From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #307 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, October 28 2000 Volume 09 : Number 307 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: attack of the ravening persons [Aaron Mandel ] Exposed, in all his glory [Viv Lyon ] speaking of LA ...and boobs [lj lindhurst ] re: chromosomal mutation [Michael R Godwin ] mo' bile ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: speaking of LA ...and boobs [Ken Ostrander ] thanks, we did it [GSS ] Re: vats dis globe of fugs coming too ya ["Asa Land" ] joes pub gigs ["Mike Hooker" ] Ralph's stock holdings (NR) [steve ] RE: Ralph's stock holdings (NR) ["Brian Huddell" ] Hirundi K. Bakshi (IIRC) [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] RE: Ralph's stock holdings (NR) [Viv Lyon ] RE: Ralph's stock holdings (NR) ["Brian Huddell" ] true political visionaries finally found!!!! [Jeff Dwarf ] I'm reading that shit again (NR) [steve ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:58:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: attack of the ravening persons On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Viv Lyon wrote: > Like Chair-head in the Tick... was that his name? Chairface Chippendale. while it's true that his entire head appears to be a chair, it's only because he is "cursed to wear that unmistakable furniture expression to the grave". a ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 08:42:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Exposed, in all his glory Eb wrote: > Viv's kind of an expert on exposing boobs, isn't she? You're doing a pretty good job of exposing yourself, actually. It's practically effortless on my part. Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:33:52 -0400 From: lj lindhurst Subject: speaking of LA ...and boobs Hey, has anyone seen the new Larry David comedy, "Curb Your Enthusiasm" on HBO? It's pretty fucking funny! He is such an ASS, you can't help but laugh at him. And the whole thing is about HIM being himself in Hollywood, and how he's kind of an anal-retentive jerk who doesn' t quite know how to interact socially. It's really funny... I highly recommend it... lj ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 18:32:16 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: re: chromosomal mutation On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Jeme A Brelin wrote: > Anybody that had a favorite movie in the 60s is damned old and I'm > surprised they remember their first names, let alone the stars of their > very favorite films. Well, that certainly includes me. I suppose that's why most of my favourite Peter Sellers films date from the late 50s and early 60s: 1 Two Way Stretch 1960 Brilliant, uncredited prototype of the TV series 'Porridge'. Great performances by Sellers, Lionel Jeffries, Liz Fraser, Wifred Hyde Whyte, Irene Handl, Bernard Cribbins etc etc. 2 I'm all right, Jack 1959 Sellers plays trade union leader Fred Kite who opposes management trainee Stanley Windrush (played, inevitably, by Ian Carmichael). 3 Smallest Show on Earth 1957 Sellers plays ageing drunken projectionist Mr Quill in a grotesque kinema along with odd-job man Bernard Miles and ticket lady Margaret Rutherford. 4 Wrong Arm of the Law 1962 Sellers plays gang leader Pearly Gates whose 'front' is being a French dress designer. He shares London crime with rival Nervous O'Toole (Bernard Cribbins) "He does weekdays and we do weekends, just like ITV" (a reference to the way that Rediffusion and ATV used to carve up the London Channel 9 commercial station). 5 The Naked Truth 1957 Sellers plays a fake Scottish comedian alongside Terry-Thomas and other blackmail victims. And don't forget those quasi-Goon shorts, such as "The running, jumping and standing still film" (an obvious precursor of "Hard Day's Night") and the Case of the Mukkinese Battle-horn". Sellers is always worth watching in black and white, seldom worth watching in colour. - - now, what was that name of mine again? (it's nothing to do with oddly-tonsured monks, anyway ... ) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 10:46:49 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: mo' bile >From: Ken Ostrander >of course, emergencies would call for an exception; but how often have you >seen >one of those? My boss's wife is 8 months preggers and so he's "on call" via his cell phone throughout the day. I don't really mind his phone ringing during meetings or in restaurants in light of this. The problem is that some people consider any call from one of their disgusting yuppie friends "an emergency" for which they must be "on call." Some people just get a thrill out of being "on call" and feeling important. >From: Eb >Yes, that "sniveling boob" quip definitely traumatized me to the core. >Viv's kind of an expert on exposing boobs, isn't she? Man, and you accuse me of being tasteless. Drew - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen.com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 13:09:11 -0400 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: Re: speaking of LA ...and boobs >Hey, has anyone seen the new Larry David comedy, "Curb Your >Enthusiasm" on HBO? It's pretty fucking funny! He is such an ASS, >you can't help but laugh at him. And the whole thing is about HIM >being himself in Hollywood, and how he's kind of an anal-retentive >jerk who doesn' t quite know how to interact socially. It's really >funny... I highly recommend it... ditto. it's because of this show that i completely forgot about the hitchcock show last sunday! while they were watching the paul simon concert i suddenly remembered that the show was going on that very moment. doh! ken "spoiler" the kenster np pj stories from the city, stories from the sea liking it more with each listen. