed to burn down black churches, then black people should be allowed to burn down the 'House of Blues'." - --George Carlin Glen Uber | uberg@sonic.net | http://www.sonic.net/~uberg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:51:39 -0700 (PDT) From: g Subject: Re: This is the dog talkin', now Jeez...I forgot a real obvious one... "Atomic Dog" by George Clinton. Cheers! - -Glen- "If white people are allowed to burn down black churches, then black people should be allowed to burn down the 'House of Blues'." - --George Carlin Glen Uber | uberg@sonic.net | http://www.sonic.net/~uberg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:51:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Vivien Lyon Subject: That Old-Time Religion - --- James Dignan wrote: > agreed. Once (foolishly) I was a New-lifer. (snip) > the conclusion: Jesus taught us the truth - that we > are all equally > children of God - Jesus was like us, human, but had > the prophetic power or > philosophical nous to understand the divine side of > our nature and tell > everyone about it. (snip) > conclusion: God has as many different meanings and > aspects - as many as > there are people on the planet. If God is infinite, > omniscient and > omnipotent, then He can easily defy contradiction. > If that is the case, > then God is the ultimate in split personalities, > reflected in each of us > and also a reflection of each of us. Thus, if you > believe God to be > bigoted, then your aspect of God is. If you do not > believe so, then your > God is not. If it is possible to believe in God as a > three-in-one (sounds > like lubricating oil!), then why not > 6000000000-in-one? I used to be a fairly gung-ho Christian when I was a youngster. I even attended a class called Evangelism Explosion (in which one learns how to efficiently convert the heathens in twenty minutes or less, with enough Bible learnin' to enable one to shuck verses at the victim like ammunition). As life weighed in on me with all its complexity, I began to doubt that God was really paying close attention to things here on earth. Christianity stopped making sense. I tried for years to coax it back into shape, but to no avail. I couldn't fit my experience with the world into the mold that my religion presented me with. Naturally, I was bitter about this. I didn't want to give up Christianity, but I felt I had to, in order to be true to my perceptions. For a long time, I was extremely angry with 'God', and resentful of people who had the solace that certainty brings. As I get older, and the idea of Christianity loses it's hold on me, I'm starting to see the middle way. It no longer seems like wishful thinking to lump the God of Christianity in with the gods of other religions. Christianity seems like just another belief-system, instead of that monolithic THING I rejected (probably assuring my eternal damnation). And hence it's more appealing, because I can see how it could be reinterpreted to make more sense. As James has done. Well, that's that. I'm a Jamesian now. I subscribe to Dignanism. Vivien _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 08:56:33 +0000 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Re: distinction jbranscombe@compuserve.com wrote: > I've tried to stay cool about this one, but Paul's admittedly qualified and > self-confessedly anecdotal observation that atheists rather than > religionists are generally the one's who haven't studied the faiths, seems > (again from *my* necessarily subjective frame) so transparently untrue it's > unbelieveable (now there's a good word). We nullifidians spend a lot of > time trying to get to know our enemy (I speak rhetorically) Whereas most > Christians I argue with don't know their own patch of ground let alone the > bases other belief systems or the philosophical underpinnings of atheism. > I was just going to say this yesterday. All the athiests I know, including myself know a bit about at least 1 religion, that of thier own heratage. I grew up Polish Roman Catholic, which is very pagan. I am first generation American, and went to 16 years of Catholic school, have read and re read the whole bible, (can't quote like a protestant though) studied my Catachism, and am fully aware that "in the eyes of god" as a woman, have a lesser place in his creation. I have concluded after those 16 years that Christianity is a myth, just as the Greek myths (who also have half god half man characters, maybe not as peacenic as Jesus, but that is one place the Christians based their character from) or the Indian myths, or even North American myths are in fact stories passed on in their culture in the place of laws dictated by a government boy. Which is not to say that they did not have a government body, but the government was more in charge with borders and warfare that the day to day tort disputes of the people. Then come the myths, which help inforce a moral law-code for the day to day lives of people. Of coarse when these myths were taken as more important that the state the state had to start adoping them as thier own. OK this is just a brief overlay of my theories on how myth became so governmental. Of coarse when there were only tribes, nyth kept those members in place. etcc.... I'll stop now, but my point is is that I have read The lives of the Saints, the Bible, the catachism, Vatican II writtings, etc.. Granted I don't know much beyond Polish Roman Catholicism, but RC shaped a lot of social behavior during the byzantium days and it still dictates much behavior. Other rekligions I am limited to Josph Cambell books. OK I rambled a bit, but the point is is that I haveread what i was required to do, and have gone through 4 of the 7 sacraments and now believe that it is all BS to regulate human behavior, there is no god inforcing these rules with the punishment of hell. That is obsurde. eleanore ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 12:02:15 EDT From: DDerosa5@aol.com Subject: ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray ray Mike Godwin sent word of the existence of: AUTHOR: Hitchcock, Raymond, 1922- TITLE: Fighting cancer. PUBLISHER: Angel, YEAR: 1989 PUB TYPE: Book FORMAT: [144] p. ISBN: 0947785280 (pbk) : SUBJECT: Cancer -- Religious aspects -- Christianity. Man -- Cancer - Christian viewpoints wow, this sounds fascinating. and it brings our threads together into a rich tapestry of...never mind, that cliche goes nowhere. Anyway, I'd love to know more about this and the Tunnelers book. And about these postcards--fegs are inveterate collectors, someone out there must have some? OK, I'll leave Ray in Peace for a while... dave PS what was Robyn's mom's name again? EJH? is it what it seems? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 12:10:52 -0400 From: lj lindhurst Subject: Re: This is the dog talkin', now Well, it isn't a song, but the movie "BAXTER" is all told from the point of view of a pitbull with a very ridiculous French accent. ("zee old ladee...how I fantazize about keeling her!" and such) This is one FABULOUS and STRANGE movie, and if you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it... you especially, eddie! am I the only one who misses our dearest Eb????? Should we start a "Buy Eb a Modern Computer" fund? lj ******************************** LJ Lindhurst White Rabbit Graphic Design http://www.w-rabbit.com Brooklyn, NYC 718-596-7234 ljl@w-rabbit.com ******************************** "If I find a coin on the ground I PICK UP Regardless of its later Dispositions." --Yukio Murakami ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:11:17 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: turn on Hey, a friend of mine sent me an email asking what it is about Robyn Hitchcock's music that turns me on. I'm going to send her a rather detailed reply, trying my best to explain why my personal taste is what it is. I also thought it might be cool to include some short quotes from other fegs explaining why they like RH. So, if anyone wants to contribute a short explanation of why Robyn's music turns them on, then go ahead and I'll add it to the message. Later Joel ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 15:58:31 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael Wolfe Subject: RE: attn Portland Fegs! >what is the state of public radio in Oregon? Is it just me, or is this a tautology? The state of public radio in Oregon is Oregon! >what is its programming like around Portland? Well, we have 4-ish public stations that I know of. There's: KOPB -- Big FM NPR affiliate. KBPS -- 24 hour classical (based at my high school alma mater, too!) KBOO -- Community supported FM public radio. KPSU -- Ultra-low wattage AM station affiliated with Portland State University. >any decent experimental venues (college radio) ? I'm not sure what experimental radio entails -- the technology itself is pretty mature. But in terms of content, KBOO is about as eclectic and free-form as you could hope for. KPSU isn't bad either, but I couldn't go into details as to exactly how either is programmed. Hope that this helps (in spite of my smartass remarks). - -Michael Wolfe ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #251 *******************************