From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #280 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Tuesday, October 10 2000 Volume 09 : Number 280 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Happy Birhtday [tsg20@cam.ac.uk] prison II ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] uberweeniedom ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" ] Re: prison II ["brian nupp" ] Re: Lennon: What is to be done? ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: prison II ["brian nupp" ] Re: Lennon: What is to be done? [The Great Quail ] Pomo theory! Hurray! [The Great Quail ] fegBand makes good [Bayard ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V9 #278 [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] casey casem? [Asshole Motherfucker ] Re: Lennon: What is to be done? ["brian nupp" ] Re: Lennon: What is to be done? ["brian nupp" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:11:20 +0100 From: tsg20@cam.ac.uk Subject: Re: Happy Birhtday Ferris wrote: > It's an inefficient program trying to push a rope and it's a > gross misappropriation of tax dollars. (Example: In 1974 (what a good > year!), the US spent $74.9 million dollars on DEA Staffing and > Appropriations (from the DEA website) and which, 26 years later spent > $1,550 million. That's up, what, 2069%? An 80% increase per year? Without wishing to be really trivial, I reckon that's more like 34% p.a. toby PS I don't mean to detract from the argument - much of which is good sense - - I'm just a maths pedant. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 13:54:57 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: prison II From: "Thomas, Ferris" > There's a difference between right and wrong and most people know it. Yes. Drugs are wrong. Everybody knows that. Why legalize them? > Re-reading this makes it look like I'm skulled writing it; it's more > than a little scatter-brained and wanders all over the map. I wouldn't say that, but I do think you're doing the opinion-as-fact thing a bit. From: Stephen Buckalew > After all, it costs so much public money in medicare, etc, to treat > people with cancer and heart failure caused by poor dietary choices, > therefore, > all fatty, fried foods will be illegal. I don't see this as a likely next step at all. For one thing, a lot of big American companies make a lot of money selling fatty, fried foods. For another, I think a lot of people suffer the consequences of poor dietary choices well before they see any public Medicare money -- I'm sure I will. Finally, though more people use drugs than admit to it, I think there are probably a lot more legislators who don't want to have to resign themselves to tofu dogs. The war on drugs is not about public health at all. It's remarkable enough that we see big tobacco being attacked on these grounds, and it makes me wonder what's really going on. The war on drugs is about where these drugs come from, where drug money goes, what drug money is spent on, and what power shifts and organizations result from the drug trade. Perhaps to its credit, the government doesn't truly care what you put into your body. It doesn't profit either way from your individual action. But if you possess drugs, you must have gotten them from someone, who got them from someone, who got them from someone the government would like very much to screw. At least this has always been my understanding of what the war on drugs is about. I would like to see some drugs legalized _and_ regulated (if pharmaceutical companies are answerable to the FDA -- theoretically -- why should coke or heroin suppliers be exempt?). If you want my personal opinion. From: Michael R Godwin > Conference this year. The shadow minister came out in favour of a zero I love the term "shadow minister." From: "Polyandry Now" > i know i'm supposed to pay taxes in this country. i don't. Really? What happens? What do you expect to happen? From: Stephen Buckalew > This person claimed to not to wish to read or study anything other than > contemporary works, which were the only works that were relevant. Hee hee hee. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. "Copyright 1998? Irrelevant! If the ink's dry, don't waste my time!" > That and I despise *jargon*...lit criticism was very glad to let me > go...I think you'ns gots to be smart t'study that there stuff! I think jargon is fun in a sick and twisted sort of way. It's like the Mad Libs method of essay writing and it allows you to make reference to a flawed corpus of research you don't understand. I only have a B.A. in English (like hundreds of thousands of other burger-flippers out there), but my take on lit crit was always that it was what you made it. You can read a work at any level and write about it on any level, and what you study and write depends at least in part on what you already know. Thus the quality of your work is related to how well it competes with others in your field, much more so than in, say, applied physics or even history. Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik: drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:04:49 -0400 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: uberweeniedom I haven't really been keeping up with this so please forgive any duplication. At the moment I've got some very pressing work to do, that's why I've done this instead.... Punctuation ? And The Mysterians Abunai! 15-60-75 rinocerose (circumflexes over both 'o's, cedilla under the 'c' and an acute accent over the first 'e'. They are French big-beat types, and that isn't how you spell rhinceros in French, so they also fall into the deliberate misspelling category alongside... Oblivians Klark Kent (also fictional character section) Poly Styrene dEUS Phranc Psyclone Rangers (also fictional charater) Sex - Meat Beat Manifesto Throbbing Gristle Fudge Tunnel Arab Strap Blood Sausage Ivor Biggun And The Red Nosed Burglars Drugs - The Purple Hearts Rock'n'Roll - Green River (Creedence album) Nine Below Zero (Muddy Waters song) Dr Feelgood (another blues song, variously credited) Dream Syndicate (from Tony Conrad and Faust album) Albertos Y Los Trios Paranoias (from Albertos Y Los Trios Something-else-I-can't-rememberos) Places - Bay City Rollers Southside Johnny And The Asbury Dukes innumerable Tennessee references, only London comes close I'd reckon. North Mississippi All-Stars Chickasaw Mud Puppies Notting Hillbillies London SS (now for some very parochial UK ones) Leyton Buzzards Merton Parkas Kilburn And The High Roads Hatfield And The North Easterhouse Mull And The Kintyres (no, I made that one up...) and one for all back across the pond... Pearl Harbor And The Explosions Literary references: Pooh Sticks Eyeless In Gaza (Huxley novel) Wild Swans (Yeats poem) Mock Turtles (one of the Alices - I might be pushing it on this one!) Droogs This Mortal Coil Art of Noise (from a politico-aesthetic Italian Futurist tract - go on Quail, beat that for a phrase :-)) Becky Sharp (Thackeray's novel Vanity Fair) Veruca Salt (Charlie And The Chocolate Factory) Shelleyan Orphan Boo Radleys (To Kill A Mockingbird) Guadacanal Diary Thompson Twins (Tintin books) Mekons (from The Eagle comic; now I'm really scraping it...) Mega City Four (Judge Dredd...There - Reached the bottom.) Associated film thread... All About Eve Voice Of The Beehive The Railway Children Religion - Crucifux Creaming Jesus (multiple category winner!) False Prophets Hindu Love Gods Balaam And The Angel Gene Loves Jezebel Fiat Lux Historical figures - Paul Revere And The Raiders The Beau Brummels Gang Of Four Bettie Serveert (Dutch tennis player, Bettie Stove) Hornets Attack Victor Mature Durutti Column (from anarchist Buenaventura Durruti - now whether this counts as a deliberate misspelling or ignorance I just don't know...) Blimey, I'd better do some proper work. jmbc. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:21:21 EDT From: "brian nupp" Subject: Re: prison II >From: "Andrew D. Simchik" >Yes. Drugs are wrong. Everybody knows that. Why legalize them? >The war on drugs is not about public health at all. It's remarkable >enough that we see big tobacco being attacked on these grounds, and it >makes me wonder what's really going on. The war on drugs is about where >these drugs come from, where drug money goes, what drug money is spent >on, and what power shifts and organizations result from the drug trade. >Perhaps to its credit, the government doesn't truly care what you put >into your body. It doesn't profit either way from your individual action. >But if you possess drugs, you must have gotten them from someone, who >got them from someone, who got them from someone the government would >like very much to screw. At least this has always been my understanding >of what the war on drugs is about. > >Drew The same would be true about tobacco (or anything else)if tobacco were illegal. The whole priciple of them being illegal is why the money comes and goes from these organizations. It's circle reasoning. I've thought about this way too much to get too involved (it's tiresome) which is exactly what the govt. wants. Brian N. _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:43:45 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Lennon: What is to be done? The Great Quail wrote: > > It is good to remember our dead. They are still with us, and can > still teach us things. like, "Don't piss off unstable types, for they may hunt you down with guns"? All he did was write a few songs that made some money for some already-rich record execs. Hardly Nobel-prize material. I'd be projecting a picture of Kirkpatrick Macmillan long before any musician. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 14:52:51 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Re: prison II - --- brian nupp wrote: > >From: "Andrew D. Simchik" > >Yes. Drugs are wrong. Everybody knows that. Why legalize them? I hope it was obvious that this was not in earnest. > >The war on drugs is not about public health at all. It's remarkable > >enough that we see big tobacco being attacked on these grounds, and it > >makes me wonder what's really going on. The war on drugs is about > where > >these drugs come from, where drug money goes, what drug money is spent > >on, and what power shifts and organizations result from the drug trade. > >Perhaps to its credit, the government doesn't truly care what you put > >into your body. It doesn't profit either way from your individual > action. > >But if you possess drugs, you must have gotten them from someone, who > >got them from someone, who got them from someone the government would > >like very much to screw. At least this has always been my > understanding > >of what the war on drugs is about. > > The same would be true about tobacco (or anything else)if tobacco were > illegal. The whole priciple of them being illegal is why the money > comes > and goes from these organizations. It's circle reasoning. The difference -- again, at least this is what I've been led to understand -- is that tobacco is grown domestically, is part of one of the biggest American businesses, whereas most illegal drugs come from countries with which America has a shaky relationship at best. If heroin, coke, or marijuana were the principal product of a major American industry, or could quickly become same, that would go a long way toward legalizing those drugs. People make a lot of money on selling alcohol and cigarettes. But they are Americans, businessmen, paying taxes and bribes and donations and whatnot. It's not altogether clear that the same thing would happen if drugs were legalized today. > I've thought > about > this way too much to get too involved (it's tiresome) which is exactly > what > the govt. wants. I guess. But actually I would disagree that the majority of Americans want drugs to be legalized. I don't necessarily think they have informed opinions on the subject, but even I have a hard time with the idea that 18-year-olds could buy heroin over the counter. Pot is a happy little drug. Ecstasy is a happy little drug. Heroin is, by all accounts, not such a happy little drug. So I think the government isn't too worried about you or me getting involved. Public opinion is on their side. The more practical question is not whether we should control substances, but how we should control them -- i.e., whether throwing drug possessors into jail is right and proper, etc. Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik: drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:13:37 EDT From: "brian nupp" Subject: Re: prison II >I hope it was obvious that this was not in earnest. Right, sorry! Brian > > > >The war on drugs is not about public health at all. It's remarkable > > >enough that we see big tobacco being attacked on these grounds, and it > > >makes me wonder what's really going on. The war on drugs is about > > where > > >these drugs come from, where drug money goes, what drug money is spent > > >on, and what power shifts and organizations result from the drug trade. > > >Perhaps to its credit, the government doesn't truly care what you put > > >into your body. It doesn't profit either way from your individual > > action. > > >But if you possess drugs, you must have gotten them from someone, who > > >got them from someone, who got them from someone the government would > > >like very much to screw. At least this has always been my > > understanding > > >of what the war on drugs is about. > > > > The same would be true about tobacco (or anything else)if tobacco were > > illegal. The whole priciple of them being illegal is why the money > > comes > > and goes from these organizations. It's circle reasoning. > >The difference -- again, at least this is what I've been led to >understand -- is that tobacco is grown domestically, is part of one >of the biggest American businesses, whereas most illegal drugs come >from countries with which America has a shaky relationship at best. >If heroin, coke, or marijuana were the principal product of a major >American industry, or could quickly become same, that would go a long >way toward legalizing those drugs. > >People make a lot of money on selling alcohol and cigarettes. But they >are