From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #305 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, October 26 2000 Volume 09 : Number 305 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Hugh Heifer-ner (2% Hitchcock (Alfred)) [Terrence Marks ] Re: Bush as Chauncey Gardner (2% Robyn content) [steve ] ON TOPIC!!! [Eb ] Re: change the bong water for the world, often [Capuchin ] boothby graffoe taping [drop the holupki ] Re: change the bong water for the world, often [GSS ] Re: change the bong water for the world, often [lj lindhurst ] Re: we're oblivious [GSS ] Re: Our Ladies Of The Initials [drop the holupki ] salt-water and urine ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" ] Re: Our Ladies Of The Initials [Eric Loehr ] Re: salt-water and urine [GSS ] Re: harrumph! [Michael R Godwin ] Re: we're oblivious [dmw ] Re: political nattering/nadering [Michael R Godwin ] Re: change the bong water for the world, often [Viv Lyon ] Re: we're oblivious to nuance [Viv Lyon ] Re: we're oblivious [Christopher Gross ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 22:01:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Terrence Marks Subject: Re: Hugh Heifer-ner (2% Hitchcock (Alfred)) On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, James Dignan wrote: > 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). Well, it was more a matter of putting Hitler as the far-right's posterboy. He's got a bit of a reputation, y'know. There's other folks more rightist than he is, anyhow. And Trotsky was a piece of work in and of himself. What with War Communism, exporting the Revolution, and all that. He's not _as_ bad as Pol Pot or Stalin (or Mao or Hitler), but if you give him Russia to play with, he'd probably be something close. 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 19:39:42 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: it is obvious > From: Eb > 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. Yeah, but given that our job would be to make daily public statements on behalf of the entire country, you'd hope we'd be a little better qualified to make them. > From: Asshole Motherfucker > but "evil" is a subjective opinion (except when it comes to those > who use cell phones in the public "arena", who are objectively evil My rule of thumb, which is probably retrogressive, is: if a reasonable person might install a "land" telephone where you want to use your cell, it's appropriate for you to use it there. This rules out theaters and tables at restaurants, but admits theater lobbies and restroom areas at restaurants. It rules out walking down the street and talking on your cell, but admits standing against a wall and talking on your cell. Et cetera. > 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 don't know what using cell phones in public has to do with disliking authority. Ditto driving cars. Those sound more like class and urban snobbery issues to me. > 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."> How about "to fend off the long list of countries who would understandably want to rip us a new one if we suddenly had no military"? > From: Viv Lyon > On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Eb wrote: > > > 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. It was obvious. Though I imagine it would be easy to pretend otherwise if one were looking to feel better about being, as Dan Savage would have it today, "a Gore-supporting realist." > From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" > > I'm about 4 or 5 listens in to the new PJ Harvey and I'm disappointed. I'm perversely glad to read this. I really liked Is This Desire? and Stephen Thompson's total dis of it and praise of the new album worried me. > From: Terrence Marks > 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... I don't know, dude. Bush seems really stupid and really evil. There's no "generally" going on here. > From: Viv Lyon > That's why me and my > fellow > sorority sisters are voting for him. I forgot to mention how curiously popular it is to attack Nader's supporters rather than Nader himself. Yours is, if stereotype holds, unwashed, belligerent, irrational, childish, irresponsible, and living in a fantasy world. Actually it sounds more like the house I lived in during college than a sorority... > From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" > 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. That's good! So choosing Nader would be like holding your cupped hands to the sky, knowing there's not a cloud to be seen for miles... ...I want my teddy bear. Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik: drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 21:45:36 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: Bush as Chauncey Gardner (2% Robyn content) Terrence Marks: >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? Terry, don't try to fool yourself, there's no other level of thought behind these Bushisms. He's about as deep as a rain puddle. If elected, he will simply preside over whichever set of party functionaries is chosen to run his administration. >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... Oh, I'd say that the social conservative wing of the Republican Party is evil. Not because of the way they live their lives, but because they want to use the power of the state to control the way other people live. - - Steve __________ More confirmation that we have a vast sucking noise running for president. - Dahlia