From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #201 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, July 21 2000 Volume 09 : Number 201 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Rush returning? (no RH) [Gene Hopstetter ] Stone and other subjects [Natalie Jacobs ] sof'boy doll [Gene Hopstetter ] Re: sof'boy doll [lj lindhurst ] Re: Rush returning? (no RH) ["Randy R." ] Re: Stone the quails ["Randy R." ] Re: Stone the quails [Eb ] Re: Stone the quails [Vivien Lyon ] Re: Stone the quails ["Randy R." ] Pedantry! [Capuchin ] Re: Stone the quails [Eb ] Re: Stone the quails [capuchin@bitmine.net] RE: Pedantry! ["Brian Huddell" ] another composer you've never heard of [Glen Uber ] Change of Address. [capuchin@bitmine.net] Re: Stone and other subjects [Terrence Marks ] Re: Stone the Sharon [Eleanore Adams ] Schlock Radio [BLATZMAN@aol.com] Kim and Julian in Beantown [Mark A Pyskoty ] Madonna Of The Wasps [Brett Cooper ] American Maniacs ["Randy R." ] Re: Schlock Radio [hbrandt ] comics [hbrandt ] When our weary world was young.... [The Great Quail ] Re: When our weary world was young.... [lj lindhurst ] Re: Buccleuch [Stephen Buckalew ] patriot games(poor alec baldwin) [BLATZMAN@aol.com] Re: Pedantry! [Jason Thornton ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:28:01 -0500 From: Gene Hopstetter Subject: Rush returning? (no RH) > From: "Randy R." > Subject: Re: Stone the quails > > Vince ( and Rush are going back in the studio this October, dood ) > Whut? You can't just say that, without details, attribution, or any other information. DO TELL! And what's the best Rush web site to get the dirt from? NP: Rush, Cygnus X Story, live 1978 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 14:05:24 -0700 From: Natalie Jacobs Subject: Stone and other subjects > If that scene had been a steady, tight close-up, it > might've been powerfully intense. As is, it was a friggin' carnival > attraction. Oddly, this is the only instance of Stone's heavy-handed direction that actually worked for me. I enjoyed "Talk Radio." "The Doors" was simple-minded and riddled with boomer cliches. And "Natural Born Killers" is just a festering piece of shit. After seeing it, I vowed to avoid anything directed by Stone or his descendents unto the 12th generation. > Russell's regarded as fairly plain by NZ standards... I see. And I suppose that Hugh Jackman (Wolverine) is considered so hideous in Australia that he needs to hide his face when he goes out in the street. :) > I recommend Scott McCloud's entertaining and highly informative > "UNDERSTANDING COMICS" and it's recent sequel "REINVENTING COMICS". Seconded. Then go out and read anything by Daniel Clowes, Robert Crumb, Gilbert and Jaime Hernandez, Grant Morrison, Jim Woodring, etc. etc. etc. n. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:11:15 -0500 From: Gene Hopstetter Subject: sof'boy doll Look! Actual Robyn content! I don't know what it means, why it is, or what it costs, but here you go, a Sof'Boy cloth doll: > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:38:19 -0400 From: lj lindhurst Subject: Re: sof'boy doll Why that's Sof'Boy!! Talk about comic strips-- he's one of my most favorite comic book characters! If you've never read any, I guarantee it's one of the silliest things you'll ever see... l "I'm so informative"j p.s., a big day in Gerbil Land!!! http://www.w-rabbit.com/gerbils.html >Look! Actual Robyn content! > >I don't know what it means, why it is, or what it costs, but here you go, a >Sof'Boy cloth doll: > >> - -- ******************************** LJ Lindhurst White Rabbit Graphic Design http://www.w-rabbit.com NYC ljl@w-rabbit.com ******************************** "My dreams all involve combing my hair." --Principal Skinner ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:26:12 -0700 From: "Randy R." Subject: Re: Rush returning? (no RH) From: Gene Hopstetter > Whut? You can't just say that, without details, attribution, or any other > information. DO TELL! And what's the best Rush web site to get the dirt > from? Information that I've gathered is strictly from "Anthem". Rushs' record company. Rumors persist on the web of course, but it seems they are going to record another record. After the death