Americans, businessmen, paying taxes and bribes and donations and >whatnot. It's not altogether clear that the same thing would happen if >drugs were legalized today. > > > I've thought > > about > > this way too much to get too involved (it's tiresome) which is exactly > > what > > the govt. wants. > >I guess. But actually I would disagree that the majority of Americans >want drugs to be legalized. I don't necessarily think they have informed >opinions on the subject, but even I have a hard time with the idea that >18-year-olds could buy heroin over the counter. Pot is a happy little >drug. Ecstasy is a happy little drug. Heroin is, by all accounts, not >such a happy little drug. So I think the government isn't too worried >about you or me getting involved. Public opinion is on their side. >The more practical question is not whether we should control substances, >but how we should control them -- i.e., whether throwing drug possessors >into jail is right and proper, etc. > >Drew > >===== >Andrew D. Simchik: drew at stormgreen dot com >http://www.stormgreen.com/ > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! >http://mail.yahoo.com/ _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:54:48 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Lennon: What is to be done? Stewart grumps, >The Great Quail wrote: >> >> It is good to remember our dead. They are still with us, and can >> still teach us things. > >like, "Don't piss off unstable types, for they may hunt you down with >guns"? Ah, Ronald Reagan could have taught us that just as effectively. >All he did was write a few songs that made some money for some >already-rich record execs. Hardly Nobel-prize material. Sigh. Is the weather that bad in Glasgow, or is this one of those "weegie" things I was told could get me stabbed to death by a kilt-pin in the wrong places? (Or is that a Highland danger?) Well, you *are* entitled to both your opinion, even if it speaks out against the Greatest Beatle Who Ever Beatled; and your cynicism, even if it disregards the simple fact that a song can change the way a few people view the world.... I for one am happier that John Lennon lived and wrote music. - --Quail - -- +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ The Great Quail, K.S.C. (riverrun Discordian Society, Kibroth-hattaavah Branch) For fun with postmodern literature, New York vampires, and Fegmania, visit Sarnath: http://www.rpg.net/quail "i'm not a critic, though i play one on the internet." -- doug mayo-wells ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 18:56:00 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Pomo theory! Hurray! Stephen writes, >I was told many times by this particular prof (and to be truthful, actually >believe) that I am not a very intelligent person, so I can't engage in a >meaningful dialog with you about this, Ugh. Sounds like this Prof was a real winner! And, hey, I started life as a chemistry teacher, not a literary guy. And I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer either, I assure you. > but I never felt that other schools >of literary criticism (including modernism) necessarily endorsed the idea >that past stories, or histories, or narratives, were to be viewed as >"master narratives" and taken as gospel. Not exactly... more like they didn't question (too deeply) the master narratives that produced them in the first place. Um, let me try to explain... (As 50,000 Fegs hit the "delete" key) (I just heard LJ) First of all, as Stephen mentions above, it should be mentioned that the idea of "narrative" here is not to be taken in the traditional meaning..... in PoMo theory, a narrative is essentially a way of thinking about something, a guiding viewpoint, a cultural program of sorts that informs your thought on a very deep level. 1. First of all, postmodernism is not really "a school of literary criticism," though it is certainly related. It is more of a ... God, and I *hate* to use this word, but it's a philosophical *paradigm,* a condition of intellectual life, art, and thought with roots in late capitalism and ramifications in all fields of human endeavor. Postmodernism itself is a contested term -- is it an extension of modernism? A reaction against modernism? A progression from Enlightenment --> Romanticism --> Modernism --> PoMo? Or maybe even a mode of thought that surfaces again and again throughout history during certain periods? (Why do I feel like future generations are laughing at us?) 2. There are indeed other fields of criticism which were nearly totalizing in their assertions -- the elitist concept of Belles Lettres, the "new Criticism" of T.S. Eliot clan, Russian formalism (especially when co-opted by the Soviet state), stuff like that. But, to