From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #156 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, June 14 2000 Volume 09 : Number 156 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Strunk & Hedges [Natalie Jacobs ] martian clouds all over nyc [dmw ] Re: Strunk & Hedges ["JH3" ] eb all over the world ["The Kielbasa Kid" ] Re: Strunk & Hedges [MARKEEFE@aol.com] Seafood chowder all over the world ["Gary Sedgwick" ] Re: eb all over the world [Capuchin ] Re: eb all over the world [Christopher Gross ] Re: nuclear winter all over the television [dmw ] Re: nuclear winter all over the television [David Librik ] Re: your mail ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: Scooters (a.k.a. Seeking Subzero Percentages of Robyn Content) ["Stew] riverboat cruise ["Stewart C. Russell" ] [0% rh] Courtney Love on piracy ["Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Strunk & Hedges > There's only one serious punctuation > error (the semi-colon before the end-quote in the last paragraph) Shit! Shit, shit, shit! I'm going to commit proofreader-seppuku right now!! Where's my red pencil? > Of course, I *might* take exception to the failure to capitalize the > seemingly-independent clause immediately following the first colon > in paragraph 4, but I realize I'm on shaky ground with respect to > the whole caps-after-colons issue, and always will be. You don't capitalize after a semi-colon, you capitalize after a period. Them's the rules, boyo. > As far as the content, well, I automatically tune out as soon as > I see the word "resonance." So what did you think of the first three paragraphs? n. np: "English Roundabout" (there's roundabouts in Portland! Kewl!) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:45:59 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: martian clouds all over nyc On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 digja611@student.otago.ac.nz wrote: > >> >> wouldn't work on todays audience in its originally broadcast state.> > >> > yeah, but this doesn't get at the point of the first comment. If the WotW > broadcast was done today in the manner it was back in the (when? late > 1930s?), it wouldn't fool people in the same way. People are a lot more > questioning of the media now, to start with, and would be particulatrly > wary (I'd hope) of news bulletins being read out by actors rather than > newsreaders. It'd still fool some, sure, but I doubt it would cause the > same epidemic of panic. Note that April fools gags, which are designed to sometime maybe in the early 80s there was a tv movie about an incident of nuclear terrorism, done in the style of a live emergency bulletin. it had a banner running on the screen *the whole time* and frequent voiceovers pointing out that it was a work of fiction...and it *still* fooled a lot of people. - -- d. np captain beefheart & his magic band _grow fins_ (3) ...ladies and gentlemen, we may have a "whee!" on our hands... - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = guitar pop ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:48:26 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: Strunk & Hedges >> ...I realize I'm on shaky ground with respect to >> the whole caps-after-colons issue, and always will be. >You don't capitalize after a semi-colon, you capitalize after >a period. Them's the rules, boyo. I'm talking about capitalizing after *colons,* not semi-colons! The reason I say I'm on shaky ground on that issue is because I learned proofreading using the GPO (US Govt. Printing Office) Style Manual, and sometimes it disagrees with more widely- accepted private-sector style manuals like the New York Times' and the Chicago Tribune's. I'm not sure what the other manuals suggest in this case, but I often still write this way: As long as the part of the sentence after the colon can stand on its own grammatically, it should (according to GPO) be capitalized as if it were a separate sentence. For all I know, they might have changed that rule during the last 9 years. They may have even changed the rule that tells you to always write "9 years" instead of "nine years." (Are there any US Federal employees on this list who feel like looking this stuff up? I mean, don't do it just on *my* account.) >So what did you think of the first three paragraphs? Actually, I agree with you completely about which songs are the highlights. I just don't think the rest are as bad as you (and some other folks) seem to think they are... Of course, that's just what you'd *expect* me to say, isn't it? John "it's not like *I've* done any Wasp Star icons" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:03:14 PDT From: "The Kielbasa Kid" Subject: eb all over the world boy, is it just me, or are the harmonies