of Neil's wife from cancer, and his only child ( car wreck ), it only seems appropriate that he took some time off grieving. Alex wants to record again. He's been busy producing his oldest boy's record. Geddy has been watching baseball. And Neil it seems, has remarried. October is what Anthem says, and we won't hear a new record until late winter. Personally, I think "Different Stages" did it for me. It'd be a damn shame if they put it out, and it sucked. I do think they have a few more years left in them. Rush have always evolved, from the screaming 70's, to the techno 80's, and back into the power trio of the 90's. I don't have a specific web site I can point you to. All are just tributes. I get my dirt from "Anthem", and they hate me. Studio time has been booked so trust me on that one. And dammit, I want to see them live again. The last tour, "An Evening With Rush", gave us nearly 4 hours of great rock n roll. Another tour is seriously in question. I'm not holding my breath. Vince ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:47:15 -0700 From: "Randy R." Subject: Re: Stone the quails - -From: Eb > >> You have said nothing to convince me it wasn't a badly directed scene. > >> Sorry. Why is an endlessly revolving camera necessary to show a > >> character's inner thoughts? Please explain. It's quite simple Eb, though Ollie Stone made it complicated. Too complicted for you anyways.. The character was answering a telephone call, and the revolving camera eventually settled on his desk, and the package. > > This doesn't answer my question. That's my answer. > > Bottom line (repeating myself): The revolving camera work makes the > viewer's attention stray from some intense, climactic dialogue, and instead > vacantly focus on the visual sensation of spinning scenery. Bad direction, > which sabotages the emotional focus of the screenplay. And you choose to > defend his directing choice by instead talking about what happened *after* > the revolving pan. Strange. After what happned is what Ollie Stone was setting up in the first place!! Fine Eb, I got it now. You're not the sharpest tool in the shed. sheesh Apologies to those I may have offended.... Vince ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:48:29 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Stone the quails >It's quite simple Eb, though Ollie Stone made it complicated. Right...so you're back to agreeing with me. It was needlessly complicated, and a case of show-off direction. >Too complicted for you anyways.. I'm glad you held yourself to two grammatical errors in that short sentence. >The character was answering a telephone call, >and the revolving camera eventually settled on his desk, and the package. So, Stone needed to revolve the camera through five or 10 minutes of dialogue, just to end with one shot of a package. Riiight. >After what happned is what Ollie Stone was setting up in the first place!! >Fine Eb, I got it now. You're not the sharpest tool in the shed. sheesh You're really painting yourself as a twerp, Vince. This is junior-high school stuff, dood. Eb, sending this response twice, as you like it ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:31:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Vivien Lyon Subject: Re: Stone the quails This exchange occurred: > >Too complicted for you anyways.. > > I'm glad you held yourself to two grammatical errors in that > short sentence. Actually, there are three errors, and none of them are grammatical. Additionally, it isn't a sentence. Also, none of the errors, even when considered in sum, are sufficient to prove that the author is a moron. It's an email, not a dissertation. > You're really painting yourself as a twerp, Vince. > This is > junior-high school stuff, dood. On the other hand, perhaps the person coming off as a twerp is the person insisting on an explanation that he refuses to understand. Vivien __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail – Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:50:28 -0700 From: "Randy R." Subject: Re: Stone the quails From: Eb > So, Stone needed to revolve the camera through five or 10 minutes of > dialogue, just to end with one shot of a package. Riiight. Yep. Exactly. Stone was setting