be fair, much of this grew from well-established master narratives such as "Capitalism," "Marxism," "Quailism," and the dread "Enlightenment Project," that favorite bugaboo of academics who like to whine about imperialism and logical thought, bitch and moan, you know the West has done NOTHING right in 3500 years, since Homer fucked it all up for us.... 3. One of the tenets of postmodernism is to see these master narratives as being failures; or at least, incomplete methods of Discourse. Postmodernism sees the world as an interacting set of meta narrratives and "small" narratives.... A combination of post-colonial dissolution, the omnipresence of the media, and the effects of advanced capitalism has put to death the hold of master narratives. How much they should be abandoned is another hotly contested issue, and one where I have my own opinions -- I am a believer in the Enlightenment, and I feel that there are some things we should establish as Absolutes, otherwise all is chaos. (Believe it or not, in thinking this I stand closer to the neo-Marxists than the real freewheeling PoMo nihilists). Jean Francios Lyotard wrote a great -- and fairly short and readable -- book on this, "The Postmodern Condition," which I highly recommend. >In the case of this particular instructor, my point was that reference >(such as knowledge of the past) is necessary to give meaning to events >(such as our present experiences of life, art, etc), which seemed to be one >of the points made in one of the books we studied (The English Patient). I don't think anyone would argue with that.... I mean, "Duh." (This prof sounds like a jerk!) >This person claimed to not to wish to read or study anything other than >contemporary works, which were the only works that were relevant. I realize >that she doesn't speak for all postmodernists. Yikes! That's the far, far extension of PoMo theory, a farther extension than most people would be comfortable with. Fisrt of all, how can you study modern works without a studied, capable knowledge of the traditions they are built upon/breaking away from? "Gravity's Rainbow" is greatly enhanced by knowledge of Moby Dick and Ulysses. Ulysses is enhanced by a knowledge of Hamlet, and of course Homer. And so on. I suppose this professor was the type of academic terrorist who things that dead white males have nothing to say? That to be truly relevant, one needs to be entirely topical and even culturally relevant? I disagree 100%. (By the way, was this in the late eighties?) >My knowledge of criticism is terrible BTW, I always felt that the various >schools of critical thought were much grayer, less defined, than they're >various endorsers claimed them to be, Everyone and every >generation likes to think they've come up with something really new and >different. All very true. Most schools of thought have multiple shades, nuances, applications, etc. And postmodernism is a complex monster, as I hinted at above.... It includes a whole slew of little monsterettes, each with their own inner conflicts: postcolonialism, postfeminism, queer theory, etc. >and that postmodern ideas were around >(undefined as such) long before the term was coined. Another valid argument -- I mean, there are pomo elements in Mozart's Don Giovanni, in Hamlet, in Tristram Shandy, in Moby Dick.... (hmmm... Oddly enough these are all my favorites from the Old School...) >That and I despise *jargon*...lit criticism was very glad to let me go...I >think you'ns gots to be smart t'study that there stuff! Not really, no smarter than anything else that involves reading and thinking. True, you have to be able to tolerate jargon -- but then any field has its share, it helps refine communication. (But some people have to learn there is a time when to use it, and a time not to use it, and that lots and lots of jargon is worth shit if it could be said more effectively with common English!) >I realize that you love your field, and I don't mean to denigrate it.... It's not really my field -- Lord knows, I attack academic weenism constantly! So very very very much of it is pure bullshit, intellectual wankery, and simple survival -- "I have to publish a paper and impress the person above me, even if I have nothing new to say." >in >the words of my former prof...I'm just attacking it out of frustration >because I'm not intelligent enough to understand it. I don't buy that for an instant, and neither do you. Sounds like the Prof just couldn't communicate clearly, or he felt defensive because his own ideas were so half-assed. Anyway...um.... "My cat's breath smells like catfood." - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 19:04:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: fegBand makes good i was just