From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #257 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, July 18 1999 Volume 08 : Number 257 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: JfS review from the SF comical [Eb ] Re: smoking ["Russ Reynolds" ] Re: Pride and joy, etc. [lj lindhurst ] Re: smoking [Debora K ] the feg-neck chymes in... [David Dudich ] Re: seven in one blow... [Joel Mullins ] Re: speaking of foul spew... [Joel Mullins ] Re: smoking [Joel Mullins ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V8 #256 ["Edward Doxtator" ] Robyn in Chill, part II [DDerosa5@aol.com] Intelligent non-smoking dogs, etc. ["JH3" ] Eyes Wide Shut [Miles Goosens ] Re: Eyes Wide Shut [hal brandt ] Re: Eyes Wide Shut [hal brandt ] Re: Eyes Wide Shut [hal brandt ] Re: smoking [ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 12:20:39 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: JfS review from the SF comical >3 stars (of 5; "good") >ROBYN HITCHCOCK, Jewels for Sophia, Warner Bros., $16.98 > >"Oh please, somebody ring the cheese alarm," pleads Robyn Hitchcock >early on "Jewels for Sophia." Since we never know where the eccentric >British singer/ songwriter finds his inspiration, "The Cheese larm" >could literally be a rallying cry for dairy foods. More likely, it's a >cryptic indictment of superficial contemporary pop, coming from an >artist who has championed the classic psychedelic folk-rock tradition >for nearly two decades. He loses none of his charm or lyrical wit here, >spinning out faithfully swaying tracks like "I Feel Beautiful" and >"Antwoman." >-- Aidin Vaziri Heh...I know Aidin. :) Sounds like sort of a log-rolling review...I doubt he's much of a fan. He's more into Radiohead, London Suede and that type of thing. And techno. Eb PS "Faithfully swaying"? What the heck does that mean? ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 13:06:32 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: Re: smoking >I generally ask people around me if I wish to smoke around them (that is, >if they are non-smokers or an unknown quantity, fellow smokers I don't ask >obviously). So if they are fine with it, what is the problem? None. That's great that you are considerate. Most of the time I'm fine with it if you ask. What I object to are people who think it's their right to light one up without consideration for the people around them. >If someone asked if they could urinate on me, I would say no. Well then I've learned something about you today. >they would go elsewhere to urinate. I have no idea why it would be >offensive if both parties consented and all that. It would probably offend others around them. Best to check with everyone. >>There's a law against shooting people because it makes them >>uncomfortable. > >Difference. Annoyed, uncomfortable, versus a bleeding wound. no difference--just a greater degree of discomfort. >I've got a >blistering nasty wound right now Too much information. >And you keep your body odor, your over-appliance of cologne, your ugly >clothes, your bad haircut, your singing Jimmy Buffet songs out loud, and >anything else that might offend me out of my space too. The point being >that every damn thing is offensive to someone, should there be laws about >anything that might potentially irritate -anyone-? I'm not saying there should or shouldn't be laws against offensive behaviour. I'm saying people should be considerate of others. If that means bathing, cutting back on cologne, hiring a fashion consultant, avoiding Supercuts and humming "margaritaville" quietly to yourself then take it upon yourself to do those things without being told. That's called common courtesy...though sadly it isn't very common any more. - -rUss ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:17:23 -0400 From: lj lindhurst Subject: Re: Pride and joy, etc. Eb says: >from Pink Floyd's "Breathe" (off Dark Side of the Moon). Thanks for clearing that up!! like, DUUHHHH!!! ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 13:45:39 -0700 From: Debora K Subject: Re: smoking I smoke and Rush is my favorite band. With those nasty confessions aside... I will bring up something that happened last year at Robyn's show, here in Seattle. Debora and I were 2nd row (if rows in the Croc are possible) and I almost lit up a cigarette during the performance. I caught myself fortunately, and put it back. I noticed no one else was smoking under Robyn's nose earlier but the "hand to mouth" habit of smoking almost caused me to commit a no-no. When Robyn left the stage, I noticed many folks lighting up. I am an extremely courteous smoker and have endured plane flights, train rides, friends automobiles without having to indulge in my pleasure but I figure it's my own damn doing. I'm not going to die without a smoke, and being uncomfortable is one of the many prices I pay for my indulgance. I went to the Bite of Seattle yesterday and only smoked when I could step out of a crowd. I also had my picture taken with Joyce Taylor, our local babealicious anchor woman. Could I send this to the cone museum : )? See ya at the show(s?). You can't miss me. Vince PS. Ross-John Cale. Thank youooo for the gift...Gotta get more Velvet Underground. ___________________________________________________________________ Get the Internet just the way you want it. Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month! Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:51:20 -0400 From: David Dudich Subject: the feg-neck chymes in... > Since there was a mention of 'raslin', I had to chime in. It is well known I defend "this stuff" as a quintesntial American Art form...It is just cartoon violent 'performance art'...I think, after seeing a 45 yr old brit playing with plastic fishes through reverb while telling stories about invisible hovercraft salesmen in the Wales twlight country side, we can all at least appreciate performance art. Maybe its just cuz I have redneck blood. :) btw, any feg musicians on the list in the DC area- watch out for Tavern on the HIll---Number Nine Line was all set to perform last night (And I - Do mean - PERFORM (see the below) :)), and I got a call on my home answering machine FRIDAY NIGHT AFTER 5 that "we goofed up and doulbe booked". ....and then ended up telling our opening act we were supposed to be there after all. what a bunch of 'roody-poo candt asses'. :) In robyn-related stuff, what does "Mexican God" sound like? sonically, what other Robyn album does this most sound (or "feel") like? -luther > From: Eleanore Adams > Subject: Just need to talk.... > > OK, it has never been mentioned here, but we do have some smokers on > here....I went to the WWF kaboom last night and it was highly > entertaining. This would be the World Wrestling Federation. To those who > do not have 10 year old sons, this would be those costumed steroid guys > who fake fighting every Monday night on USA cable network. I had a lot > of fun. The croud was mostly white trash and hispanics, parents with > kids. I screamed so hard I lost my voice today. > > You see there are good guys and bad guys and you cheer for your > favorites. Now there is a lot of foul language and psudo violence, but > all in fun. It is a plast to see parents and kids using the finger and > shouting "you suck" together. When I have kids we are definately going > (instead of chuch - you know that the bad guys do suck this week for > sure!) > Ah, "faces and heels"...gotta love it... > > We drank lots of booze, but all of us were non smokers, so none of us > had to sneak outside on the stairs of the San Jose Area to puff. We did > all have steak befroe the show, mine ultra rare, still clod in the > middle, just the way I like it. > > Isn't America fun and beautiful! I even got to see the Rock's bare ass. > And Cyna's bra top poped off, and that wasn't part of the script. Chyna scares me...:) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:31:56 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: seven in one blow... D B wrote: > And if the devil is six... then god is seven... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:33:58 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: speaking of foul spew... Terrence M Marks wrote: > > This is not a good reason to make cigarettes illegal. If I want to kill > > myself by smoking, I should have the right to do that. > > Why? Because it's my body. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 16:40:19 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: smoking Russ Reynolds wrote: > To me it's not even about that. It's just about being respectful of > others... Well, this is pretty much your whole argument and I can't disagree with it. I am respectful of others and always try to keep the peace. However, I do feel that smoking in bars should be a decision that's made by the bar's owner, not the government. If you don't like the smoke, then don't go there. It's that simple. Joel ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 17:19:40 -0600 From: "Edward Doxtator" Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V8 #256 Hey all... JUST got back from Robyn's in-store appearance at the magical Quaker Bleeds Oats Rekkid Shop (not its real name, but I cannot remember its real name for the life of me...) and it was a fine time. Robyn played a couple of tunes (persons with better memories than mine will be posting that list soon, but I can tell you more songs were suggested by the crowd than he played)-- I remember hearing Deeeechirico St., Mexican God, a Joan Baez cover, Cynthia Mask, and Sleeping With Your Devil Mask. Clothes report-- big shirt, with many colours. Black jeans. After the set, I asked him if he was thinking of doing an Isle Of Wight show, maybe in the fall. He said he didn't think so as there wasn't enough time this year. But next summer he wants to do one. Book your tickets now folks, it's certainly worth the trip. Last night's Eaten By Her Own Dinner, hosted by Viv, was tremendous! It was good fun, loads of Robyn-related food, and an advance listen of Jewels For Sophia. I'd heard about 2/3rds