From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #292 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, October 19 2000 Volume 09 : Number 292 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: set lists ["Thomas, Ferris" ] Ye Joseph's Publick House [The Great Quail ] Re: set lists [Bayard ] lennon's piano [GSS ] Make weigh, please, and get out of my weigh! [Christopher Gross ] ID these songs! [Bayard ] Weigh too sloppy [Christopher Gross ] Re: ID these songs! [Alfred Masciocchi ] Re: spreading it on thicke ["Randy R." ] Re: spreading it on thicke [Glen Uber ] Corrected setlists from Tim the Taper [Bayard ] Lope At The Hive on ebay... [Gene Hopstetter ] Re: Review of 10-16-2000 gig [Ben ] Ged all over the World ["Randy R." ] Re: Review of 10-16-2000 gig [Glen Uber ] Re: Purely political parley (Nader content 99.44%) ["Russ Reynolds" ] Re: heifer project international (NR) [Asshole Motherfucker ] vocab rehab ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" ] Re: quote of the day [Michael R Godwin ] RE: reap ["Thomas, Ferris" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:02:56 -0400 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: RE: set lists "I feel ripped off... Last night I paid $15 dollars to see a drunk old man (robyn) destroy one of my all time favorite singer songwriters." I, too, am offended at the mistreatment Kung-Fu Fighting gets. The song is high art. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:17:27 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Ye Joseph's Publick House Woj, >special bonus for folks attending the second joe's pub show: the company of >several fegs including, but not limited to, the great quail, lj, ferris, >gary "black bart" asa, and yours truly. I am trying to get Scary Mary to go (hear that, Mary?!?), and we will be with "Semi-Feg" Judy. The tables seat about four, I think...? >speaking of which, is there a plan? >based on mike's experience, it might pay to meet/eat at joe's somewhat >earlier than a hour before the show. Well, I plan to get there much earlier -- grab some dinner there, stake out a table if possible. I have no qualms about getting there three hours early; I'll even bring a book, so I don't have to talk to Woj about chick rock. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:55:12 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Re: set lists > when we last left our heroes, woj exclaimed: > -- > > "He isn't drunk, he's just Brittish." The word of the day at Wordsmith is "ogre", which includes this definition: A person who is felt to be particularly cruel, british, or hideous. (Whoops! *brutish*) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:52:03 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: lennon's piano George Micheal bought Lennon's piano for 2 million. It was the piano Lennon used to compose Imagine. I'm surprised Micheal Jackson didn't scoop it up. 2 million bucks for a piano. I guess when ya got money to burn, ya do. Lennon was cool, and so was Yoko and I sill hope Chapman spends the rest of his life in jail, but John was overrated, kinda like Clapton. Lennon's Ferrari only fetched 110,000 pounds. Jeez, to me the car is worth more than the piano, but then I have been around pianos all my life. gss ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:09:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Make weigh, please, and get out of my weigh! > > However, I stand by "under weigh". > > Me too. I can just about tolerate "under way", Actually both are correct, the web page Jeme cited notwithstanding. In fact "under weigh" is just a variant of "under way." The OED cites "under way" back to 1743, noting it was derived from the Dutch "onderweg." Meanwhile, under "weigh," it says "In *under weigh*, a common var. of *under way*, from erroneous association with the phr. 'to weigh anchor,'" and the earliest example only dates from 1777. "Under way" is therefore the original form, as well as the more logical (the phrase "under way" makes sense based on the meanings of its constituent words, while "under weigh" does not). Note also that there is no such thing as "head weigh," "leeweigh," "steerage way," etc. Rather to my surprise, the OED also noted that "under way" is now frequently spelled as one word, which presumably means that this is an accepted usage. - --Chris np: Skinny Puppy, Too Dark Park ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:08:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Glass Hotel - more renovations Hiyer - http://glasshotel.net is down, as some of you sharp buggers have noticed - it should be back online this weekend or so, with more features, a better server, and most importantly, lots more MP3s of live and rare Robyn! like this one: http://chris.criticalfish.com/~bayard/Reynardine/ Thanks Ferris! Thanks Qrys! =b ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:13:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: ID these songs! http://chris.criticalfish.com/~bayard/1999-11-19-KUSFguestDJhour/15.mp3 http://chris.criticalfish.com/~bayard/1999-11-19-KUSFguestDJhour/16.mp3 I *think* i know the artists, but let me know. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:18:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Weigh too sloppy On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Christopher Gross wrote: > Note also that there is no such thing as "head weigh," "leeweigh," > "steerage way," etc. Of course there is such a thing as "steerage way;" I meant to write "steerage weigh." Off to fire my proofreading staff, Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 12:42:02 -0400 From: Alfred Masciocchi Subject: Re: ID these songs! Bayard wrote: > > http://chris.criticalfish.com/~bayard/1999-11-19-KUSFguestDJhour/15.mp3 John Cale - Mr. Wilson (from Slow Dazzle) > > http://chris.criticalfish.com/~bayard/1999-11-19-KUSFguestDJhour/16.mp3 > Lou Reed - How Do You Think It Feels (from Berlin) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:16:17 -0700 From: "Randy R." Subject: Re: spreading it on thicke > > Bayard wrote: > > > > > Who else sings their theme song..? Chuck Norris, "Walker, Texas Ranger" Vince ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:29:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Glen Uber Subject: Re: spreading it on thicke On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Randy R. wrote: >> > > Who else sings their theme song..? > >Chuck Norris, "Walker, Texas Ranger" So did Lee Majors with "The Fall Guy". Cheers! - -g- "When a woman marries she is complete. When a man marries, he is finished." --Oscar Wilde +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Glen Uber uberg (at) sonic dot net http://www.sonic.net/~uberg Santa Rosa, California ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 15:50:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Corrected setlists from Tim the Taper 10/15 Cynthia Mask Squint Queen Elvis Heavenly The Man With the Lightbulb Head (aborted) I Feel Beautiful Mighty Joe Moon Honey Don't Think Gene Hackman (with a Beatlesque reprise!) The Hook Dark Princess Don't Look Down Uncorrected Personality Traits Trams of old London Fuzzy Encore: Happiness (Grant solo) Lonestar Song (grant solo) Chinese Bones (Robyn solo) Not Dark Yet (Robyn solo) Medley of 70's songs: Sound & Vision, When You're In Love With A Beautiful Woman, Kung Fu Fighting, Ashes to Ashes 10/16 Gene Hackman Honey Don't Think Queen Elvis St. Expedite Sleeping Knights of Jesus Heavenly Lonesome Serenade Dark Princess My Jolly Mouth (improv) Mighty Joe Moon I Saw Nick Drake Arousing Thunder Antwoman Four Lonely Lambs (lamps?)(improv) Fuzzy Encore: I Used To Love You (Robyn solo) Happiness (Grant solo) I am the Walrus/The Rose [1] Mockingbirds Cynthia Mask (w/outtro) All I Have To Do Is Dream Encore 2: Satellite of Love Golden Years/Fame Across the Universe Now how 'bout some NY setlists? Bring em on!!!! =b [1] I may have been mistaken, the brief Robyn interlude may have been vocalizations that are in "walrus" - not sound effects - I don't know the song well enough to say. Whacky enough for ya, chump? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:47:56 -0500 From: Gene Hopstetter Subject: Lope At The Hive on ebay... Here's one for the Soft Boys collectors (I've already got a copy): ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 11:59:41 -0700 From: Asshole Motherfucker Subject: heifer project international i really don't understand this, steve. if you don't want to vote for nader because you'd rather have gore in office than bush (in other words, for *tactical* reasons), then, fine. you're mistaken in the belief that a bush presidency would be more damaging than a gore presidency (as i've demonstrated numerous times), but it doesn't make much difference one way or the other. however, taking cheap shots at nader is just petty. his "fotune", as he disclosed a few months ago, is about 3 million dollars. he's lived in the same apartment for thirty years, doesn't own a car, doesn't have a wife. for three decades he's been a tireless worker for the cause of justice -- almost without compare. he does more in an off week to make the world a better place than bush and gore have done in their combined lives. he's probably the most qualified presidential candidate in history. his credentials, in other words, are impeccable. until now, i haven't seen *anybody* call into question his record, his