up a feeling, and all the sudden, the "box" comes into view. The dooood was scared. damn, it was an emotional scene You're really painting yourself as a twerp, Vince. This is > junior-high school stuff, dood. So what? I am a twerp. I get younger while you get older. > > Eb, sending this response twice, as you like it Of course Vince (I looooove this shit) the Vincester ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:55:07 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Pedantry! On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Eb wrote: > >Too complicted for you anyways.. > I'm glad you held yourself to two grammatical errors in that short > sentence. Well, it's not a sentence. And beside not being a sentence, it has no grammatical errors. It does, however, have a few typographical errors (depending on interpretation). A typographical error involves a single omitted, substituted, or extraneous character or a single instance of two characters transposed. Several omitted, substituted, or extraneous letters or transpositions (that is to say, any number of the above greater than one in any combination) is generally considered a misspelling. A grammatical error is an error in syntax or multiple omissions or insertions of punctuation within a grammatical construct. > >The character was answering a telephone call, > >and the revolving camera eventually settled on his desk, and the package. > So, Stone needed to revolve the camera through five or 10 minutes of > dialogue, just to end with one shot of a package. Riiight. Right. For Vince, anyway, that's exactly right. I think there are several ways of interpreting the scene that show the orbitting camera enhances something. I'm not much of a proponent of the "every shot helps tell the story" school of film interpretation. I think the story can be a secondary or tertiary component to a film. I think Talk Radio was a good movie. I found it aesthetically pleasing and enjoyed the story, too. I also watched it right after Little Shop of Horrors at the Cineplex Odeon so who knows where my mind was. > You're really painting yourself as a twerp, Vince. This is > junior-high school stuff, dood. Yeah, so's picking on typing. Oh, and so's yer mom. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:57:48 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: Stone the quails Belle o' the Ball clawed: >> You're really painting yourself as a twerp, Vince. >> This is junior-high school stuff, dood. > >On the other hand, perhaps the person coming off as a twerp is >the person insisting on an explanation that he refuses to >understand. I understand perfectly. He has yet to say anything which adequately addresses my objection. I say that an endless, showy pan shot distracted one's attention from an important exchange of dialogue -- Dood just counters by saying the shot ends on a bomb/package. This is almost entirely irrelevant. It's like me complaining that a certain track on an album is lousy, and Vince replying with "No, it's not, because the next song's cool." There easily could've been an evocative, ominous shot of a possible bomb, *without* sending the viewer on a ridiculous merry-go-round ride for several minutes prior. Obviously. Vince, whose disdain for subtlety is glaringly obvious in almost any one of his posts, disagrees. Whatever. Doesn't phase me much. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:19:19 -0700 (PDT) From: capuchin@bitmine.net Subject: Re: Stone the quails On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Eb wrote: > I understand perfectly. He has yet to say anything which adequately > addresses my objection. I say that an endless, showy pan shot distracted > one's attention from an important exchange of dialogue First of all, if I recall the scene (and I'm pretty sure I do), the pan shot is swirling AROUND the guy doing all the talking. If you're distracted by the peripherals, that's your problem. I think it made the viewer aware of the radio host as the central point of a world that was shown all around. There are people in front of him and a window behind him and there is what he can see and what he can't see and he's aware of both. And it ends on the package and shows that he is not the only thing in the