of the tunes on the album, but all live, and almost all acoustic. The electric stuff is great, and I'm looking forward to Tuesday when I can get my own copy of the damn thing. Viv-- You're the Queen Of Eyescream Hands. Gnat-- Well done, presenting Robyn with a statue. Dolph-- Thanks for giving me a chance to meetcha. Dave-- You make great waffles. We'll have to investigate this beer phenomenon that's sweeping our land. The show last night was somewhat mixed for me. E.A.R. I liked it. Mr. Boom is still one of my favourite "I like to make weird noises" kinds of artists. I wish he'd play the GUITAR, though! I could see why other people wouldn't like it. He has loads of sound patterns laid upon each other, interacting and then Mr. Boom spends his time on stage with his back to the audience, tweaking of various conrols on a console. The units that generate sound patterns are modified "Speak 'n' Spells". I was facinated, and as Susan rightly pointed out, it takes some stones to hang this sort of thing out on the stage and have people listen to it. Robyn. I liked it. Again, there'll be a full posting, if there isn't one already. The set sort of seemed ordinary until he picked up the electric, and cranked out a version of "Freeze" that'd knock your dick in the dirt, if you posess such a thing. He was all over that damn guitar, it was so great to hear him and see him tear that fucker up. It's been several years since I've seen him just go nuts like that. If he does tour JFS later in the year with a band, MAN, it could be one wicked experience. Sebadoh. Who? The Flaming Lips. Right. I like some of The Soft Bulliten. And the tunes I like, I heard. They also did a tune from Clouds Taste Metallic (my favourite Lips album) called "When You Smile", which I like quite a lot. So overall, I liked their performance. I wasn't too much into the video display with guys getting their brains blown out, or exploding airplanes, or surgical films of human hearts beating, etc. But since the damn place was so crowded, I couldn't see much of the big TV projection. The FM thingy was kind of cool. It enables you to hear the mix in the booth (so you can pick up stereo seperation effects, and hear the lyrics), and still get into the feel of having bass rock under your feet. The only bad part of the Walkman bit was that you have to check out their radio-only Walkmans. You leave your ID as deposit, and then at the end of the show, you get a sweat bath from the 1,500 other people trying to return their Walkmans at the same time as you in 100+ heat. In short, I liked the show. But not enough to go back for a second night. And finally... Joel said: >This is not a good reason to make cigarettes illegal. If I want to kill >myself by smoking, I should have the right to do that. And then Terry said: >Why? It's not a question which merits a logical answer. I eat fried foods, and they're not good for me. But I like them. So you can ask why, and you already know the answer. "Because I like it." Joel also said: >>So I assume you think that a 16 year old kid is too immature to make a >>decision about whether or not to smoke. If that's truly the case, then >>why the fuck are we giving them driver's licenses? A shitload of >>children don't even live long enough to die from smoking because of some >>immature 16 year old's reckless driving. In fact, auto accidents is the >>leading cause of death among teenagers. >You can't compare the two accurately. Driving, as you may have noticed, >isn't addictive. I have no illusions about how mature I was back then and >don't think that targetting youth for chemical dependance is a >particularly nice thing. Um... for a sixteen year old, I don't think that the question IS addiction. The question is image, freedom, independance, telling the old man to stick it in his arse, identity, etc. A car grants independance. I drive cos my friends drive. My parents don't like me smoking, so I do it to piss 'em off. I do it cos my friends do it. Sorry, but peer pressure is still the biggest driving force (no pun intended), next to hormones, in a teenage boy's life. However, if you tell me that there are people out there who aren't addicted to the adrenaline rush that driving fast can provide, I'm puzzled. I suspect if you ask any race car driver, and they'll tell you they like the speed. I have no idea what motivates teenage girls. I didn't fifteen years ago, and I certainly don't now. Look after yerselves - -Ed, Doc, ~~...Kim's got her watermelon gun...~~ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 18:22:10 EDT From: DDerosa5@aol.com Subject: Robyn in Chill, part II eddie opined: somebody please, please, please tape the instore on sunday! i think it's especially important to get the instores on this tour, as the gigs proper are so fucking short. well, bad news, none of us fegs did. Good news, I talked with a guy named derrick who did, and will get a tape to me next week once I send him money. I was a great set; close, hot, and less than a hundred people jammed into the store. Guitar mike didn't work, so set-up was a bitch (Robyn claimed he hates machines because they get in between people)(with derisiveness toward email--bah! Heavens, what would he think of us...)