From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #304 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, October 25 2000 Volume 09 : Number 304 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: bush's ideas (fwd) [Terrence Marks ] Bush as Chauncey Gardner (2% Robyn content) ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com"] RE: bush's ideas (fwd) [Viv Lyon ] political nattering/nadering [Eb ] eb all over the tanning butter [Asshole Motherfucker ] Re: political nattering/nadering [Eb ] Our Ladies Of The Initials ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" ] Re: political nattering/nadering [Viv Lyon ] Re: Bush as Chauncey Gardner (2% Robyn content) [Terrence Marks ] Re: Bush as Chauncey Gardner (2% Robyn content) [Viv Lyon ] Books ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" ] Re: knee jerks, pots calling kettles black and other Pavlovian reactions [Asshole Motherfucker ] Re: Hugh Heifer-ner (2% Hitchcock (Alfred)) [grutness@surf4nix.com (James] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:59:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence Marks Subject: RE: bush's ideas (fwd) On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Thomas, Ferris wrote: > All right...the man might not be the best public speaker but quite a few of > these are petty. Some are actually dead-right. Mainly: > > "When I have been asked who caused the riots and the killing in LA, my > answer has been direct & simple: Who is to blame for the riots? The > rioters are to blame. Who is to blame for the killings? The killers are > to blame." (read: you're responsible for your actions, not anyone else). I've found that a _lot_ of the "Boy, this person is really stupid" kinda quotes are either manufactured or make sense when viewed in context... 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: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:15:01 -0400 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: Bush as Chauncey Gardner (2% Robyn content) Rioters and killers = Bad. Yeah, it's always the people who did it, who did it. Trying to defend Bush on this one seems to be pushing it rather. Of course you might be right that he thinks people should be responsible for their actions, but in this case it seems to me he's ignoring a complex mixture of social and economic circumstances. Secondly, I'm not aware of the LAPD being held responsible for their actions over the years....Code For Race Alert.... And as for the 'overseas' one. * Of course* Dubya was weighing up the relative contributions of Canada and Mexico to the balance of trade figures before he said that...Chinny reckon...as we say in London, Arsehole Capital Of The World. He may get his worms mixed up sometimes but when he gets entire countries confused (Slovakia and Slovenia) and can't remember who's in control of volatile states such as Pakistan, that's when I start to worry. Shades of dear old Raygun. (I'm sure Eddie will now tell how much better a president Ronnie was than FDR...) jmbc. Robyn made a few approbatory comments about Ken Livingstone at recent gigs so I reckon he'd be a Nader man. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:18:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: RE: bush's ideas (fwd) On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Terrence Marks wrote: re: Bush's stupid answers > I've found that a _lot_ of the "Boy, this person is really stupid" kinda > quotes are either manufactured or make sense when viewed in context... Yes, but many of them are not. Take for example, this one: in the first debate, Jim Lehrer point-blank asked Bush if he approved of the US intervention in Lebanon. Bush, after a split second of what could have been panic flashing in his eyes, answered only, "Yes." Now, either he did not know what he was saying (very bad), or he actually did approve of the second-biggest foreign policy disaster of Reagan's administration (even worse). The man is an IDIOT. I really didn't think that would be in dispute on this list, despite such blatant stupidities as list-members doubting the God-hood of Nader. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:38:47 -0700 From: Eb Subject: political nattering/nadering Saw a news story today that the Green Party is pulling some ads in California, because the Greens are worried about being spoilers for the Gore vote here.... And I've never placed much stock in those "dumb quotes" lists. If any of us had to make daily public statements (often, off the cuff), I'm sure we'd sometimes stumble on our words too. >I really didn't think that would be in >dispute on this list, despite such blatant stupidities as list-members >doubting the God-hood of Nader. This is the type of comment which makes me shrug off Eddie's, Jeme's and Viv's fanatical views. Eb np: Nelly Furtado ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 13:46:16 -0700 From: Asshole Motherfucker Subject: eb all over the tanning butter <> On a scale of 1 to 100 where 50 is middle of the road, 100 is Hitler and 0 > is Eddie, Shall we, for the sake of fairness, try equating someone who isn't really, really evil with the far right?