center of that world... there's also a bomb. And you now see clearly what that bomb can do. And then there's the idea that the talk radio host is shown to be the center of his universe and there is him and everything else is just the periphery... then the bomb. And it's not just him anymore. And he's not insulated in his little booth. There's also the practical use of disorientation to break the viewer out of their current stream of consciousness. The idea is that confusion can bring enlightenment by forcing a re-evaluation of the circumstances. Without some disorientation, a filmmaker runs the risk of letting the viewer pigeonhole the piece without honestly evaluating it on its own merits. I swear, how do you review records if you have to have every little nuance explained to you from outside? Or do you just stick to records that don't have "artistic pretenses"? > -- Dood just counters by saying the shot ends on a bomb/package. This > is almost entirely irrelevant. It's like me complaining that a certain > track on an album is lousy, and Vince replying with "No, it's not, > because the next song's cool." Or like complaining that the second to last minute of the first movement of Gorecki's Symphony No.3 is dumb because it's just a stupid augmented scale that gets louder and louder and doesn't really have much power in it... and Vince counters by saying that the NEXT minute STARTS with the "Swaros Mario" line that just drives the whole mess home. Shots are not songs on a record full of singles. The film is a single piece. > There easily could've been an evocative, ominous shot of a possible > bomb, *without* sending the viewer on a ridiculous merry-go-round ride > for several minutes prior. Obviously. Vince, whose disdain for > subtlety is glaringly obvious in almost any one of his posts, > disagrees. Whatever. Doesn't phase me much. Subtlety? "look at the package... the strange, unmarked, mystery package! It's tickytocky! What could it be?" That's ominous, evocative and subtle? It's cliche, obvious, and bland, if'n you ask me (which, of course, you didn't). See above. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:20:43 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: Pedantry! > I'm not much of a proponent of the "every shot helps tell the > story" school of film interpretation. I think the story can be a > secondary or tertiary component to a film. Then what the HELL are you doing here if it's not to acknowledge the inherent rightness of Eb's cinematographic absolutes? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:26:55 -0700 From: Glen Uber Subject: another composer you've never heard of On 20.07.2000 17:19, capuchin@bitmine.net wrote: > Gorecki's Symphony No.3 Holy crap! Another Gorecki fan! Symphony No. 3 is one of my favorite pieces of music EVER. I don't know why I'm surprised. After all, Jeme is a man of taste, class and refinement. - -- Cheers! - -g- "The revolution will not be televised but it will have its own web site." - --Glen Uber, 25 April 2000 (apologies to Gil Scott-Heron) +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Glen Uber uberg@sonic.net http://www.sonic.net/~uberg ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 10:35:48 -0700 (PDT) From: capuchin@bitmine.net Subject: Change of Address. I hate to do this again (and I have a great fear I'll be doing it ONE MORE TIME before too long, but I hope not)... but I have to change mail addresses. I've had very poor service reading my mail on the shell box at speakeasy (probably because they have one box doing IMAP and POP3 for hundreds of people and still expect shell users to ssh in and do their stuff... slow slow) so I'm just doing all my mail on my machines at home now. So here we are. This is me for now. You can also send to jeme@brelin.net for personal stuff. I don't know why I'm so anal about mail sorting. I'll still see the ol' speakeasy mail, but I'll warn you if you send mail to that address. Jeme. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 23:04:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence Marks Subject: Re: Stone and other subjects On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Natalie Jacobs wrote: > Seconded. Then go out and read anything by Daniel Clowes, Robert Crumb, > Gilbert and Jaime Hernandez, Grant Morrison, Jim Woodring, etc. etc. etc. And Carl Barks. Can't forget Carl Barks. Terrence Marks Unlike Minerva (a comic strip) http://www.unlikeminerva.com HCF (another comic strip) http://www.mpog.com/hcf normal@grove.ufl.