(let's not go there.) All of us from the show were there, plus other fans. He started with Silver Dagger, segued to Sleeping with your Devil Mask, and right into Oceanside. Bunch of requests, many of which he turned down as he had no electric--I was asking for Knights of Jesus and Ghost Ship, which he considered, but went into De Chirico Street. Cool. requests continued, One Long pair of Eyes (which said had too many words), and Beautiful Queen, which he said was such a bitch that he couldn't even reach the chords. He went into Tonight, which sounded good, a great comment about "I was a creepy young man" during the line "It was me but you don't know what for". SOmeone asked for a really sloppy version of I Wanna destroy you", which he did, but with totally different lyrics. and music. odd. hilarious. easy listening. Finally, I requested "Mexican God", and he sternly told me I wasn't to have heard that yet, "it doesn't come out for two more days." rahter than explaining, Doc said "yeah, we just know the title", to which Robyn responded "I've only played it the one time, haven't done it live yet." AND HE DID! it rocked. I wish we had served crushed garlic and babies at the EBHODD. He considered a bunch more requests, but ended with "Cynthia Mask." and signed things, and accepted Dolph's CD and Gnat's Thoth. and assorted gifts. I asked for a longer set tonight, instead of Sebadoh, and he said "that's not in the cards." Oh well, he said he'd be back this fall for a show at Lounge Ax. He said the outtakes album will be out in November (no title yet), at the "Museum of Me". that's all apart from his concerns about drowing in his own sweat. Must preserve precious bodily fluids... Oh, last thing, I left out "Glass Hotel" from the giglist last night, it came before VST. and here are dolph and Becca: La! I've been commanded to type something, and as a young feg, I feel compelled to obey my elders. As I sit here in my Fegshirt, I'm at a loss to describe the intensity and of being less than 10 feet away from such a charismatic personality, though I was farther away than the Gnat and Viv. Ohh, the curse of being tall. I enjoyed the in-store much more than the concert, even though he was wearing seafoam green trousers with lavendar irises at the concert. Having no dialogue during the MABD was very disappointed, but redeemed at the instore. Being at a loss, I think I'll shut up now. La. Becca. A few other notes from everyone's favorite dolphing specialist... I enjoyed Sebadoh a bunch because I just do, plus it was Lou's birthday. And the Lips too -- even after having been showered with beer by cranial giants who tried to mosh with brews aloft and shouted "WAAAAAAYNE! STEEEEEVEN!" -- great stuff from the band, and the best use of puppets in indie-rock I've ever seen. Fegs are once again the nicest people. 8-) The in-store was a great treat, giving one complete concert's worth over the weekend. When I presented him the CD, he looked it over, said "Dolph Chaney?" and scrutinized me pretty intently, then decided he'd keep it rather than sign it and give it back to me. That was good of him. A fantastic weekend! love Dolph Dave again, just want to say, stop talking about smoking, more Robyn! Joel, you're lucky your money order got here in time, many fegs wanted it--who knows if Morris and Andy will be around to sign in the future...?I look forward to hearing about future instores--your own private Storefront Hitchcock! bye. dave (tonight I'll pst the MABD setlist) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 18:05:32 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Intelligent non-smoking dogs, etc. From DDerosa5@aol.com: >It was quite cool finally meeting Susan, Doc, Zloduska, and >Dolph and Becca (who are sleeping in the next room as I type >this). I still hope to meet some new folks tomorrow, like Hedblade-- >and where the hell is JH3 when you need him? Shirking his responsibilities to the feg community? I had a really unfortunate scheduling problem that forced me to stay home this weekend - typical of the sort of thing that happens to me, really. I'm going to be in Schaumburg Monday and Tuesday nite, if that helps...? From jbranscombe@compuserve.com: >Olaf Stapledon's novel Sirius is about a man in a dog's >body. Very good, though again I read it ages ago. Too many ages, I'd say (not to cast aspersions or anything). I read that one fairly recently, and I've got the actual book in front of me, and I'm afraid it's about an actual dog. Quote: "By introducing a certain hormone into the bloodstream of the mother, [Dr. Trelone] could affect the growth of the brain in the unborn young," creating a super-smart canine, e.g. Sirius, the tite-dog. Not a bad book, but it's basically an explicatory essay; what passes for a plot is pretty much straight out of the 1931 movie version of "Frankenstein." For talking animals, I'd much