> but "evil" is a subjective opinion (except when it comes to those who use cell phones in the public "arena", who are objectively evil (hmmm...i guess the jury's still out on those who use cell phones in the pubic "arena")) which shouldn't colour your perception of the subject's rating. i don't know if hitler ought to rate at a full 100. but he was a very strong proponent of restricting human freedom, therefore he rates very far to the right. ditto pol pot, incidentally. that said, what part of hitler's programme do you consider to have been "evil", terry? was it that he wanted all the jews expelled from europe (in truth a very pro-zionist position), and thought nothing of in the meantime placing them in concentration camps and killing them off by the millions? if so, that's exactly what we did to the indians. (except that we killed four or five times more indians than hitler killed jews. hell, i guess we killed more *indochinese* than hitler killed jews - -- and they weren't even "bothering" our "space".) was it that he believed in the sanctity of garnering an overseas empire by forceful acquisition? don't look now, but he learned that from the british, french, dutch, and portugese (among others, including, of course, the united states and japan). he was only playing the game by our rules. was it because he was trying to develop the atom bomb? uh, we actually *used* the damned thing on a *civilian* population. was it because he committed war crimes? so did we -- almost surely equaling his in world war ii alone (not to mention that it's since become common practice for us). was it because he used the art of propaganda to nefarious end? he learned that from us, too. (and in fact, attributed the german defeat - -- correctly or not -- in world war i to the anglo-americans' propagandic superiority.) no, i'm *not* saying that two wrongs make a right. i'm just wondering, "in the sake of fairness", whether we're going to call a spade a spade here. i don't think that i (or anarchists generally, if you like) would rate a 1 on the scale. anarchists believe that humans should be free from the bounds of authority (unlike the "Libertarians", whose conception of "freedom" amounts to believing that the corporations shouldn't be bound by the state (not even realising, it appears, that the corporations couldn't so much as *exist* were it not for the state)) -- most glaringly the multinational corporation, the state, and the church. but this doesn't mean people should be free to do *anything*, even if harmful to others. using cell phones in public, for instance. no self-respecting anarchist could support that! i guess i don't even really think people should be allowed to drive cars. i know there's a thin line there. but i imagine that someone who truly rated at a 1 wouldn't even acknowledge the existence of the line (would feel, in other words, that people (though surely not corporations, states, or churches) should be able to do *anything* - -- up to murdering other people, if they felt like it). <>no, really, steve. you *didn't* read this before posting the link, right? Of course I did. Iraq was ONLY about oil, but the other two were actions of good will.> well, first, i don't think iraq has been *only* about oil. i think it's become quite similar to vietnam in this respect: the state department knows it's wrong, knows that it's killing 5,000 children a month, knows that it's completely isolated in world opinion, knows that it will be judged exceedingly harshly by history...yet, can't bring itself to publicly admit this (let alone do something about it). and so the slaughter continues. looks like we're headed down the same path in colombia, too. secondly, our actions in the balkans and haiti had NOTHING to do with good will -- and you know it. and al gore's going to deliver that? back to sprouting wings and flying to the moon, are we? <>>A nation state must have a military - its size and uses are open >>to debate. >because why? and debate amongst whom? Don't play dumb, Eddie. Even a socialist utopia needs a military.> i'm not playing dumb. i want to know why a nation-state must have a military. (more to the point, i guess, i want to see an answer that doesn't amount to, "we need it to steal other people's resources, coerce other people into doing whatever we want them to do, and provide taxpayer-funded "stimulus" to the domestic economy."> and you didn't answer the second question, either: to whom will the "debate" be open? go and rent The Big Lebowski before you do anything rash (or, for that matter, before you do anything that could *give you* a rash). whoever they're from, i think they're kinda cool! i mean, the "advisors" are running the country anyway, right? apart from being "less evil" than a gore presidency, a bush presidency could very well offer up some of the most entertaining "presidential" moments since jimmy carter was attacked by the giant swimming rabbit! well, again: don't take *my* word for it. take david brower's. guy's been a radical environmentalist for 3,000 years, or something. and *he's* the one that said the first four years of the clinton administration were more damaging in this regard than the twelve years of reagan/bush. i haven't read cockburn and st. clair's Al Gore: A User's Manual yet, but i think it has a whole chapter on clinton/gore's environmental depredations. <(Granted, you think everything Gore says is a lie....)> nor reflexively, though, but upon examination of the record. granted, we won't know *for sure* if gore manages to have told the truth once or twice until four years from now. but it's a pretty fucking good educated guess that he won't have. <(I'm sure Eddie will now tell how much better a president Ronnie was than FDR...)> well, FDR was so fond of mussolini that he did everything but suck his dick for him. why are you so opposed to examining *the records* of various administrations rather than just jerking your knee all the time, john? KEN "You're not indestructible" THE KENSTER ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:54:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: political nattering/nadering On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Eb wrote: > >I really didn't think that would be in > >dispute on this list, despite such blatant stupidities as list-members > >doubting the God-hood of Nader. > > This is the type of comment which makes me shrug off Eddie's, Jeme's and > Viv's fanatical views. Please tell me that someone understood my joke. If it was over Eb's lofty head, I fear it may have completely missed everyone else. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 14:56:58 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: political nattering/nadering >> >I really didn't think that would be in >> >dispute on this list, despite such blatant stupidities as list-members >> >doubting the God-hood of Nader. >> >> This is the type of comment which makes me shrug off Eddie's, Jeme's and >> Viv's fanatical views. > >Please tell me that someone understood my joke. If it was over Eb's lofty >head, I fear it may have completely missed everyone else. I could search the archives, and pull out 60 other non-joking comments with the same implication. Face it, Viv...you just figured out which was the coolest sorority to join. Eb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:59:41 -0400 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: Our Ladies Of The Initials I'm about 4 or 5 listens in to the new PJ Harvey and I'm disappointed. There seems to be nothing new on show apart from a little more personal happiness on Polly's part, and we all know how destructive that can be to the creative process...(note remarks below before starting new thread...!).The production is pretty dull - I think the absence of Flood and John Parish goes some way to explaining this - and her singing lacks the variety she showed on To Bring You... and Is This Desire? A couple of the songs are such blatant Patti Smith cops I just sat there and laughed when they came on. Worse than that she actually sounds like Lulu on a couple of other numbers. Having said all that there are some good songs here, and - as I often feel with the Robyn albums I'm less fond of - a mediocre Harvey is still better than 95% of anything else out there. k.d.lang's new album on the other hand seems to benefit from a little more joie de vivre and the live show I saw her do the other day was stunning. Her solo take on Roy Orbison's Crying brought the house down. What a fuckin' voice. John Hiatt's new offering Crossing Muddy Waters is very good as well I reckon. Much more rootsy than a lot of his efforts but with his usual appealing lyrics and delivery. As is one by a bloke called Justin Adams. He used to be with Jah Wobble's Invaders Of The Heart and was part of Sinead O'Can't-Make-Up-Her-Mind's band for ages. He mixes African stylings with old-fashioned blues and adds in some electronic twiddles and washes - It's incredibly atmospheric, and live he is mesmeric: I mean truly the-best-live-gig-I've-seen-in-ages mesmeric. He's also just produced a French African band called Lo'Jo who have been making some waves. Anyway, his album is called Desert Road, but I don't know if it's distributed in the US. I can't remember if anyone's talked much about the Wondermints here. They recently helped back Brian 'He's Not The Messiah He's A Very Faulty Boy' Wilson. Their album Bali is pretty damn fine, if you like exactly the sort of thing you might expect them to play. They're supporting Teenage Fanclub on the 9th in London and headlining themselves at the Borderline, just off Charing Cross Rd on the 13th. Watch out also for a band called Clearlake. You heard it here first... jmbc. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:09:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: RIP "Stewart C. Russell" wrote: > Michael R Godwin wrote: > > Aha! Time for Stan Freberg playing St George in the style of Joe > > "I'm a cop" Friday... > cease and desist with the vintage comedy, else I'll have to start > quoting Tom Lehrer, "The Remains of" whom I currently have on my CD > player. only if it's the juiciest, raciest obituary it's ever been your pleasure to read. ===== "Freedom is participation in power." -- Cicero __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:23:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: political nattering/nadering On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Eb wrote: > Face it, Viv...you just figured out which was the coolest sorority to join. I will not defend the sincerity of my political activism to you, a snivelling boob who wastes his life criticizing the creative endeavors of others. If you think I'm a posturer, if you think I am working for the Green Party and for Nader's campaign simply because I think it's cool, you are more shallow than even I took you for. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:30:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence Marks Subject: Re: Bush as Chauncey Gardner (2% Robyn content) On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, jbranscombe@compuserve.com wrote: > And as for the 'overseas' one. * Of course* Dubya was weighing up the > relative contributions of Canada and Mexico to the balance of trade figures > before he said that...Chinny reckon...as we say in London, Arsehole Capital > Of The World. Canada _is_ our biggest trading partner. Mexico is one of the top ten. Why do you insist on offhandedly rejecting a reasonable interpretation of what George W. Bush says? The ability to see that one's political opposition is generally neither stupid nor evil ought to be a lot more common than it is on this list... > He may get his worms mixed up sometimes but when he gets entire countries > confused (Slovakia and Slovenia) and can't remember who's in control of > volatile states such as Pakistan, that's when I start to worry. Does Nader know, off the top of his head, who's in control of Pakistan? (or Liberia, Bangladesh, or Uruguay...) 