using napster's "discover new music" feature, and look what i found! Angel used to be on this list. http://artist.napster.com/display.php?id=wefsRDTOhlV6 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:42:02 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V9 #278 >- - If the Marquis de Sade had been put to death instead of sent to prison, >we would never have had _120 Days of Sodom_. (Arguably this is an argument >for capital punishment, not against it.) > >- - Oscar Wilde, _The Ballad of Reading Gaol_. Granted, prison ruined him, >but it was slower than death. > >- - I'm sure there are more examples. The point is that it appears that one >can still live a productive life in prison if one has access to the means >of productiveness. This is usually easier for writers and poets today than >it was for de Sade personally. If I were sent to prison for life, I would >still be able to write. I might write more than I do today. I might even >retain the spirit to write. how about Thomas Malory's Morte d'Arthur? James (whee! a new thread!) James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- You talk to me as if from a distance -.-=-.- And I reply with impressions chosen from another time =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:46:42 -0700 From: Asshole Motherfucker Subject: casey casem? get sent menacing letters two or three times a year. it's possible they could garnish my wages at some point. (*could* seize assets, except that i don't really have any.) american chemical companies make big dough sending their product to drug labs. lots and lots of drug money flows through new york banks. indirectly, military contractors get to sell billions of dollars worth of weaponry to colombian paramilitary organisations for them to obliterate colombian peasants selling "cash crops" because u.s. - -based (and taxpayer-subsidised) big ag and oil has undercut them and/or displaced them. (this is why the u'wa tribe is threatening mass suicide, for example.) if it weren't a "drug war" it'd be a war on commies or something. but at least for the time being... on the domestic side, there is one and only one purpose of the "drug war": putting black males behind bars. there might be other "fringe benefits", but that's the big ticket. the following are apparently going to be voting for ralph nader: susan sarandon, noam chomsky, studs terkel, randall robinson, linda ronstadt, willie nelson, jackson browne, bonnie raitt, barry commoner, ben cohen, jerry greenfield, ronnie dugger, jello biafra, herman daly, david korten, roseanne de moro, eddie vedder, mel king, casey kasem, ron kovic, howard zinn, barbara ehrenreich, david brower, phil donahue, jim hightower, john b. anderson, michael moore. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:12:56 EDT From: "brian nupp" Subject: Re: Lennon: What is to be done? >I for one am happier that John Lennon lived and wrote music. > >--Quail Cheers to that! - -Brian _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 22:15:56 EDT From: "brian nupp" Subject: Re: Lennon: What is to be done? I thought it would be could to pick up John Lennon's "Milk and Honey" for his 60th bithday, so I did. 'Hope it's good! - -bRIAN >From: The Great Quail >Reply-To: The Great Quail >To: fegmaniax@smoe.org >Subject: Re: Lennon: What is to be done? >Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 17:54:48 -0400 > >Stewart grumps, > >>The Great Quail wrote: >>> >>> It is good to remember our dead. They are still with us, and can >>> still teach us things. >> >>like, "Don't piss off unstable types, for they may hunt you down with >>guns"? > >Ah, Ronald Reagan could have taught us that just as effectively. > >>All he did was write a few songs that made some money for some >>already-rich record execs. Hardly Nobel-prize material. > >Sigh. Is the weather that bad in Glasgow, or is this one of those >"weegie" things I was told could get me stabbed to death by a >kilt-pin in the wrong places? (Or is that a Highland danger?) > >Well, you *are* entitled to both your opinion, even if it speaks out >against the Greatest Beatle Who Ever Beatled; and your cynicism, even >if it disregards the simple fact that a song can change the way a few >people view the world.... > >I for one am happier that John Lennon lived and wrote music. > >--Quail >-- >+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ > >The Great Quail, K.S.C. >(riverrun Discordian Society, Kibroth-hattaavah Branch) > >For fun with postmodern literature, New York vampires, >and Fegmania, visit Sarnath: http://www.rpg.net/quail > >"i'm not a critic, though i play one on the internet." > -- doug mayo-wells _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #280 *******************************