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 20:37:34 -0700 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Re: Stone the Sharon As a Feggirl, I do like the Finn Brothers, and I also like Sharon Stone. It was not until I saw Casino that she registered on my radar, but I really enjoyed that movie, and I really enjoyed her performance in that film. I recently got Casino on DVD. I know that there is a lot of critizism on that film, but every time I watch it, the better it gets. It really is the best vegas mafia movie.... elenaore Glen Uber wrote: > On 20.07.2000 11:19, Eb wrote: > > > Eb, who ain't too fond of Sharon Stone either > > Hear, hear! I also don't understand American men's idea of what a > "beautiful" woman is: Julia Roberts, Charlize Theron, Cameron Diaz, and > especially Cindy Crawford. Of course I tend to like wallflowers, waifs and > other such non-traditional beauties. Well, except for Elizabeth Hurley, that > is. And my fiancée, of course. ;-) > > Glen, whose fiancée bears a striking resemblance to Gillian Anderson, only > far more beautiful. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:03:35 EDT From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: Schlock Radio Once sitting in a cinema class at USC, an instructor commented on how Talk Radio was doomed to fail. You film a guy as ugly as the lead and stick him in close up, and the crowds are bound to stay away. Wayyyyyyyy crappy casting man. That guy is NOT a lead. Another bonehead move frome a bonehead director. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 02:31:29 -0400 From: Mark A Pyskoty Subject: Kim and Julian in Beantown Kel's in Boston,I'm in New York...she went,I did not, here's our missives in part from earlier this evening... >Did you go to see the impen one? Yes! Note: Julian Dawson is about 7 foot 10. He looks like a younger relative of Mr. Clean. next to the impen one, this is particularly amusing. Note 2: Dawson was playing the smallest acoustic guitar I've ever seen. Kimberley as usual was playing an electric three sizes too big for him. Go figure. >How *short* was it ? Kimberley? About four foot six. Oh, the set? Too short. About 35 minutes: eight songs, alternating authorship, roughly as follows: 1. Dawson song, something about turning Sunday into Saturday night, totally a capella, very cool 2. Simple Pleasures 3. Dawson: If He Meant Us to Fly, He'd have Given us Wings 4. Rosemary Jean 5. Broken-Down Palace 6. Going Down to Liverpool 7. ... man in the Western World 8. Walking on Sunshine They did promise they'd be back in October. Best moment of the night: Mike and I went up to get CDs signed after (I bought Tunnel into Summer to be signed as well as the two Julian Dawson CDs they had there, as both guys are really sweet), and when Kim was signing mine (and I got him to open it too, so he's probably still peeling bits of CD wrapper off of himself ;) I asked him, "Is there any truth to the rumor of a Soft Boys reunion?" He gave me a priceless look--a mix of friendly enthusiasm and startled suspicion--and said, in that inimitable voice, "... There *might* be..." Bests!...might be...INDEED! Mark ...here's wot's in me Netdrive Mp3 depository for your consideration... Austin Powers - BBC.mp3 1,927KB 7/13/00 4:37 AM MP3 Audio File Biff Bang Pow !_ElectricSugarchild.mp3 3,201KB 7/16/00 12:43 AM MP3 Audio File Biff Bang Pow !