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: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:27:34 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: What's this globe of fegs coming too? Eddie defends Hitler! Eb calls Viv a sorority girl! The Quail defends Nixon! Not a single post on Bamboozled! And no one mentioned that Grant Lee Philips tried to steal my girlfriend! Oi Vey! - --Q - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 "People that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history." --Vice President Dan Quayle ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:34:34 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: House of Leaves (O% Robyn; but then again-- - -- 0% Nader, Bush, Gore, or Nixon, too!) I have just read a really cool book that I think Fegs would naturally dig -- Mark Z. Danielewski's "House of Leaves," sort of Blair Wicth Project meets Infinite Jest meets Pale Fire meets Borges meets Lovecraft, um... and so on. Though it has a few sophomoric moments, and it may be a bit too clever for its own good, overall it's a pretty amazing debut, and I really loved it -- in fact, I picked it as November's Book of the Month for the site I run. I haven't been this excited about a new book for some time, actually. Rather than babble on here about it, for those who are interested, you can check out my "official" (and as usual, far too wordy) review: http://www.TheModernWord.com/review_house_of_leaves.html Ahhh.... when oh when will Robyn's novel be published???? - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:41:00 -0700 From: Asshole Motherfucker Subject: Re: What's this globe of fegs coming too? >Eddie defends Hitler! huh? if you're just being saucy, then, sauce away, brother! but i *hope* nobody read that as a *defence* of hitler. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:44:01 EDT From: "Asa Land" Subject: Digest huh? Best Hitchcock cameos-- as Puck messing around on the Scottish moors in the 39 Steps or as Ingrid Bergmans's shadow in Notorious Ohhh--you ment -Hitchcock- cameos. Silly me. _________________________________________________________________________ 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: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:43:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: Bush as Chauncey Gardner (2% Robyn content) On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Terrence Marks wrote: > > He may get his worms mixed up sometimes but when he gets entire countries > > confused (Slovakia and Slovenia) and can't remember who's in control of > > volatile states such as Pakistan, that's when I start to worry. > > Does Nader know, off the top of his head, who's in control of > Pakistan? (or Liberia, Bangladesh, or Uruguay...) Now, I'm just being a fanatic here, so don't take me too seriously, but....I'm guessing Nader does know all that stuff off the top of his head. Have you seen any of his appearances on Face the Nation and Meet the Press? He's a stunningly knowledgable person. That's why me and my fellow sorority sisters are voting for him. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:49:00 -0400 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: knee jerks, pots calling kettles black and other Pavlovian reactions I like examining the records of various administrations I'm not "so opposed to it" at all. I just come to slightly different conclusions, Eddie. And I just love hearing the crack of your patella when certain bells are rung. Cruel, I know...I'll stop. jmbc. There was an Alexander Cockburn quote in The Guardian today analogizing the choice between Gore and Bush as the choice a man on a life raft has between drinking salt water and his own urine. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:03:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: What's this globe of fegs coming too? On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, The Great Quail wrote: > And no one mentioned that Grant Lee Philips tried to steal my girlfriend! Do tell! So, didja kick his ass? - --Chris ps: He probably just wanted to borrow her, anyway.... ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:02:39 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: What's this globe of fegs coming too? on 10/25/00 3:27 PM, The Great Quail at quail@libyrinth.com wrote: > And no one mentioned that Grant Lee Philips tried to steal my girlfriend! Do tell! You know how we love anecdotes involving lj. er, you WERE talking about lj, right? - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 18:00:52 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: House of Leaves, plus more nattering TGQ wrote this: >I have just read a really cool book that I think Fegs would naturally >dig -- Mark Z. Danielewski's "House of Leaves," sort of Blair Wicth >Project meets Infinite Jest meets Pale Fire meets Borges meets >Lovecraft, um... and so on. Though it has a few sophomoric moments, >and it may be a bit too clever for its own good, overall it's a >pretty amazing debut, and I really loved it -- in fact, I picked it >as November's Book of the Month for the site I run. I haven't been >this excited about a new book for some time, actually. I have to second this! I just started reading it, or at least I'm trying to read it, and it really is *awfully* clever. (Not in the same way that the early XTC albums were "clever" - more like their 45 sleeves, actually.) It's got big