sooner recommend Jonathan Lethem's "Gun, With Occasional Music". And at the risk of spoiling any popularity I might have left: >>If I smoke in my own home, it has no effect on you. I don't think this is strictly true. IMHO the most legitimate reason to be against smoking in the USA is the fact that the proportion of medical expenses incurred by smoking-related illnesses is way out of proportion to almost any other medical problem caused by preventable behavior - including gun violence. The resulting increased demand for health care drives up costs to the extent that people with serious conditions not caused by their own behavior can't afford to get properly treated for them. We'll never have universal health care in the US, much less Scandinavian-style socialized medicine, as long as our behavior allows doctors to charge exhorbitant rates (due to high demand) for their services. Also, *nobody* should delude themselves over who will ultimately pay for (or benefit from) all these multi-billion dollar tobacco settlements that are going on as we argue about this stuff. *Everybody* pays (in the form of higher insurance premiums), and a small coterie of lawyers are the ones who benefit. Of course, you could still smoke in your own home and have it not affect anyone else, as long as you don't end up with a serious illness because of it. Some people don't, I suppose. But there's the law of averages to be considered here. Eddie "CapBlowz" Tews is also correct about cigarette exports - in order to defray the political cost of anti-smoking laws in the USA, American politicians have taken to doing things like threatening to close US markets for other goods if other countries don't open their markets to our tobacco companies. Another fine example of the cravenness of our leaders, which only suggests to others that we don't really care about the human cost of the nasty things we produce, as long as we don't have to pay for it ourselves. I'll get off the ol' soapbox now. John H. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 19:00:25 -0500 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Eyes Wide Shut Melissa and I just got back from Kubrick's last film (unless Tom & Nicole converted him to Scientology and therefore Stanley will develop L. Ron Hubbard-like powers of being able to create new material from beyond the grave)... ...and? Well, unless reinserting the six minutes trimmed from the US version to get an "R" instead of an "NC-17" would have the effect of magically repairing the script used for the other one hundred fifty minutes, or could bestow upon Tom Cruise the ability to act, I'm afraid this one takes home the "overhyped mediocrity" prize for '99. Beyond even the power of nekkid Nicole to redeem. later, Miles ====================================================== Miles Goosens R. Stevie Moore website http://www.rsteviemoore.com My personal website http://www.mindspring.com/~outdoorminer/miles "If a million people say a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing." -- Anatole France ====================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 18:52:37 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: Re: Eyes Wide Shut > Well, unless reinserting the six minutes trimmed from the US > version to get an "R" instead of an "NC-17" would have the effect of > magically repairing the script used for the other one hundred fifty > minutes, or could bestow upon Tom Cruise the ability to act, I'm afraid > this one takes home the "overhyped mediocrity" prize for '99. Beyond even > the power of nekkid Nicole to redeem. I'm in TOTAL disagreement here. The movie is brilliant from beginning to end. Mesmerizing and hypnotic. Kubrick obviously knew this subject matter (it has to be autobiographical in some way. Cruise has hinted that this is, indeed, the case.) Cruise/Kidman were fine and the fact that SK was using their status and their real life marriage to full thematic effect overcomes the shortcomings (if any) in their technique in these very difficult roles. The supporting players were great also. Six minutes were not trimmed, but digital characters were inserted over humping buttocks to get the rating that was contractually required. While I wish that hadn't been necessary, not a frame was missing and SK even came up with the idea of the digitization process which doesn't interrupt the tracking shot of the scene or change the tone in any real way. If you're looking for the alterations they do resemble ink blots on a master's composition, but the DVD should correct that. If my ass hadn't been so uncomfortable in the multiplex seats, the 158 minute running time would have whizzed by. Go see this film and then root for it at the Oscars. I can't imagine seeing a better film this year (but I'm still anticipating loving Blair Witch. Be sure to watch the special on the SciFi Channel first. It's well done and adds to the scary fun.) /hal ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 19:00:34 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: Re: Eyes Wide