From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #348 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, November 30 2000 Volume 09 : Number 348 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Boothby Graffoe [tsg20@cam.ac.uk] Re: Annie shot me in a milk bath [Capuchin ] Re: Annie shot me in a milk bath [Eclipse ] Underwater Moonlight makes the grade ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" ] Re: A fork next to your spoon Plus question [steve ] Re: Annie shot me in a milk bath [GSS ] Re: Annie shot me in a milk bath [Capuchin ] Re: fegmaniax-digest V9 #347 [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: open up the places i got hurt [drop the holupki ] Re: eb all over the world [drop the holupki ] Re: boothbyn hitchcoe ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: lennon's on sale again ["Stewart C. Russell" ] Re: A fork next to your spoon Plus question ["brian nupp" Absolutely embarassing rubbish by coked-up comics who should know better. > Robyn kept his dignity thank god. > It was a cast performance for which he largely sat and listened to. Then > he did a couple of minutes with Boothby Graffoe and Kevin Eldon, fucking > his lines up spectacularly. Which was great because it disrupted what was > a rank programme. The script was very hurried and it centered around Kev > saying "I've got all your videos", inevitably mistaking RH for Alfred > Hitchcock. Shameful. > > Then he went off after more fluffs to do a half-speed version of > 'Uncorrected Personality Traits' which brough the house down. An audience > of 80 and this was the only time they all laughed together. Figure that > one out. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:37:51 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Annie shot me in a milk bath On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, GSS wrote: > True, but that wasn't my point. If you want good pictures, use an SLR. > If you just want pictures, use a Matica. That was my point. Sony's line is called "Mavica", I believe. They use a proprietary format called "memory stick", so you should avoid them. There are a few important things to note when getting a digital camera. You need to get a resolution that you're comfortable using. You need to get a camera with focus and zoom options that meet your needs. You need to make sure the storage medium is replacable and long lasting. You need to make sure the interconnection with your other devices is maintained. Personally, I would recomend a camera that uses either compact flash or SmartMedia cards. SmartMedia is extensively and cheaply licensed and well documented and compact flash is a well established standard. Me, I just wanted a snapshot camera. I like what I got. If I had more money, I'd've spent it on one that had optical zoom. It's almost always worth the extra cost (as long as it's 3x or greater). > Heck, we could argue continually about analog vs digital, but I will > still recommend to anyone to get a fully automatic SLR with manual > options over any digital camera. I would also recommend an analog tape > studio with tube pre-amps and compressors instead of a digital house > of horrors running ADAT, 8mm tapes or hardrive recorders. Well, people argue about warmthe of digital recording all the time... and I have a pretty good ear and still can't really see what folks are whining about. If it's the low volume fuzz you hear on most analog media, then maybe I do hear what you're talking about but don't agree that it's "warmth" as much as "noise". Your presupposition that a digital recording studio is a "house of horrors" speaks something. I think that the best thing for a person to use is what they can repair, maintain, and use proficiently. For me, that's digital equipment... others are handier with other things. As for digital photography, it's keen. Chemical photography will always have its supporters (just as there are still hobbyists using pinhole box cameras) and idealists always believe in their superiority (see other threads for confirmation)... heck, that's why they have an ideal. My high school had a little creek running through the yard. It was found that the creek was highly toxic due to the chemicals from the photography class getting dumped out there by careless people for a few decades. Chemical photography is full of highly active chemicals, heavy metals and other toxins. For an art photographer or hobbyist, many prints can be made from a given negative to get it "just right". I find all of this extremely wasteful and needlessly damaging. I appreciate art and love good photography, but I don't think it's worth the price the rest of the world has to pay for my enjoyment. I have a digital camera and two pieces of removable media. I suspect it will serve me quite well for a long time. I hate that it's designed to be more or less disposable (when it's obsolete, I mean... what do you do with a broken case or cracked CCD or something? You get a new camera, of course... repair costs are higher than new production costs because they're not designed modularly) and hopefully will get something more permanent in the future. The media is about the size of a large postage stamp and thinner than a CD. Between the two pieces (one that came with the camera and a higher capacity piece I bought the same day) I can take about 160 pictures at highest resolution and very mild compression (mild as in not very lossy, it's still reasonable compression for size. uncompressed I can only do maybe 40 pictures). Compare this to five rolls of film to be carried and wasted shots that still inflict upon the world the same waste chemicals as the good shots. I can instantly preview my pics and sort out the failures (oops, I hit the trigger in my bag... or whatever), so that's 160 shots I'm glad I took. I don't want prints of my pictures, really. I want to look at them and hold an image to show someone else or capture