on ALL HANDS ON THE BAND ONE just *impossibly* sublime? this album is *really* growing on me. i think i disagree, however, with whomever it was -- michael k.? -- said called it a return to their punk rock roots. it's essentially a pop album, you ask me. (though, of course, the same songs played "live" in concerts are punk rocked up like no tomorrow!) anyhow, i'm thinking it's about time for them to cover Uncorrected Pesonality Traits (and i'm *not* kidding). also, i think Big Sky may just be my fave lou reed song of the '90s. (yeah, yeah, you may say it was released *after* the '90s. but according to capuchin's calendar, the '90s don't end until december 31, 2000. so there.) um, you seem to be forgetting that chris elliott invented the concept of "nude robot dancing". ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:15:44 EDT From: MARKEEFE@aol.com Subject: Re: Strunk & Hedges In a message dated 6/13/00 4:05:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jh3@winco.net writes: << >> ...I realize I'm on shaky ground with respect to >> the whole caps-after-colons issue, and always will be. >You don't capitalize after a semi-colon, you capitalize after >a period. Them's the rules, boyo. I'm talking about capitalizing after *colons,* not semi-colons! The reason I say I'm on shaky ground on that issue is because I learned proofreading using the GPO (US Govt. Printing Office) Style Manual, and sometimes it disagrees with more widely- accepted private-sector style manuals like the New York Times' and the Chicago Tribune's. I'm not sure what the other manuals suggest in this case, but I often still write this way: As long as the part of the sentence after the colon can stand on its own grammatically, it should (according to GPO) be capitalized as if it were a separate sentence. >> That's how I've learned it, too. Not as any rule from a style guide, either. Just as plain ol' grammar. - ------Michael K. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 01:28:10 +0100 From: "Gary Sedgwick" Subject: Seafood chowder all over the world I was over in SF a few weeks ago (working for 4 days in Palo Alto - I didn't have time to get in touch with any Bay fegs as it was only confirmed on the Friday that I was flying out on the Sunday!), and had myself some seafood chowder, some excellent sushi, and was introduced to Anchor Steam, which is indeed a very tasty beer! I didn't get to do much sight-seeing, although I did drive out to Half Moon Bay to watch the sunset over the Pacific - I could imagine Robyn writing a song about that beach (and no, that was not meant to be some tenuous excuse for Robyn content!). Woj has kindly set up the mailing list for my unsigned bands / artists site - it's digital-music@smoe.org, and the subscription details are the same as for fegmaniax. PLEASE, PLEASE subscribe if you're interested, and especially if you are a musician. You'll be the people shaping the site. If anyone's got any specific questions, please feel free to email me personally. Gary PS Who's up for the Lee River Valley Cruise? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 15:57:56 -0700 From: Glen Uber Subject: nuclear winter all over the television On 13.06.00 15:45, dmw wrote: > sometime maybe in the early 80s there was a tv movie about an incident of > nuclear terrorism, done in the style of a live emergency bulletin. it had > a banner running on the screen *the whole time* and frequent voiceovers > pointing out that it was a work of fiction...and it *still* fooled a lot > of people. That wasn't "The Day After," was it? I remember being pretty freaked out after watching that one when it was broadcast. I must have been 13 or 14 at the time and knew it was fake, but it still gave me fits of restlessness for several days afterward. n.p. The Tom Leykis Show - -- Cheers! Glen "take me out with a bong rip" the Glenster ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:34:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: eb all over the world On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, The Kielbasa Kid wrote: > (yeah, yeah, you may say it was released *after* the '90s. but > according to capuchin's calendar, the '90s don't end until december > 31, 2000. so there.) Yes, it does. My Calendar also says that the first day of Spring is 2 February in the Northern Hemisphere and 1 September in the Southern. Also, Winter starts on Halloween up here and May Day in the South. My Calendar says that every Wednesday is Sushi Wednesday. These days you should hold sacred. Je. - -- ______________________________________________ J A Brelin Capuchin ______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:34:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: eb all over the world