Shut > Well, unless reinserting the six minutes trimmed from the US > version to get an "R" instead of an "NC-17" would have the effect of > magically repairing the script used for the other one hundred fifty > minutes, or could bestow upon Tom Cruise the ability to act, I'm afraid > this one takes home the "overhyped mediocrity" prize for '99. Beyond even > the power of nekkid Nicole to redeem. I'm in TOTAL disagreement here. The movie is brilliant from beginning to end. Mesmerizing and hypnotic. Kubrick obviously knew this subject matter (it has to be autobiographical in some way. Cruise has hinted that this is, indeed, the case.) Cruise/Kidman were fine and the fact that SK was using their status and their real life marriage to full thematic effect overcomes the shortcomings (if any) in their technique in these very difficult roles. The supporting players were great also. Six minutes were not trimmed, but digital characters were inserted over humping buttocks to get the rating that was contractually required. While I wish that hadn't been necessary, not a frame was missing and SK even came up with the idea of the digitization process which doesn't interrupt the tracking shot of the scene or change the tone in any real way. If you're looking for the alterations they do resemble ink blots on a master's composition, but the DVD should correct that. If my ass hadn't been so uncomfortable in the multiplex seats, the 158 minute running time would have whizzed by. Go see this film and then root for it at the Oscars. I can't imagine seeing a better film this year (even though I'm still anticipating loving The Blair Witch Project. Be sure to watch the special on the SciFi Channel first. It's well done and adds to the scary fun.) /hal ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 19:08:19 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: Re: Eyes Wide Shut Sorry about that double post. Here's a cool pic to make amends, Kubrick-heads: http://www.eyeswideshut.com/sk.jpg ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1999 18:05:21 -0600 From: ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com Subject: Re: smoking >None. That's great that you are considerate. Most of the time I'm fine >with it if you ask. What I object to are people who think it's their right >to light one up without consideration for the people around them. One thing tho- it is a habit, and like other habits, very much something that one can be forgetful about. I don't think it's my right to make others share my habit with me, which is one reason you won't see me lighting one up at the bus stop. On the other hand, I can see where people do it unthinkingly, not because they think it's a right per se, but because they're not paying attention, and I ain't immune to that, neither. In those cases, well, I can't speak for everyone but personally I'm happy to stub the dern thing out if you bring such thoughtlessness to my notice. >>If someone asked if they could urinate on me, I would say no. > >Well then I've learned something about you today. Oh, not really. I have a feeling this is very common. >>they would go elsewhere to urinate. I have no idea why it would be >>offensive if both parties consented and all that. > >It would probably offend others around them. Best to check with everyone. Obviously best case scenario is to use the facilities provided. The question is, hypothetically speaking, would it be the urination that would be more offensive or the exposure of body parts no one in the crowd especially wanted to see? Personally I find the latter to be worse, which is one of the reasons I'm glad I'm not a guy. The idea of having to see random strangers' genitals all the time is kind of unpleasant to me. >>Difference. Annoyed, uncomfortable, versus a bleeding wound. > >no difference--just a greater degree of discomfort. If it gets gangrenous and my leg falls off, that goes beyond discomfort and into harm, to my way of thinking. Second hand smoke won't cause loss of a limb. >I'm not saying there should or shouldn't be laws against offensive >behaviour. I'm saying people should be considerate of others. Well, you said something to the effect that you were all for any law that prevents people from making you uncomfortable. I just don't know that these sorts of small courtesies are something that can or should be legislated. Personally, the smell of cooking meat really kinda squicks me. It squicks and icks me in what I believe is probably a similar fashion to the way the smell of smoke icks you. I'd never say that I was for legislation that said no one could cook meat in public spaces. People who carry on extended conversations in movie theaters also really irritate the shit out of me, but I'd never say that there oughta be a law about it. >take it upon yourself to do those things without being told. That's called >common courtesy...though sadly it isn't very common any more. We're not fundamentally in disagreement. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #257 *******************************