a moment that I will remember regardless of the resolution of the reminder. Oh... and I put together some nifty programs on my computer and do stop-motion animation with my camera in about 1000th the time it would take to produce the same with a 35mm. And it's been my understanding that TLR is far superior to an SLR for art photography... but I really don't want to get into too much discussion on the topic. > ok, sorry. used to be gifs, now jpgs. Lots of the cameras use JPEG of one variety or another. Mine will take raw TIFF or compressed JFIF. I'm really hoping someone will make PNG camera with some nifty alpha channel features for multiple exposures, etc. I've also never quite understood why all the pictures in my camera come out oriented the same way. It seems relatively trivial to put a mercury switch or something inside the camera to test its orientation and write the headers accordingly so that the picture always comes out rotated the right way round. Anyway, that's my reasoning. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:00:23 -0800 (PST) From: Eclipse Subject: Re: Annie shot me in a milk bath > Sony's line is called "Mavica", I believe. > > They use a proprietary format called "memory stick", so you should avoid > them. i have to disagree, in general. memory sticks are basically just compact flash; sony products come with pcmcia cards for memory sticks so you just slap the card into your laptop pcmcia port or the port they give you to hook up to your pc. that's all there is to it. they come in 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64Mb varieties, depending on what you're looking to spend. they're compatible between all sony products (that use memory sticks). they're less bulky than floppies or film. etc.. > Me, I just wanted a snapshot camera. I like what I got. If I had more > money, I'd've spent it on one that had optical zoom. It's almost always > worth the extra cost (as long as it's 3x or greater). optical zoom is definitely worth it - it actually zooms rather than just blowing up the pixels. my d-770 ix 5x optical zoom - it's great. > Well, people argue about warmthe of digital recording all the time... and > I have a pretty good ear and still can't really see what folks are whining > about. If it's the low volume fuzz you hear on most analog media, then > maybe I do hear what you're talking about but don't agree that it's > "warmth" as much as "noise". Your presupposition that a digital recording to be honest, i can't say i've noticed a "lack of warmth" or "noise" in my digital pictures. i bought my sony d-770 for my trip to europe back in may, and i've never taken such wonderful, vivid pictures in my entire life. (they're available at www.tuliphead.com, just fyi). > > ok, sorry. used to be gifs, now jpgs. > > Lots of the cameras use JPEG of one variety or another. Mine will take > raw TIFF or compressed JFIF. yeah, most digital cameras record in .jpg format. sony's high-end digital cameras will also do .tiff; one TIFF will take up almost all of one 4Mb memory stick. but if you want print-quality pictures, that's the answer. i never thought i could take good pictures until i got my sony digital in my hands. it's really opened up a whole new aspect of vacations/trips for me - not to mention being able to take pictures on the fly and almost instantly share them with friends &c. i'm just so thrilled with my sony digital, i can't help but share my glee. i'll shut up now. :) gushingly, - - Eclipse np: Bob Mould, Last Dog and Pony Show ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:34:34 -0500 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: Underwater Moonlight makes the grade New, huge book from Mojo magazine called The Mojo Collection edited by Jim Irvin has just been published over here, retailing for #12.99. It purports to trace the development of the album as a concept (rather than the other way around) Lots of 'classic' but often very quirky choices, I think about 600 or so... and it includes a piece on Underwater Moonlight... It says under the tech specs - 'Currently unavailable on CD'. Well, that'll change soon....;-) jmbc. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:08:25 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Annie shot me in a milk bath On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Eclipse wrote: > i have to disagree, in general. memory sticks are basically just compact > flash; sony products come with pcmcia cards for memory sticks so you just > slap the card into your laptop pcmcia port or the port they give you to > hook up to your pc. that's all there is to it. If it's functionally equivalent to compact flash, why is it distinct? They wanted a proprietary format so they could be the sole distributors and holders of the technological keys. Compact flash is a well understood standard. Memory Stick is a Sony Product. That means there's a difference. One is available from multiple vendors and can compete on price/performance while the other is "available in any color, as long as it's black". Sony calls the shots. And when Sony decides it's dead, it's dead... and when Sony decides it'll cost a hundred dollars per megabyte, it'll cost a hundred dollars per megabyte. According to Pricewatch, a 16MB piece costs as follows: Sony Memory Stick $32-$46 (three retailers, three prices) SmartMedia $28-$36 (A dozen retailers, every increment between the highest and lowest) Compact Flash $25-$39 (many retailers, many prices) > they come in 4, 8, 16, 32, and 64Mb varieties, depending on what > you're looking to spend. they're compatible between all sony products > (that use memory sticks). they're less bulky than floppies or film. > etc.. Yet compact flash cards go up to 256 and work in devices from MANY manufacturers and some of those same devices will also take a microdrive. Sony is roping all of its customers into a format that isn't compatible with other