Lithwick on the Bush wedding video ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 20:05:25 -0700 From: Eb Subject: ON TOPIC!!! I was doing my laundry tonight at a local record store, and found Hitchcock's "Kershaw Sessions" CD for only $4.99. Good deal! You know, I'd never even seen the CD (new *or* used) before today.... I also bought *both* Grenadine CDs for $4.99 apiece. Those are pretty hard to find, nowadays -- I was very happy with that deal. Eb, who was dismayed to see an album as good as "Fegmania!" *also* on sale for $4.99 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:40:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: change the bong water for the world, often On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, GSS wrote: > The ballots in Texas were kinda interesting. Green and Libertarian > candidates in quite a few races and even a straight Green ticket > option. I didn't vote a straight ticket, Wait wait... let me get this straight. Are you saying there's a place on the Texas ballot where you can just mark "straight ticket" and the it'll just assume you want to vote along party lines all the way down?!? I can't believe they would make it that easy to be lazy and ignorant! That fucking burns me up. > but I picked Nader for dad and a couple green boys with strange names > for both railroad commissioner spots. I hit libs or nothing for all > the judge openings and on any uncontested race, I abstained. It is absolutely essential to abstain in uncontested races. I'm really surprised more people don't. > 'A society of sheep must in time > beget a government of wolves.' - Bertrand deJouvenal Society of Sheep is right... if I'm understanding that "straight ticket" thing properly. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:49:18 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V9 #304 >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! my thoughts exactly (well, mine may have been a little less kosher) Folks - the joys of a democratic political system is that you are all relatively free to decide which political group or individual you wish to support. Respect that right, and the right of others in the list to have their own opinions on matters which may not agree with yours. Eb and Viv, you're beginning to get personal, to play the person not the view. Ken, take a few deep breaths. Terrence, your dander is showing. "Pace" Eddie (and apologies for the cheap shot). Calm yourself jbmc. Understand that you will all have differing views,and you're unlikely to convert anyone else to them on a list of this nature. Remember that hoary old chestnut (Voltaire, IIRC) about disapproving of an opinion but defending a person's right to say it. lj and Grant Lee??? James now flying - Albania - black double headed eagle on red. Very attractive. 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: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 23:48:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Bush as Chauncey Gardner (2% Robyn content) On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Terrence Marks wrote: > 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? It's also important to note that he made that statement (supposedly) in Beaverton, Oregon. Beaverton is a tech-heavy suburb of Portland and also home to the rich folks (even the non-tech ones). Portland is a fairly major sea port where lots of stuff comes in from overseas. It does make sense here to make a distinction between overseas imports and overland imports. > 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... Well, see, I think with Bush, you've gotta kinda admit that he's evil and stupid. But his handlers aren't. It's sorta like Reagan. My personal believe is that old Ron totally lost his mind in about 1982 and was just puppetted for six more years after that (largely by Bush and his cronies). The same people would be holding up George Jr. And this is also part of why I agree that Gore is worse than Bush. Bush may be evil and stupid, but Gore is evil and smart. They're evil in the same way, but Gore hides it so much better. > Does Nader know, off the top of his head, who's in control of > Pakistan? (or Liberia, Bangladesh, or Uruguay...) I would say most assuredly yes. The man's an encyclopedia. A couple of weeks back, I watched a biography of Ralph made in 1994 (even before his first political bid). One thing that several of the people said was that he could rattle of facts about anything at any time. Some talked about how he could give you baseball score at any inning in any game the Yankees played from 1940-1979. Others talked about his ability to call out the rosters of corporate board members and their personal investment holdings. Nader is smart and Good. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin _______________________________________________ [cc] counter-copyright http://www.openlaw.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:11:35 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: oh. my. God. omg. I've just discovered that one of my favourite stupid hippy movies of the late 60s featured (gulp) Claudine Longet (also Peter Sellers, an elephant, and a massive automated indoor water feature). oh the shame... 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") ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:43:54 +0100 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: harrumph! from http://www.