On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Capuchin wrote: > On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, The Kielbasa Kid wrote: > > (yeah, yeah, you may say it was released *after* the '90s. but > > according to capuchin's calendar, the '90s don't end until december > > 31, 2000. so there.) > > Yes, it does. Well I beg to differ. The century and millenium end on Dec. 31, 2000. However, the decade known as "the nineties" consists of those ten years whose numbers end in ninety-something, ie, 1990 to 1999. Hence the name "nineties." We are no longer in the nineties. (And yes, you could say that the first century's first nameable decade -- "the units," let's call it -- only had nine years.) - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:16:51 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: nuclear winter all over the television On Tue, 13 Jun 2000, Glen Uber wrote: > On 13.06.00 15:45, dmw wrote: > > > sometime maybe in the early 80s there was a tv movie about an incident of > > nuclear terrorism, done in the style of a live emergency bulletin. it had > > a banner running on the screen *the whole time* and frequent voiceovers > > pointing out that it was a work of fiction...and it *still* fooled a lot > > of people. > > That wasn't "The Day After," was it? I remember being pretty freaked out > after watching that one when it was broadcast. I must have been 13 or 14 at > the time and knew it was fake, but it still gave me fits of restlessness for > several days afterward. i almost wrote it was _the day after_, and then i thought about it hard. _the day after_ used traditional narrative format -- i remember comments from people at the time to the effect that if real people fornicated as much as they did in that filthy _day after_ movie, maybe god would rain down fire on the real world, too. i think the film i'm referring to had a self-referrential title, something like _special bulletin_. a terrorist had a bomb that might or might not be a nuclear 'device.' if i remember right, the tension revolved around research into whether the terrorist actually had access to U or Pu and the knowhow to construct it. at the end i think they called his bluff, and it was just a timer with no bang. it must've been at least 1981 or 1982, because i'm pretty sure i was 17 when i bought my first television. - -- d. - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = guitar pop ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 02:02:11 -0500 From: David Librik Subject: Re: nuclear winter all over the television dmw wrote: > i think the film i'm referring to had a > self-referrential title, something like _special bulletin_. a terrorist > had a bomb that might or might not be a nuclear 'device.' if i remember > right, the tension revolved around research into whether the terrorist > actually had access to U or Pu and the knowhow to construct it. at the > end i think they called his bluff, and it was just a timer with no bang. Special Bulletin, not long after The Day After, so to speak. Nuclear terrorists hold Charleston, South Carolina hostage, threatening to detonate a bomb unless the authorities do something I don't remember ... take down the Confederate flag, I guess. But it wasn't a "timer with no bang." The scene in which the TV signal suddenly goes dead after the increasingly frantic bomb disposal squad clips a wire was one of the most harrowing ten seconds of nothing I can remember watching. ObRobyn: We've got a bunch of crippled looners in power Who want to treat us to a nuclear shower I'd give my life for just a gun and an hour You know I'd murder them out in the street - - David Librik ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 00:13:48 -0700 (PDT) From: "J. Brown" Subject: Re: nuclear winter all over the television On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, David Librik wrote: > dmw wrote: > > i think the film i'm referring to had a > > self-referrential title, something like _special bulletin_. a terrorist > > had a bomb that might or might not be a nuclear 'device.' if i remember > > right, the tension revolved around research into whether the terrorist > > actually had access to U or Pu and the knowhow to construct it. at the > > end i think they called his bluff, and it was just a timer with no bang. > > Special Bulletin, not long after The Day After, so to speak. > Nuclear terrorists hold Charleston, South Carolina hostage, > threatening to detonate a bomb unless the authorities do something > I don't remember ... take down the Confederate flag, I guess. Hey now if they wanted to that they shoulda gone upstate to Columbia. BTW watching south carolin senate debate that issue a few onths ago on CSPAN was one of the weirdest things i have ever