sections of rotated type, multiple story lines, all sorts of wacky stuff. I'm not far enough along to say much more than that, but the essential premise is that a guy who makes documentaries discovers a house whose measurements are slightly different on the inside than they are on the outside, which seems to indicate that it contains a portal into... wait, I haven't gotten that far yet. And it may take a while, it's a pretty big book. ...But TGQ did *not* write this: >> >I really didn't think that would be in >> >dispute on this list, despite such blatant stupidities as list-members >> >doubting the God-hood of Nader. >> This is the type of comment which makes me shrug off Eddie's, >> Jeme's and Viv's fanatical views. >Please tell me that someone understood my joke. If it was over Eb's >lofty head, I fear it may have completely missed everyone else. Actually, I think it's more disturbing that it would take a *joke* to cause Eb to shrug off the aforementioned views, rather than the fanatical nature of those views in and of itself... As for me, well, if I'm fanatical about anything, I'm fanatical about not being fanatical about anything! (Except maybe trying to come up with lame-ass logical conundrums -- I'm quite fanatical about that!) John "you foolish humans" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:09:52 -0400 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: Books Quail queried the publication date of Robyn's novel... When I last asked him, in Edinburgh, Hitch was very non-commital, which I take to mean a long time away. The time I asked him before, in Paris (gosh, I get around...) he said early 2001, which is now quite clearly bollocks. Joe Silva's biography of Robyn, provisionally titled Sex God, is slated to be published by Simon & Schuster in November 2001- but I had a chat with Joe earlier this summer and there might be a bit of slippage there as well. Heigh ho... jmbc. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:12:19 -0700 From: Asshole Motherfucker Subject: Re: knee jerks, pots calling kettles black and other Pavlovian reactions >I like examining the records of various administrations I'm not "so opposed >to it" at all. I just come to slightly different conclusions, Eddie. okay, then *you* explain the difference between bush and gore. or, if you like, between clinton and reaganbush. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 19:49:45 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: What's this globe of fegs coming too? Tom writes, >er, you WERE talking about lj, right? Yes! Though if Grant would have had his way, he would have absconded with both LJ *and* our friend, Judy the semi-Feg! I mean, really, both of them? What kind of untiring sex machine is he? He probably would have taken our waitress as well. Smug bastard. Thank God Scary Mary didn't show up. >Do tell! You know how we love anecdotes involving lj. Let's just say that at one point, Mr Philips came right over to the table and serenaded the girls, and all through the concert both LJ and Judy were fighting over which one of them he was making the most goo-goo eyes at. Shameless. And then at the end, they went up to him afterwards and began gushing like schoolgirls. I had to pull LJ off him, I swear! I mean, what kind of rock star wouldn't even offer me at least a case of beer? - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 16:57:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: What's this globe of fegs coming too? The Great Quail wrote: > Eddie defends Hitler! > > Eb calls Viv a sorority girl! > > The Quail defends Nixon! > > Not a single post on Bamboozled! haven't seen it; probably will wait for video. suspect my opinion will be like my opinion on most spike lee films: he needs a stronge collaborator while writing to keep him sharp. his basic ideas are usually strong, but ultimately fall short of where they could go because he ends up taking a couple too many short cuts. basically, he needs to find his Johnny Marr. > And no one mentioned that Grant Lee Philips tried to steal my > girlfriend! well, look at the bright side: you have a girlfriend worthy of a cult singer-songwriter! > Oi Vey! Achtung Baby ===== "Freedom is participation in power." -- Cicero __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 17:09:16 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: RE: bush's ideas (fwd) Viv Lyon wrote: > The man is an IDIOT. I really didn't think that would be in > dispute on this list, despite such blatant stupidities as > list-members doubting the God-hood of Nader. but doesn't nader exist? seriously, i don't think bush is an idiot. but he has nothing even close to resembling the intelligence necessary to be president of the pork rind lovers association of midland, let alone of the united states. and idiots can't help it. bush, being willfully stupid, can. ===== "Freedom is participation in power." -- Cicero __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 13:52:34 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: Hugh Heifer-ner (2% Hitchcock (Alfred)) >> On a scale of 1 to 100 where 50 is middle of the road, 100 is Hitler and 0 >> is Eddie, > >Shall we, for the sake of fairness, try equating someone who isn't really, >really evil with the far right? > >(Or at least put Pol Pot or Trotsky or something as 0 to balance it out?) yes, Terrence - the Eddie comment was meant as, 'ow you say, a joke? Make it Stalin (personally I'd say that you're insulting Trotsky by comparing him with the other two). James 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") ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #304 *******************************