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/o/issues/2000/11/wallraff.htm > To hear for yourself how far English now ranges from what we Americans > are used to, you need only rent a video of the 1998 Scottish film "My > Name Is Joe", which, though in English, comes fully subtitled. We urnae daen the rangin' -- yizaw ur, but. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:45:53 -0400 From: drop the holupki Subject: boothby graffoe taping tickets are now available for taping of "the big booth", the bbc radio 4 show hosted by boothby graffoe which robyn will be appearing on. the taping is on monday, november 27th at 6:45pm at the bbc radio theatre (broadcasting house, portland place, london w1; oxford circus tube stop). there are two shows being taped that night; robyn's playing during the second one. taping info at ticket info at woj ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:05:19 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: change the bong water for the world, often On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Capuchin wrote: > > The ballots in Texas were kinda interesting. Green and Libertarian > > candidates in quite a few races and even a straight Green ticket > > option. I didn't vote a straight ticket, > > Wait wait... let me get this straight. > > Are you saying there's a place on the Texas ballot where you can just mark > "straight ticket" and the it'll just assume you want to vote along party > lines all the way down?!? Yep, all the parties have a stright ticket option, right at the top of the ballot. If your not careful, you could punch that hole by mistake and then all the rest of your selections would be uncounted. You just gotta make sure you read everthing before inserting peg. > > I can't believe they would make it that easy to be lazy and ignorant! > > That fucking burns me up. I thought all the states had that option. I have only voted in Texas, so I have not seen the ballots of the other states. gss ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:12:03 -0400 From: lj lindhurst Subject: Re: change the bong water for the world, often >On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, GSS wrote: >> The ballots in Texas were kinda interesting. Green and Libertarian >> candidates in quite a few races and even a straight Green ticket >> option. I didn't vote a straight ticket, > >Wait wait... let me get this straight. > >Are you saying there's a place on the Texas ballot where you can just mark >"straight ticket" and the it'll just assume you want to vote along party >lines all the way down?!? > >I can't believe they would make it that easy to be lazy and ignorant! > >That fucking burns me up. You can do that here in New York as well. I may be wrong, but I believe that's a pretty common thing... now see? I talked about politics. lj - -- ******************************** LJ Lindhurst White Rabbit Graphic Design http://www.w-rabbit.com NYC ljl@w-rabbit.com ******************************** Adieu, adieu, to you and you and you. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:09:08 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: A wee one for the Naderites "The only hope we have is called Ralph Nader, who goes for alternative interests. He, however, has no chance, but I'm gonna vote for him." - --Norman Mailer, "Der Spiegel" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:40:39 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: we're oblivious > > but "evil" is a subjective opinion (except when it comes to those > > who use cell phones in the public "arena", who are objectively evil Ooh, selective intolerance, kinda like the church. > My rule of thumb, which is probably retrogressive, is: if a reasonable > person might install a "land" telephone where you want to use your cell, > it's appropriate for you to use it there. This rules out theaters and > tables at restaurants, but admits theater lobbies and restroom areas at > restaurants. It rules out walking down the street and talking on your > cell, but admits standing against a wall and talking on your cell. Et > cetera. > > 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. Didn't you drive across the United States, last year following Robyn? How is walking down the street using a cell phone harmful to others, anymore than having a conversation with someone walking along with you? Did I miss something or is this all there is? And, if someone is sitting at a table in a cafe or bar or somewhere similar, using a cell phone, how is this anymore harmful than conversing with someone sitting with you? I don't carry a phone or beeper, by choice, but if I needed one or both or even thought I needed them, I have as much right as a cop, fire-putterouter, amulance driver, trucker driver, dope pusher or pimp(ess) to do so. > > 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. You can survive on urine for much longer than salt water. And if neither has enough forsight to pack one of those hand operated desalinizers (that US forces and even UN and NATO equip all liferafts with now), well then fuck'em. :-] gss ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:42:52 -0400 From: drop the holupki Subject: Re: Our Ladies Of The Initials when we last left our heroes, jbranscombe@compuserve.com exclaimed: >I'm about 4 or 5 listens in to the new PJ Harvey and I'm disappointed. i confess that listens other than the first were less enthusiastic, but i still like it. >A couple of the songs are such blatant Patti Smith cops I just sat there >and laughed