witnessed! SC Senator Bill Branton is Foghorn Leghorn in the flesh! Jason Wilson Brown - University of Washington - Seattle, WA USA BA History '99 - BA Canadian Studies '99 - MLIS Library Science '01 "I Don't Speak Fascist" -Grant Morrison ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 02:23:11 -0500 From: David Librik Subject: Soft Boys, Postpunk, Hebrew Has anyone else seen the POSTPUNK CHRONICLES CD series from Rhino? It's a collection of good songs from the cool college-radio bands of the early 80s. I've got _Left Of The Dial_ and _Going Underground_, and the first is amazingly awesome ("Outdoor Miner" is worthy of its Harvest label), while the second is great and features "I Wanna Destroy You." Now, if you have _Going Underground_, you know it's decorated with vintage posters from the various bands. The Soft Boys poster shows a cartoon of Robyn (I think) with huge buglike eyes and a protruding toothy overbite. Underneath the face are three Hebrew words. It's been way too long since I studied any Hebrew, but I can recognize the letters. Has anyone got either this disc or the original poster, and enough knowledge of Hebrew to work out what the message says? - - David Librik ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:40:26 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: your mail Aaron Mandel wrote: > > http://lamar.colostate.edu/~bkeyes/Ferrets/Ferret-legging.htm > > i don't know if it's authentic yep, used to be a common novelty features on news programmes here. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:11:53 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Scooters (a.k.a. Seeking Subzero Percentages of Robyn Content) "Andrew D. Simchik" wrote: > > On the one hand, I have to say that I can't > _stand_ sharing the road with cyclists of any variety. uhoh... grrrrrrrr... IF YOU CAN'T SHARE THE ROADS, GET THE F@CK OFF THEM. SAME ROADS, SAME RIGHTS, SAME RULES. ... Betcha didn't know about my rabid cycle-activist alter-ego. I usually keep it hidden on this list. > I often wish I'd bothered to learn some alternate > mode of transport. two words: recumbent trike. Three wheels, 3" off the ground, just climb on, pedal off, pick flies out of grin after 6O mph downhill. Names to look for: WhizWheelz TerraTrike, Greenspeed, Trice, Windcheetah. Stewart (carfree, and annoying with it.) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 09:20:16 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: riverboat cruise anyone else going on the riverboat cruise with Robyn in August? Myself, Catherine, and Catherine's mom [who may end up being a senior Robynfan] will be going. There were 17 tickets left last night, btw. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:17:47 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: [0% rh] Courtney Love on piracy This amused me: http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 15:43:14 BST From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: [0% rh] Courtney Love on piracy >This amused me: > >http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html > > Stewart Jeez... poor love. I think I'll send her a fiver out of my wages towards her living expenses - the life of a rock and/or roll / movie star are very high I'm sure (I wonder by how much the studios are ripping off poor Courtney?) - I know hard drugs can be terribly expensive, then of course she's got children... makes you think. Isn't there some kind of celebrity welfare in the states? Anyway, I'd best go and dry my tears... Matt ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:44:03 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: nuclear winter all over the television On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, David Librik wrote: > dmw wrote: > > i think the film i'm referring to had a > > self-referrential title, something like _special bulletin_. a terrorist > > had a bomb that might or might not be a nuclear 'device.' if i remember > > Special Bulletin, not long after The Day After, so to speak. > Nuclear terrorists hold Charleston, South Carolina hostage, > threatening to detonate a bomb unless the authorities do something > I don't remember ... take down the Confederate flag, I guess. Ooh, I remember that! They were, ironically, trying to end the nuclear arms race. The US government was to give up X% of its nuclear arsenal, which the terrorists optimistically believed would prompt the Soviet Union to give up a similar fraction of its arms, leading to a rapid spiral of disarmament and forever ending the threat of nuclear war. They had the bomb on a stolen boat in the harbor; while stealing the boat, they ran into a TV news crew on the dock and took them hostage, using them to broadcast their demands. This is where the "War of the Worlds" element came in; the whole story was told as if it was being broadcast on the news. It definitely aired in late 1982 or early 1983, because I remember asking my right-wing 8th grade Social Studies teacher what he had thought of it. (He hadn't seen it.) The Day After came out a little later, in the fall of 1983. - --Chris, who doesn't watch much TV anymore, honest, but this was back when he was a kid... ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 11:25:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [0% rh] Courtney Love on piracy On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, matt sewell wrote: > Jeez... poor love. I think I'll send her a fiver out of my wages > towards her living expenses - the life of a rock and/or roll / movie > star are very high I'm sure (I wonder by how much the studios are > ripping off poor Courtney?) - I know hard drugs can be terribly > expensive, then of course she's got children... makes you think. well, whatever; if there's money to be had doing what she does, she deserves it a lot more than label bosses do. what's the problem there? a ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:50:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Re: Scooters (a.k.a. Seeking Subzero Percentages of Robyn Content) - --- "Stewart C. Russell" wrote: > "Andrew D. Simchik" wrote: > > > > On the one hand, I have to say that I can't > > _stand_ sharing the road with cyclists of any variety. > > uhoh... grrrrrrrr... IF YOU CAN'T SHARE THE ROADS, GET THE F@CK > OFF THEM. SAME ROADS, SAME RIGHTS, SAME RULES. Well, okay, so here's the problem. I'm chugging along at 30 mph in a residential area. You're sort of off to the side, not really in the lane as such but not out of it, going a leisurely 15 or 20 if I'm lucky. If you were in a car I would be very irritated with your sloth. But hey, you're a cyclist, so it's okay! I can actually pass you at this point. But you're pretending I'm not there. You _might_ be off to the side because you'd like me to pass you and continue at my breakneck 30 mph pace. You might just enjoy the risk of being clotheslined by a protruding side mirror on a car parked along the curb. I don't know! I don't understand you! A car can't do the things you do. > .... Betcha didn't know about my rabid cycle-activist alter-ego. I > usually keep it hidden on this list. I can see why. > > I often wish I'd bothered to learn some alternate > > mode of transport. > > two words: recumbent trike. Three wheels, 3" off the ground, just climb > on, pedal off, pick flies out of grin after 6O mph downhill. Names to > look for: WhizWheelz TerraTrike, Greenspeed, Trice, Windcheetah. Thanks! > (carfree, and annoying with it.) Frankly I don't think it's a good idea to have the same roads, same rights, same rules. I think slower, less dangerous vehicles should have their own roads or at least lanes. Safer all around and faster for everyone. But I'm probably wrong so I'll shut up about it. Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik, schnopia@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:14:50 BST From: "matt sewell" Subject: Re: [0% rh] Courtney Love on piracy >On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, matt sewell wrote: > > > Jeez... poor love. I think I'll send her a fiver out of my wages > > towards her living expenses - the life of a rock and/or roll / movie > > star are very high I'm sure (I wonder by how much the studios are > > ripping off poor Courtney?) - I know hard drugs can be terribly > > expensive, then of course she's got children... makes you think. > >well, whatever; if there's money to be had doing what she does, she >deserves it a lot more than label bosses do. what's the problem there? > >a Well, if people *will* sign to major labels, what the hell do they expect? I'm sure label bosses didn't put a gun to her head in order to own the copyright on her material... "As an old junk pusher once told me, 'watch whose money you pick up'" If you sell your soul to a global corporation, you can expect perhaps celebrity and a lot of money (though, it appears, not enough), unfortunately my sympathy is not in the contract(I bet Courtney's kicking herself about that one!). Matt ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:42:36 -0400 From: overbury@cn.ca Subject: Re: Scooters (a.k.a. Seeking Subzero Percentages of Robyn Content) On 14 Jun 00, at 8:50, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > Frankly I don't think it's a good idea to have the same roads, same > rights, same rules. I think slower, less dangerous vehicles should > have their own roads or at least lanes. Safer all around and faster > for everyone. But I'm probably wrong so I'll shut up about it. And while we're at it, could you guys please keep those rollerblade toys off my bike path? And my streets? Ziggedy-zag, ziggedy-zag right over the median line of the bike path all the way from the 'burbs to downtown! Jeeez! I'm trying to commute, here! Then they're off the path and right down the middle of the lane in front of my car. Of course they'll never fall down and die under my wheels. The pads are a fashion statement. And do any car drivers appreciate sharing the road with heavy commercial vehicles? Get that stuff off the road and on rails! 