accomplishments, his dedication. certainly bush and gore don't. just the opposite, in fact: they're so terrified shitless of him telling the truth that even the prospect of him *attending* a debate (let alone participating) gets him ejected from the premises. (is this what democracy looks like to you, steve?) you have GOT to be fucking kidding me! the clinton presidency has been the most damaging in history, bar none. let's take a cursory look at the clinton/gore legacy: - --genocide. (again, not my words, but those of the man who, after spending 34 years working for the UN, was hand-picked by the masters to administer the oil-for-food programme.) to which we can add the war-crimes-fest in the balkans; the final wipe-out of east timor; the terrifying escalation (capped by 1.3 billion new military dollars) of violence in colombia; the destruction of pharmaceutical production capability in sudan; star wars and the proposed privatisation/restart of nuclear weapons production capabilities at hanford; the oslo accords, the proposed wiping from the record "anachronistic" (albright's word) UN resolutions concerning the israel/palestine issue, and (the first president to do so) rejecting UN 194; and the massive foreign arms sales (more than the rest of the world combined). - --nafta/gatt/wto. "free trade" orthodoxy (state subsidisation for the rich, market "discipline" for the poor) is probably even more nefarious in the long run than military bombardment (though the latter are usually undertaken at the behest of the former). it's nothing that the clinton administration invented, of course. but clinton/gore are among its most hysterical champions. - --welfare "reform". (recall that clinton, to his credit, was somewhat reluctant to sign off, but finally did so after gore's insistence. ) - --ecological savagery. from the salvage logging rider, to the cabinet appointment of larry "africa is vastly underpolluted" summers, to the headwaters, yellowstone, and canyonlands sell outs, to the gutting of the delaney clause, to the enabling of polluters, to the holdings in big oil, and so on; eliciting david brower's comment that the first four years of clinton had seen more environmental destruction than the twelve years of reagan and bush. - --"the economy, stupid". the most aenemic economic expansion in history (unless you're among the 1%), after which, wages have only now reached their 1989 level, and are still *well* below their 1970 level (even though hours worked are way, way up). even in boom times, households are holding record debt, and bankruptcies are at an all- time high. when the next recession hits (and it will), the fallout is going to be very ugly. - --police state, uber alles. a steeper erosion of civil liberties could scarcely be imagined. - --"managed care". the insurance companies are laughing all the way to the bank. oh, yeah, the "ledger". the balancing-out. well, i can think of one positive: joycelen elders. oh, wait...she lasted about as long as an etch-a-sketch drawing. get OUT of here with that crap, man. again, if you think bush would be marginally worse, that's fine. but NOBODY -- least of all yourself - -- believes he has the potential to be a "very good" president, or that he isn't lying about policy positions to get elected. please. just take it back, okay? we know you don't believe it. (by the way, gore & lieberman on scalia & thomas: . may be. but i was thrilled by a letter to the AVA last week. apparently one of the elementary schools in mendocino conducted a straw poll of its fourth-graders. on the ballot were: gore, bush, other. nader got 40%. and besides, he's said repeatedly he doesn't expect to win, but he DOES expect the movement to be a force after this november. this is complete nonsense. i don't even know what it's supposed to mean. nader on the democratic ticket, with the backing of the democratic machine? nader after he's sold out? nader after having been allowed to debate? what? nobody gives a fuck! don't you get it? they're BANKRUPT (at BEST). nobody WANTS them to get elected. FUCK them to HELL! KEN "Jerry Mathers, as 'The Beaver'" THE KENSTER ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 16:27:36 -0400 From: Jon Fetter Subject: Egad! http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA/chicken397.html - ------------------------------------------------------------------- "Ireland, Scotland, Brittany, Wales, let's go out and count some quails." --TGQ, "The Celtic Quails of Cornwall" (Re-mix by Trevor Horn) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 17:05:45 -0400 From: Ben Subject: Re: Review of 10-16-2000 gig > the nay-sayer sayeth: > > > Vocally duplicated the sound effects, eh? Sounds arch and wacky. > > If you