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:55:02 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: thanks, we did it Wow, another victory for us. Thanks to all who helped. But don't think it is over. Similar things have been proposed before and will be again. Don't let the man fuck you, fuck him first!!!!! gss * DefendYourPrivacy supporters achieve big win on Capitol Hill Earlier this week we asked for your help in killing a proposal contained in The Presidential Threat Protection Act (HR 3048) that would have given police broad new powers to issue "administrative subpoenas." Almost immediately, Capitol Hill offices were flooded with thousands of angry phone calls from privacy advocates around the country. On Wednesday afternoon, the offending provisions were gutted from the bill. The overall bill passed, but without giving the government new power to subpoena your electronic records -- or force third parties to turn over that information. Thank you for your help, and please stay posted for further privacy updates. Sincerely, Steve Dasbach National Director Libertarian Party ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:17:57 EDT From: "Asa Land" Subject: Re: vats dis globe of fugs coming too ya "I see you orl thro yor hunds up mit the big googley eyes" I know Im dyslexic and cant even spell existrance, but shouldn't that be: "-bit- googly eyes" I mean, if you choose a style you should at least stick to it. K, hearing echos of "Kill for Peace" and "Dirty Old Man" emanating from her crystal (oh, and Amphetamine Shriek too) globe of fugs. _________________________________________________________________________ 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: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:49:29 -0700 From: Eb Subject: re: chromosomal mutation Jeme: >Overheard at the sushi place yesterday: >"It's not like when I was living in LA... When I was there, I'd just HEAR >about movies and what's going on in the world and what albums are coming >out. But HERE it's just the salmon in the Columbia or whatever. I feel >so out of touch." > >Wow. She also had this little doozy: >"When I was in Thailand, like, all the people have no jobs or anything and >there's no money and the people there make all this art and architecture >and stuff and it's really beautiful, but it's just because they have all >this time on their hands because they don't have jobs, you know?" Now, you quit making fun of Portland folk! Come on, be nice! Seriously, it's *ridiculous* that you use the above to smear the entire population of metropolitan Los Angeles. But you knew that, already. You also know it's ridiculous to claim people outside of L.A. rarely have ideas about what their favorite films are. *Especially* since the Feg who peripherally introduced the topic of favorite films lives in...um...New Zealand. Actually, judging from past threads, most Fgz can tick off their fave flicks a lot easier than this L.A.-area resident can. I recall a very well-organized, favorite-films poll awhile back which someone conducted, which had a substantial number of entries (not including mine).... Meanwhile, Jeme, I'd just *love* to eavesdrop on you roundtabling with your industry buddies, passionately kibbitzing back and forth about computer trends, specs and software. Yes, it is truly you whose interests penetrate the very soul of the human condition. That's probably why you ranted and ranted about "Pi," purely on the grounds that the story didn't make enough scientific sense. Whose values are really warped, here? Now, I'm really not much interested in retreading this worn-out topic. The only reason I spoke up recently is that you, Viv and Eddie have been subjecting the list to a blistering assault of humorless, political browbeating for days and days and days. I silently endured it for quite awhile, before being pushed over the threshold. And your tirades don't even seem to be about "campaigning," but simply crowing about your superiority (much like your anti-Hollywood rants). It's not about cleverly cajoling Fegvoters away from Gore/Bush, it's about snarling "WE'RE SMART AND WE KNOW THE TRUTH, AND ALL YOU GORE/BUSH VOTERS ARE *FUCKED*!! AND WHEN NADER LOSES, THAT'S JUST GOING TO *PROVE* HOW FUCKED YOU ARE!