'Course, my wife thought I was weird when I said there should be express lanes on the sidewalk. While I'm quite seriously annoyed at dangerous, road-destroying trucks and at roller-blade-faddists, what's the answer? There, that's better. Thank you all. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:18:26 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Re: [0% rh] Courtney Love on piracy - --- matt sewell wrote: > >On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, matt sewell wrote: > > > > > Jeez... poor love. I think I'll send her a fiver out of my wages > > > towards her living expenses - the life of a rock and/or roll / movie > > > star are very high I'm sure (I wonder by how much the studios are > > > ripping off poor Courtney?) - I know hard drugs can be terribly > > > expensive, then of course she's got children... makes you think. > > > >well, whatever; if there's money to be had doing what she does, she > >deserves it a lot more than label bosses do. what's the problem there? > > Well, if people *will* sign to major labels, what the hell do they > expect? In general I don't feel that the "giant corporations bad / small indie enterprises good" Manicheanism is all that off-base. But Love paints a convincing picture (granted, one we've all seen before) of the recording industry as especially amoral as compared to the publishing industry or corporations in less "artistic" lines of business. The patent applications I prepared on my own, original inventions while I worked for Xerox, for example, may result in patents, and if they do the patents will belong to Xerox. In this the tech industry and the recording industry are similar. However, I was handsomely compensated for the work I did at Xerox and given incentive to produce these patents/lawsuit triggers for the company. I doubt Love is in dire financial straits at _all_, but many of the bands not fronted by the widows of alleged rock geniuses seem to be, and I don't think the reason why is as simple as "they willingly consented to make millions for the record label and keep nothing for themselves." I think a lot of young bands go into the thing with the notion that they probably won't make tons of money, at least at first, but they can expect to be compensated at a fair wage. They're wrong, but that doesn't make them hypocrites. Also, I don't think everyone has the money or the knowledge to record, produce, and release their own music. I know a lot of people on this list do, but I'm betting you all have day jobs as well. So while Courtney is perhaps not the best poster child for her cause (the "slave" talk is even less convincing coming from her than it was from Prince) I thought her rambling article made for good reading. I guess I'm ignorant because I missed what made it so amusing. Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik, schnopia@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:23:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Re: Scooters (a.k.a. Seeking Subzero Percentages of Robyn Content) - --- overbury@cn.ca wrote: > On 14 Jun 00, at 8:50, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > > > > Frankly I don't think it's a good idea to have the same roads, same > > rights, same rules. I think slower, less dangerous vehicles should > > have their own roads or at least lanes. Safer all around and faster > > for everyone. But I'm probably wrong so I'll shut up about it. > > And while we're at it, could you guys please keep those > rollerblade toys off my bike path? I don't see a slippery slope here. Vehicles that can comfortably exceed 45 mph and kill deer on impact on the roads. Vehicles that can't on a path or in a lane. > And do any car drivers appreciate sharing the road with heavy > commercial vehicles? Get that stuff off the road and on rails! Cargo trains are beautiful things, though. > While I'm quite seriously annoyed at dangerous, road-destroying > trucks and at roller-blade-faddists, what's the answer? Push! your! car! from the ro-oad! But everybody has to do it. That's the problem. Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik, schnopia@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #156 *******************************