_IceCreamMachine.mp3 3,785KB 7/16/00 1:31 PM MP3 Audio File DreamsSoReal_EverywhereGirl.mp3 3,571KB 7/14/00 0:12 AM MP3 Audio File JupiterAffect_DruscillaIDigYourScene .mp3 2,638KB 7/14/00 0:12 AM MP3 Audio File KimberleyRew_PlasYuRhiw.mp3 2,705KB 7/13/00 1:44 AM MP3 Audio File KimberleyRew_StompingAllOverTheWorld.mp3 2,176KB 7/13/00 2:23 PM MP3 Audio File KRew&TheWaves_Going DownToLiverpool.mp3 3,324KB 7/13/00 2:23 PM MP3 Audio File Let's Active_Back In Black_Live.mp3 3,084KB 7/13/00 1:44 AM MP3 Audio File Let's Active_I Can't Reach You_Live.mp3 2,566KB 7/13/00 1:44 AM MP3 Audio File LetsActive_GreyScale.mp3 5,323KB 7/14/00 6:47 PM MP3 Audio File LetsActive_TwoYous.mp3 2,754KB 7/14/00 6:47 PM MP3 Audio File OrangeHumbleBand_DownInYourDreams.mp3 3,779KB 7/13/00 4:37 AM MP3 Audio File Primal Scream_Gentle Tuesday.mp3 3,524KB 7/19/00 11:28 PM MP3 Audio File PrimalScream_Ivy Ivy Ivy.mp3 2,872KB 7/16/00 6:59 PM MP3 Audio File RainParade_WhatShesDoneToYourMind.mp3 2,707KB 7/14/00 10:44 PM MP3 Audio File Smash Mouth - Every Word Means No.mp3 3,799KB 7/21/00 1:19 AM MP3 Audio File Soft Boys_Innocent Boy.mp3 2,717KB 7/13/00 1:44 AM MP3 Audio File SoftBoys_AnglepoiseLamp.mp3 2,735KB 7/14/00 3:29 AM MP3 Audio File SoftBoys_AstronomyDomine_Live.mp3 3,685KB 7/14/00 2:04 AM MP3 Audio File SoftBoys_UnderwaterMoonlight_Live.mp3 5,398KB 7/14/00 2:04 AM MP3 Audio File Someloves_Know You Now.mp3 3,472KB 7/16/00 7:46 PM MP3 Audio File TeenageFanclub_GeneClark.mp3 7,881KB 7/15/00 0:16 AM MP3 Audio File The dBs_DarbyHall.mp3 2,787KB 7/14/00 7:53 PM MP3 Audio File TheChurch_ADifferentMan.mp3 2,974KB 7/14/00 7:22 PM MP3 Audio File TheChurch_AutumnSoon.mp3 4,117KB 7/13/00 4:37 AM MP3 Audio File TheMove_ICanHearTheGrassGrow.mp3 2,889KB 7/16/00 0:05 AM MP3 Audio File YouAmI_HowMuchIsEnough.mp3 3,384KB 7/15/00 1:18 AM MP3 Audio File Happy downloading... Mark Sleep Well ~ Don't Burst Mine~ http://homestead.juno.com/mapslegends/files/mapslege.htm Mitch~ http://www.angelfire.com/celeb/mitcheaster/ Mp3 s ~ http://www.netdrive.com/~mpyskoty ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 01:59:55 -0800 From: Brett Cooper Subject: Madonna Of The Wasps I have a question... When Robyn is performing "Madonna of the Wasps" live, does he do the music video/Kershaw sessions intro or does he stick to the Queen Elvis intro or none of the above? Actually, if anyone could pass a MiniDisc of a decent show with a live "Madonna..." (that was recorded w/either DAT or MD), I would be grateful. Just let me know what you want in return. Thanks, Brett ******************************************** Cooper Collections http://home.gci.net/~coopercollections ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 05:07:30 -0700 From: "Randy R." Subject: American Maniacs Sure, the "I Love Mallory" scene in Natural Born Killers nearly stole the show, but Robert Downy Jr.'s American Maniacs was nearly perfect. The opening scene when he was doing a karate kick to slam open a door, and did a Geraldo Rivera look of "concern". And Downey Jr's Aussie accent? Help me out here, but I thought it was well done. Too bad he's in prison now. He was a great actor. "Wayne Gale!!! Wayne Gale!!! Don't shoot, I'm Wayne Gale!!" hehe. Vince ( and I like Eb, I really do ) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 07:52:34 -0600 From: hbrandt Subject: Re: Schlock Radio > Once sitting in a cinema class at USC, an instructor commented on how Talk > Radio was doomed to fail. You film a guy as ugly as the lead and stick him > in close up, and the crowds are bound to stay away. > > Wayyyyyyyy crappy casting man. That guy is NOT a lead. Another bonehead move > frome a bonehead director. Crappy casting?! Eric Bogosian originated the role off-Broadway in a one-man show. He was playing a radio talk host (Alan Berg, who was actually much worse looking than Bogosian.) Trust me...people on the radio usually don't look like Mel Gibson. I wonder if the same bonehead USC instructor thinks Spalding Gray shouldn't get to do the filmed versions of his one-man monologues because he is also 'ugly'. /hal, who is on the fence about Stone. I disliked The Doors, Platoon, Born On The Fourth Of July, Heaven and Earth & Salvador, but I liked JFK, Wall Street, Talk Radio, Nixon, Any Given Sunday, U-Turn (that's right, I liked it) and Natural Born Killers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:06:31 -0600 From: hbrandt Subject: comics >> go out and read anything by Daniel Clowes, Robert Crumb, > > Gilbert and Jaime Hernandez, Grant Morrison, Jim Woodring, etc. etc. etc. > > And Carl Barks. Can't forget Carl Barks. Love those ducks, and I agree with all of the above...plus I'll add Will Eisner, Winsor McKay, Dave Sim/Gerhard, Julie Doucet, Lee/Ditko, Lee/Kirby, Garth Ennis, Warren Ellis, Peter Bagge, Adrian Tomine, Paul Pope, Vaughn Bode, Alan