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!" Rather unattractive. Otherwise, you sneer and sneer about folks who have a "process of elimination"-type attitude toward voting for Gore, and yet your own "campaign" is far more about attacking, attacking, attacking Gore and Bush (and American politics in general) than promoting Nader. Are you pro-Nader, or anti-Gore/anti-Bush/anti-two-party system? It's not readily obvious. I sense an awful lot of "elimination" methodology in your own attitude. >I mean, didn't you go to prom? Nope...didn't ask anyone. I went to the senior Homecoming dance, didn't enjoy myself much and shrugged off prom. There, enjoy chewing on that personal tidbit. Mike Godwin: >Sellers is always worth watching >in black and white, seldom worth watching in colour. Whew...talk about a purist. Eb now ehhing: A3, the Wallflowers ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 21:05:00 -0400 From: "Mike Hooker" Subject: joes pub gigs hi, i finshed mastering both joes pub gigs and am burning now. anyone wants to trade, pipe up now. those of you who contacted me already, i'm on it. if anyone taped maxwells or boston, i'm real interested in trading for them. thanks, Mike see my music trading page: http://pages.zdnet.com/mikehooker/hookstradingpage PLEASE NOTE MY NEW E MAIL ADDRESS: NETGUARD@BELLATLANTIC.NET DONT USE TRIUMPH1 ANYMORE, THANKS! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 21:33:54 -0500 From: steve Subject: Ralph's stock holdings (NR) http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/28/stocks/index.html - - 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: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 22:19:53 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: Ralph's stock holdings (NR) > http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/28/stocks/index.html Thanks, Steve. It will be interesting to see what form the defense takes. I think it would be nice if someone were simply to refute this sentence from the Salon article: "But even if Fidelity were to divest its holdings in Occidental, it holds shares in so many companies Nader has crusaded against, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Nader's participation in the fund is supremely hypocritical." It seems to me Nader's participation in the Fidelity fund has to be at least one of three things: apocryphal (it didn't happen), a mistake (it happened but Nader somehow wasn't aware of the companies involved), or just plain hypocritical. Could we hear from our more visible Nader supporters which of these (if any) they think applies, before we hear about why it's all beside the point? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:43:02 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Hirundi K. Bakshi (IIRC) >>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). > >I don't get it. How could a movie be one of your "favourites," and yet you >didn't know who was in the cast until today? favourite in that I have fond memories of it but hadn't seen it for years. And Peter Sellers so dominates it that I couldn't honestly have named anyone else in it. >Omg-someone else actually remembers--The Party. Its the one where he gets to >do his Hindi accent and wear a white dress, right? sounds like the same movie to me! >"birdy, num-num? birdy, num-num?" definitely. 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: Fri, 27 Oct 2000 23:19:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Viv Lyon Subject: RE: Ralph's stock holdings (NR) On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, Brian Huddell wrote: > > http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/28/stocks/index.html > > Thanks, Steve. It will be interesting to see what form the defense takes. > I think it would be nice if someone were simply to refute this sentence from > the Salon article: "But even if Fidelity were to divest its holdings in > Occidental, it holds shares in so many companies Nader has crusaded against, > it's hard to escape the conclusion that Nader's participation in the fund is > supremely hypocritical." > > It seems to me Nader's participation in the Fidelity fund has to be at least > one of three things: apocryphal (it didn't happen), a mistake (it happened > but Nader somehow wasn't aware of the companies involved), or just plain > hypocritical. Could we hear from our more visible Nader supporters which of > these (if any) they think applies, before we hear about why it's all beside > the point? > > It will come as no surprise that I feel compelled to reply to this. I read the article and thought, "Gee, that doesn't sound like the person I've been supporting. I wonder what the hell is going on here." So I investigated. First, I made sure it was true, that Nader really does have money invested in this fund. I went here: http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/index/N00000086.htm Where I learned some interesting things. Yes, he did report that (as of 1999) he owned $100,000-$250,000 in the Fidelity Magellan Fund, as well as two other Fidelity high-yield funds. In the same report he discloses his sources of income and his disposal of that income. I found it interesting to note that he donates the maximum legal amount of his income to charity, which is 50%. This he reports in a financial disclosure statement required for his application to run for the presidency of the United States, so I don't think he's lying. Furthermore, the vast majority of the remaining half of his income goes towards building and creating groups to work in the public interest from which he does not take any income or