when they came on. ...where i, in my usual haze, forget who i'm listening to at those points. >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. the "this isn't as good as [artist]'s other albums, but a mediocre album from [artist] is better than [number >= 95]% of everything else out there" construction gets trotted out so often it should have a formal name. i propose "branscombe's relativistic rationalization." >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. i'll have to keep an ear out. i've never been too fond of k.d. for whatever reason. i think perhaps because her voice is so smooth. woj p.s. to Eb: ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:53:49 -0400 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: salt-water and urine Just read that several of Nader's Raiders have asked him to halt his campaign because he's going to make Gore lose a couple of Western states... Comments? jmbc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:00:23 -0400 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: we're oblivious GSS writes, >And, if someone is sitting at a table in a cafe or bar or somewhere >similar, using a cell phone, how is this anymore harmful than >conversing with someone sitting with you? The sad fact is people on cell phones tend to talk a lot more loudly than they do in normal conversation, which drives me crazy. Especially if I am trying to read on the train or at a restaurant, and some asshole takes out his phone, or it rings!!!!!!!!!! Jesus is nowhere safe from ringing phones??? -- and starts with, "DON! HEY HOW ARE YOU! YEAH YEAH, THAT'S GREAT BUDDY! I'M SITTING HERE AT THE COFFEESHOP, AND I JUST ACQUIRED !) MORE SHARES OF YOYODYNE AT BLABLABLA" and so on, in that forced, phoney, overly-loud rigid voice many people use on the phone, which immediately distracts you and for some reason disallows any tuning-out, as you can usually do with conversations around you, which have more of a quite, fluid, continual quality. It's like they suddenly extend their "bubble" ten feet further outwards, and fuck everyone else. Grrrr..... Argh. - --Q PS: Personally I thought Drew's cell-phone guidelines were very reasonable and appropriate. - -- +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 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 "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents." -- H.P. Lovecraft ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:09:53 -0400 From: Eric Loehr Subject: Re: Our Ladies Of The Initials At 10:42 AM 10/26/00 -0400, drop the holupki wrote: >when we last left our heroes, jbranscombe@compuserve.com exclaimed: > >the "this isn't as good as [artist]'s other albums, but a mediocre album >from [artist] is better than [number >= 95]% of everything else out there" >construction gets trotted out so often it should have a formal name. i >propose "branscombe's relativistic rationalization." I'll second the proposal, with the addendum proposal that it be it be acronymized as BRR, or BRRR, for really cold days. Eric "not Brrrroome, the other white Eric" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:18:54 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: salt-water and urine > Just read that several of Nader's Raiders have asked him to halt his > campaign because he's going to make Gore lose a couple of Western states... It means they lack fortitude and integrity. We should rename them 'Nader's little pussies'. gss ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 16:26:55 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: harrumph! > > the 1998 Scottish film "My > > Name Is Joe", which, though in English, comes fully subtitled. I was harrumphed to see the quintessentially Scottish Billy Connolly cast as an 'upper-crust' _English_ actor in 3RFTS this week. Lithgow (surely a Scot himsel') obviously thought the accent hilarious, but it was more baffling than anything. Maybe the producers thought no-one could understand a Scots accent. Or maybe they don't even _know_ there is a difference between Oxford English and street Glaswegian? - - Mike Godwin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 11:41:43 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: we're oblivious On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, The Great Quail wrote: > nowhere safe from ringing phones??? -- and starts with, "DON! HEY HOW > ARE YOU! YEAH YEAH, THAT'S GREAT BUDDY! I'M SITTING HERE AT THE i was going through the salad bar in the cafe on the ground floor of the adjoining building, and the woman in front of me was on the phone the whole time. since she had one hand on the phone, this took MUCH longer than it needed to, involving a delicate cycle between holding the plastic thing-into-which-salad-goes and the plastic things-with-which-salad-components-are-transported. and what was she talking about? something suitably urgent, perhaps even life threatening? no, she was talking about GOING THROUGH THE SALAD BAR! "Oh not much, just gettin me some salad...whatchoo doin'?....mmm, I'm gonna get me some of these beets, I like them beets. Oh, that pineapple don't look so good, I think it's been sitting out there too long." i was incensed. > PS: Personally I thought Drew's cell-phone guidelines were very > reasonable and appropriate. i think some exemptions might be in order for some circumstances, but they were certainly thought-provoking. - -- d. - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = guitar pop ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 16:54:46 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: political nattering/nadering On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Eb wrote: > 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. Yes, but we aren't running for office. Most top UK politicians are very well briefed nowadays, because several elections have been lost after one inept quote. Examples: Alec Douglas-Home's admission that he solved economic problems with matchsticks; Harold Wilson's "The pound in your pocket has not been devalued" after the 1967 devaluation; and Jim Callaghan's "Crisis? What Crisis?" in the 1978 winter of discontent (which he never even _said_). The current craze among party leaders here is to dream up a fantasy past. Blair has claimed that he stowed away on an aeroplane as a teenager, which surely never happened, while Hague asserts that he regularly drank 14 pints a day in his first job as a delivery boy. I don't think anybody believes him: even during my serious drinking years I never went much above six or seven pints a night - it's just too much. As for those ballot papers where you have to vote for a party instead of an individual, I think they are completely iniquitous. We had them during the last Euro-elections, and voter turnout dropped to about 25%. I don't think they're democratic at all. - - Mike Godwin n.p. Spanky and Our Gang "Sunday will never be the same" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:01:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: change the bong water for the world, often On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, lj lindhurst wrote: Hey, Lady! Are you guys ever gonna come visit us? I have a secret.... another feg is moving here.... but you have to guess who it is. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:08:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: dear god, not again! On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Viv Lyon wrote: something private to lj.... did not mean to post it to the list... Many apologies to secret feg... Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 09:12:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: we're oblivious to nuance On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, GSS wrote: > > > 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. > > Didn't you drive across the United States, last year following Robyn? > > How is walking down the street using a cell phone harmful to others, > anymore than having a conversation with someone walking along with you? > > Did I miss something or is this all there is? I think you missed the fact that Eddie was at least partially joking. I mean, he probably does think that cell phones are evil (I myself think that) and that cars should be outlawed, but he's not seriously proposing that it happen right now. Or maybe he is, I've no idea. The point is, Eddie had his tongue in his cheek. I think. Oh, it's Eddie. Who can tell? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 12:28:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: we're oblivious On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, The Great Quail [1] wrote: > >And, if someone is sitting at a table in a cafe or bar or somewhere > >similar, using a cell phone, how is this anymore harmful than > >conversing with someone sitting with you? > > > > The sad fact is people on cell phones tend to talk a lot more loudly > than they do in normal conversation, which drives me crazy. Agreed! And there are at least three other reasons why cell phones cause more annoyance than people talking to each other in person: 1. Cell phones increase the total number of loud public conversations. Before, only people with companions present and insane people could talk out loud in public; now, thanks to cell phones, sane people by themselves can do it too. 2. You not only have to listen to people talking on their cell phones, you have to listen to the phones *ringing*, as well. 3. Somehow, hearing one side of a conversation is more annoying than hearing both sides. I think it's harder to tune out a one-sided conversation because some deep part of the brain thinks, "Hey, if no one else is answering that guy, he must be talking to *me*." Here at GWU, it seems like every single fucking little spoiled brat -- I mean, every single student has a cigarette in one hand and a cell phone in the other. But at least drooping, boxers-revealing gansta pants seem to be going out of style, so maybe there's hope for this younger generation. Cell phone anecdote: About five years ago, some major South American city (I think it was either Buenos Aires or Santiago) banned talking on cell phones while driving. When traffic cops started pulling over the people they saw violating the new law, they found that nearly half of them were just pretending to talk on toy or fake phones, in order to look cool. - --Chris [1] The Great Quail's shameful secret [2] is that he actually is Leon Trotsky. If you look at a copy of Bertram Wolfe's _Three Who Made a Revolution_, you'll see that each photo of the young Trotsky looks just like TGQ looked at the same age. (This is clearest in the photo of Trotsky at 18. Quail, I dare ya to post your high school yearbook photo.) [2] My shameful secret is that I like Orgy's cover of "Blue Monday" almost as much as the original. Must be my heavy metal gene. ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #305 *******************************