think the original is "arch and wacky," perhaps you would have > found this to be so. Personally, I was impressed. (So was everyone else > who heard it, it seemed.) Yes I do agree that sometimes Robyn does songs in versions that are a bit too silly, such as A Day In The Life on Live Death being an example. But for a song that isn't exactly the most serious in the Beatle catalog, this version was done pretty "straight", especially with the doomy-sounding synth strings. Robyn seemed to be too busy coming up with the correct words to do anything too wacky. Of course there were other covers done at these shows which had no campy value to them, such as Satellite Of Love and It's Not Dark Yet. Yeah, Robyn resisted doing a Dylan imitation! Though Robyn does do a number of tounge in cheek covers there are countless other covers in the past Robyn has done which we could list that are done in a "serious manner". Of course one would probably have to have attended a whole lot of Robyn concerts, or be a tape weenie to know that. :) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:32:16 -0700 From: "Randy R." Subject: Ged all over the World http://www.geocities.com/gedhead/muse.html Vince ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 14:41:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Glen Uber Subject: Re: Review of 10-16-2000 gig On Wed, 18 Oct 2000, Ben wrote: >Though Robyn does do a number of tounge in cheek covers there are >countless other covers in the past Robyn has done which we could list >that are done in a "serious manner". Of course one would probably have >to have attended a whole lot of Robyn concerts, or be a tape weenie to >know that. :) I am neither a tape weenie, nor do I consider 12 Robyn shows to be "a lot," but to my mind, his version of "Tangled Up In Blue" at the Mill Valley show a few months back was not only performed "straight," it may well have been the best cover I've ever heard him do. 'Course, I'm a "covers junkie". I love to hear covers done either note-for-note or re-done in such a way that they are rendered unrecognizable. There's no middle ground for me. Cheers! - -g- "When a woman marries she is complete. When a man marries, he is finished." --Oscar Wilde +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Glen Uber uberg (at) sonic dot net http://www.sonic.net/~uberg Santa Rosa, California ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:25:47 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: Re: Purely political parley (Nader content 99.44%) Viv: > If Bush wins, I'll eat my shorts. That's a guarantee. Hey, if Bush wins I'll eat Vivien's shorts too. - -rUss ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 23:54:22 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: heifer project international (NR) Asshole Motherfucker: >>Actually, I don't know if Ralph still owns any stock, but investment >>in one or several corporations is what made his fortune. >i really don't understand this, steve. if you don't want to vote >for nader because you'd rather have gore in office than bush (in >other words, for *tactical* reasons), then, fine. you're mistaken >in the belief that a bush presidency would be more damaging than >a gore presidency (as i've demonstrated numerous times), but it doesn't >make much difference one way or the other. No Eddie, you haven't demonstrated that Gore would be worse than Bush. You've stated your political opinion, and that's cool. >however, taking cheap shots at nader is just petty. his "fotune", >as he disclosed a few months ago, is about 3 million dollars. he's >lived in the same apartment for thirty years, doesn't own a car, >doesn't have a wife. for three decades he's been a tireless worker >for the cause of justice -- almost without compare. he does more >in an off week to make the world a better place than bush and gore >have done in their combined lives. he's probably the most qualified >presidential candidate in history. I wasn't taking any kind of shot at Ralph. As I've stated before, I think he's a great guy. Here's the rest of that paragraph : >>So, obviously, the simple act of owing stock does not make you a bad >>person. Still, I suppose one corporation may be worse than another. It should have been obvious that this just a little needle for folk that are monolithically anti-corporate. >his credentials, in other words, are impeccable. until now, i haven't >seen *anybody* call into question his record, his accomplishments, >his dedication. certainly bush and gore don't. just the opposite, >in fact: they're so terrified shitless of him telling the truth >that even the prospect of him *attending* a debate (let alone participating) >gets him ejected from the premises. (is this what