Moore, Charles Burns, Jill Thompson, David Lapham, Berni Wrightson, Chris Ware (a genius), Bob Burden, Ivan Brunetti, Kurt Busiek and many more that I'm sure I'm overlooking. Robyn's comics/cartoons/cones are pretty entertaining as well. /hal ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 10:34:55 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: When our weary world was young.... Vince says, >And dammit, I want to see them live again. The last tour, "An Evening With >Rush", gave us nearly 4 hours of great rock n roll. I would just like to second this, in the face of a List filled with Rush nay-sayers! That concert -- from which I was in the heavenly fifth row -- was four hours of pure electric bliss. Sir Ian McKellan? I say Geddy should be Gandalf! - --Father Quail of the Temples of Syrinx, Disinformation Division PS: By the way, so, how many other people out there do you think used - -- or use! -- "2112" as a PIN number? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:19:08 -0400 From: lj lindhurst Subject: Re: When our weary world was young.... >--Father Quail of the Temples of Syrinx, Disinformation Division > >PS: By the way, so, how many other people out there do you think >used -- or use! -- "2112" as a PIN number? Oh, I don't know-- I've always been more in the 80085 camp. And anyhow, who's going to publicly post their PIN number here, ya dumbass? l ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:52:06 -0400 From: Stephen Buckalew Subject: Re: Buccleuch Wow....I guess we got around more than I thought. I've only met a few other Buckalews here in the U.S.A. Thanks for the spelling tip! My older relatives were all Presbyterian as well, so it makes sense.... S.B. >>Michael R Godwin wrote: >>> >>> Well, the LMS Pacific 'Duchess of Buccleuch' >> >>It is never spelt with a g here. Ever. > >yup - my fault. The local street is definitely Buccleuch. > >James > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 11:54:37 EDT From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: patriot games(poor alec baldwin) In a message dated 7/20/00 1:19:31 PM US Mountain Standard Time, owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org writes: << why couldn't they at least gave the hero more noble motivations than personal revenge? >> Why should they? Are you saying that you refuse to believe that in our history, someone was motivated by personal revenge? This was one such story, and if you'd like to see one about a guy motivated by something more than personal revenge, then write it and make it. This is what I took away from the film: I thought Mel's character's actions were totally defined by his loyalty to his family. His main concern at first was to keep his family safe because of the war atrocities that he had seen/committed. He put the well being of his family above all. I like that his motivation stemmed from his committment to his family. Dave, who is awaiting the Lord of the Rings like you can't believe... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 08:56:34 -0700 From: Jason Thornton Subject: Re: Pedantry! At 04:55 PM 7/20/00 -0700, Capuchin wrote: >On Thu, 20 Jul 2000, Eb wrote: > > >Too complicted for you anyways.. > > I'm glad you held yourself to two grammatical errors in that short > > sentence. > >Well, it's not a sentence. Nope. It most definitely is a sentence. The subject and verb (something along the lines of "it is") are merely implied, especially when looking at the sentence in the context of the greater dialogue. > And beside not being a sentence, it has no >grammatical errors. It does, however, have a few typographical errors >(depending on interpretation). I would argue that "anyways," being spelled as intended, is more of a grammatical error, a poor word choice, than a typographical one. The missing "a" and the extra period would more likely be referred to as typos. Anyhow - I actually like Oliver Stone's work, for many of the same reasons Mr. Quail mentioned, but admittedly he does get a taaaaad bit heavy-handed at times... and wouldn't you know it, I've yet to see "Talk Radio." - --Jason "the extra a's in 'tad' are a stylistic choice" Thornton "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #201 *******************************