benefits. Having ascertained that the first of Brian's choices is not an accurate portrayal of the situation, I decided to see what this Fidelity Magellan Fund was all about. I went here: http://personal100.fidelity.com/gen/mflfid/3/316184100_dat.html Where I learned that the Fidelity Magellan Fund is an aggressive growth fund designed to maximize return on the invested money. The specific holdings of the fund can vary month to month and even day to day. We have no idea when he invested in the fund, what companies the fund held at the time, and for how long he invested that money. All we know now is that when the article was written, The Magellan Fund had holdings in some corporations whose policies are counter to Ralph Nader's politics. While it is possible, and perhaps even likely, that while Nader had money invested in the fund, the fund held stock in some bad corporations, it is instructive to keep in mind that the Fidelity Magellan Fund holds hundreds of millions of shares in hundreds or thousands of companies. Given that the man gives half of his earnings to charity and uses most of the other half to build citizen action groups to counter the excesses of corporate control, his attempt to maximize the amount of money he's going to reinvest in society is a quite interesting twist on the idea of making corporations pay for the damage they do. The annual return on that fund is astronomical, and this enables Mr. Nader to raise commensurately astronomical monies for the public good. It is documented that Nader lives on about $30,000 per year. His speaking engagments, newspaper articles, television and radio appearances, and other honoraria handily cover that amount each year. It is obvious that he does not invest this money for his personal use. His retirement is covered by his union retirement fund (AFTRA). Whether you agree that the potential hypocrisy of his investments in these funds is outweighed by the good done by the proceeds, you must admit that greed is not his motivation. I liked the part in his disclosure statement where, in response to the question "In retrospect, how would you have invested your savings for a greater return?" he replies "I would have invested in shares of the Washington Post Company back in the seventies which would have increased by ten to twentyfold the amount of funding for those consumer and other civic initiatives that its newspaper too rarely covers." Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 02:32:09 -0500 From: "Brian Huddell" Subject: RE: Ralph's stock holdings (NR) > Given that the man gives half of his earnings to charity and uses most of > the other half to build citizen action groups to counter the excesses of > corporate control, his attempt to maximize the amount of money he's going > to reinvest in society is a quite interesting twist on the idea of making > corporations pay for the damage they do. The annual return on that fund is > astronomical, and this enables Mr. Nader to raise commensurately > astronomical monies for the public good. Thanks, Viv. I'm satisfied, as I suspected I might be. I suppose it would be possible to quantify with some precision the balance between how Nader's investments _benefit_ the "bad" corporations while his charitable and civic donations _punish_ those same corporations. It might be possible but I'm sure I'd fall asleep if someone tried to spell it out for me. What I take from this is a refreshingly gray area usually missing from the Christ-like terms some Nader supporters seem unable to resist. I still plan to vote for him, but I have felt all along that he represents the lesser of three evils, not a popular notion among the Greens I've encountered. It might have been smart for Ralph to actively _tout_ his investment strategies, how he plays the corporate money game to stick it to the corporations. At the very least it is dishonest, on the surface, for LaDuke to criticize Gore for his (or his mom's, whatever) Occidental holdings, since we must acknowledge the possibility of giving money to the wrong people for the right reasons. But that's politics, and Ralph plays that game too. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 05:23:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: true political visionaries finally found!!!! http://www.teleport.com/~frosty5/freepony.html ===== "The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything, except what is worth knowing. Journalistm, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands." -- Oscar Wilde __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 09:52:57 -0500 From: steve Subject: Texas Justice(s)? (NR) Notice who appointed the 5th Circut judges that upheld the State's position. That's the kind of Justices/Judges we'll get from a GWB administration. http://www.fwst.com/news/doc/1047/1:TOPHOME5/1:TOPHOME51027100.html - - 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: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 10:11:12 -0500 From: steve Subject: I'm reading that shit again (NR) http://www.thenewrepublic.com/110600/editorial110600.html - - 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 ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #307 *******************************