democracy looks >like to you, steve?) As I've pointed out to jeme, the debate commission is a wholly owned subsidiary of the two major parties. None of the other minor party candidates would have gotten in. Other parties get in only when they can't be kept out. This should not be a surprise. >>Al Gore is a politician, and he wants to be President. For eight >>years he has been Vice President in an administration that has in >>sum, I think, ended up on the positive side of the ledger. >you have GOT to be fucking kidding me! the clinton presidency has >been the most damaging in history, bar none. let's take a cursory >look at the clinton/gore legacy: >genocide. (again, not my words, but those of the man who, after >spending 34 years working for the UN, was hand-picked by the masters >to administer the oil-for-food programme.) to which we can add the >war-crimes-fest in the balkans; the final wipe-out of east timor; >the terrifying escalation (capped by 1.3 billion new military dollars) >of violence in colombia; the destruction of pharmaceutical production >capability in sudan; star wars and the proposed privatisation/restart >of nuclear weapons production capabilities at hanford; the oslo accords, >the proposed wiping from the record "anachronistic" (albright's >word) UN resolutions concerning the israel/palestine issue, and (the >first president to do so) rejecting UN 194; and the massive foreign >arms sales (more than the rest of the world combined). >nafta/gatt/wto. "free trade" orthodoxy (state subsidisation for >the rich, market "discipline" for the poor) is probably even more >nefarious in the long run than military bombardment (though the latter >are usually undertaken at the behest of the former). it's nothing >that the clinton administration invented, of course. but clinton/gore >are among its most hysterical champions. >welfare "reform". (recall that clinton, to his credit, was somewhat >reluctant to sign off, but finally did so after gore's insistence. >ecological savagery. from the salvage logging rider, to the cabinet >appointment of larry "africa is vastly underpolluted" summers, to >the headwaters, yellowstone, and canyonlands sell outs, to the gutting >of the delaney clause, to the enabling of polluters, to the holdings >in big oil, and so on; eliciting david brower's comment that the >first four years of clinton had seen more environmental destruction >than the twelve years of reagan and bush. >"the economy, stupid". the most aenemic economic expansion in >history (unless you're among the 1%), after which, wages have only >now reached their 1989 level, and are still *well* below their 1970 >level (even though hours worked are way, way up). even in boom times, >households are holding record debt, and bankruptcies are at an all- >time high. when the next recession hits (and it will), the fallout >is going to be very ugly. >police state, uber alles. a steeper erosion of civil liberties >could scarcely be imagined. >"managed care". the insurance companies are laughing all the way >to the bank. >oh, yeah, the "ledger". the balancing-out. well, i can think of >one positive: joycelen elders. oh, wait...she lasted about as long >as an etch-a-sketch drawing. I would agree with three of the above and might score a couple at zero. On the rest I simply disagree or would apply a heaping dose of context. >>Based on his record, I think Gore has the potential to be a very >>good President. And I do not think that he simply lying about his >>policy positions in order to be elected.> >get OUT of here with that crap, man. again, if you think bush would >be marginally worse, that's fine. but NOBODY -- least of all yourself >believes he has the potential to be a "very good" president, or >that he isn't lying about policy positions to get elected. It all depends on what weight you give to things. By my measure, Bush will be MUCH worse. And I DO think that Gore has the potential to to be a very good President because it's obvious that he recognizes what the problems are. The question is whether he would be willing to take ALL of them on, and how successful he would be if he did. Nor do I think that his policy positions are crafted simply to get elected. Again, the question is how much he would be able to get done. >>I'm for more fair, honest, and open elections. Supreme Court aside, >>you're far more likely to get them by voting for Gore. >please. just take it back, okay? we know you don't believe it. I believe that voting for Nader will get you nothing. If Gore is elected, campaign reform might just skate by. The current Supreme Court is a hindrance to reform and if Bush gets the kind of appointees he wants, it will be worse. >(by the way, gore & lieberman on scalia & thomas: >. One of the Democrats' great failings has been the unwillingness to reject Republican nominees based simply on ideology. The interest groups have had to provide cover by generating a shitstorm of controversy. The Republicans do not share this trait. They just make up some bullshit excuse and they don't care how much they get slagged for it. Sure, judicial appointments are something of a crap shoot. But we are looking at the potential of a unified Republican government. Bush badly needs something to satisfy the fundies, and a couple of anti-choice Justices would get him a lifetime supply of free-will love offerings. Bush may be disinterested in most things, but he saw the mistake his daddy made by letting Sununu talk him into appointing Souter and it won't happen again. I suspect Gore's appointees would be much like Clinton's. >>Let's do a thought experiment - substitute Nader for Gore as the >>Democratic candidate and take a look at the electoral map. Does Nader >>carry any of the toss-up states? How about California or New York? How >>about the other states where Gore leads? >this is complete nonsense. i don't even know what it's supposed >to mean. nader on the democratic ticket, with the backing of the >democratic machine? nader after he's sold out? nader after having >been allowed to debate? what? Nader as he is, with the backing of one of the two major parties and a full campaign from the time of the Democratic convention. Would he win? - ---------- OK, I'm sure that everybody has had more than enough of this. So no more political stuff until after Viv eats her shorts. - - Steve __________ Well, Jesus ain't no astronaut And Buddah, he's no fool Cathedral bells don't ring in hell 'cos cats down there don't think that's cool. - Bill Nelson ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 22:51:07 -0700 From: Asshole Motherfucker Subject: Re: heifer project international (NR) >Nader as he is, with the backing of one of the two major parties and a >full campaign from the time of the Democratic convention. Would he win? well, the democratic party would never in a million years get behind nader -- it couldn't even come close to getting behind brown or jackson. but, if nader were allowed to debate, he'd clean up like nobody's business. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 10:32:22 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: please, jeme, this is offensive. Michael R Godwin wrote: > > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Capuchin wrote: > > However, I stand by "under weigh". > > Me too. I can just about tolerate "under way", but I keep seeing > "underway". Ugh! Stewart, what do you think? compounds happen. Unfortunate, but words change. I'm still horrified that some dictionaries have "imply" as a synonym for "infer". Some even don't have a usage not warning against it. Blooargh!, as Viz would have it. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:06:41 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: reap Ivan Owen, the voice of Basil Brush. (fx: the massed sounds of non-uk fegs going, "who?") ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 07:28:27 -0400 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: vocab rehab Continuing on from Stewart's imply/infer comment. I was shocked to see that feggers have recently made two of the most common errors of this ilk. Someone (Jeff D., I think) wrote about people flaunting laws rather than flouting them, and Steve just described Bush as being 'disinterested'. If only he were. Uninterested is the word you're looking for. Sorry to come over all pedantic...Actually, I'm not sorry at all... jmbc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:57:47 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: quote of the day > robyn h. on Free As A Bird: > They're The Beatles and everyone else isn't." I was listening to the radio the other day and they played 'Hey Jude', a Beatles song which I have heard a number of times over the years. It sounded somehow different - Paul was yelling more than usual over the fadeout and even the order of the verses seemed odd. Have I cracked up? Or is there a remix going around? If there is, I don't like it; but I never liked that long long fadeout anyway. - - Mike Godwin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:13:04 -0400 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: RE: reap - -----Original Message----- From: Stewart C. Russell [mailto:stewart@ref.collins.co.uk] Subject: reap Ivan Owen, the voice of Basil Brush. (fx: the massed sounds of non-uk fegs going, "who?") - -----Original Message----- Magic Roundabout? ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #292 *******************************