company's products and that only they can manufacture. That's my problem with the "memory stick". Oh, and they're MUCH bigger than either smartmedia and I think a bit bulkier than compact flash. > to be honest, i can't say i've noticed a "lack of warmth" or "noise" in my > digital pictures. i bought my sony d-770 for my trip to europe back in > may, and i've never taken such wonderful, vivid pictures in my entire > life. (they're available at www.tuliphead.com, just fyi). Well, I will agree that MY digital pictures (and most taken with your average consumer mid-range camera) lack the color sensitivity of quality film. For example, none of my pictures of people in Portland show the mountain in the background that is clearly visible in chemical photos and even clearer to the naked eye. To that extent, GSS is right. There are higher quality CCDs out there, but I don't have one. The major camera makers have their "digital SLR" lines that take their standard lenses and provide a similar interface to the photographer's expectation of a chemical photographing camera. I think that the technology is there and it's just a matter of manufacturing processes and such getting to a point where it's affordable and photographers understanding the different *ahem* paradigm. I mean, there's no difference between the way that the lens, focal length and aperture are used to focus the image onto the capture device, be it a piece of celluloid or plastic covered in silver nitrate or other photo-reactant chemical granules suspended in an emulsion or a microcrystaline panel for storing the intensity and wavelength data for numerous contact points. But the way those granules or sensors respond to the light IS quite different. And exposure time means different things for different media. The chemical granules (at least those in common use) simply sum the wavelengths and the exposure is additive. But in digital photography, the sensors can do whatever you like with that light data. You could have them sum the waves like a chemical would or you can take an average or take the lowest intensity or whatever. As we've seen with other media, the digital is the more flexible but the analog is what's expected and most often emulated. As my friend and coworker rAT says (all the goddamn time), "We should be able to do it, it's just ones and zeroes." J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:30:59 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: A fork next to your spoon Plus question BLATZMAN@aol.com: >I'm going to buy my wife a vibrator today, but >I want my purchase to be politically correct. I hope you don't live in Alabama. - - Steve ___________ Hey, hey, hey. Don't be mean. We Don't have to be mean because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are. - B. Banzai ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:22:43 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: Annie shot me in a milk bath On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Capuchin wrote: > about. If it's the low volume fuzz you hear on most analog media, then > maybe I do hear what you're talking about but don't agree that it's > "warmth" as much as "noise". Your presupposition that a digital recording > studio is a "house of horrors" speaks something. I think that the best I have always had more problems in digital studios than analog, with syncronizing the digital devices and copying tapes and formatting. Just more of a pain in the ass for me. > My high school had a little creek running through the yard. It was found > that the creek was highly toxic due to the chemicals from the photography > class getting dumped out there by careless people for a few decades. Don't blaim that on me or any other photographer who reuses and disposes of their chemicals properly using dilution and extracting the silver from the fixer. Hell, I don't even use an indicator stop. I have a septic system and nothing toxic goes down my drain, except my shit, which is probably more hazardous than all the chemicals I use. > I appreciate art and love good photography, but I don't think it's worth > the price the rest of the world has to pay for my enjoyment. B&W photography has far less enviromental impact than color. But if we are going to to talk about hazardous waste we should include batteries, for cars and digital cameras, flourescent lamps, dental x-ray chemicals, man I could go on for awhile, but I think you understand what I am trying to say. The minuscule amount of chemicals that I have to dispose have little to no detrimental effect on the enviroment. And I have tried and continue to use some of the alternative photographic processes. > will serve me quite well for a long time. I hate that it's designed to be > more or less disposable (when it's obsolete, I mean... what do you do with > a broken case or cracked CCD or something? You get a new camera, of My cameras are about 25 years old, have been serviced once, and both will probably last another 25 years years if I take care of them. > And it's been my understanding that TLR is far superior to an SLR for art > photography... but I really don't want to get into too much discussion on > the topic. That is not entirely correct. It is better, but not far superior. Anyway, the chemicals involved, either color or b&w are the same. The best thing for me would be a TLR with an 8x10 negative, but the cost of the camera, film, lenses and enlarger makes it impractical. Single image, 8x10 contact prints sure would be cool though. > It seems relatively trivial to put a mercury switch or something Mercury, in a disposable camera? Ain't that the whatever calling the whatever, whatever. ;-> gss ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:03:46 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Annie shot me in a milk bath On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, GSS wrote: > I have always had more problems in digital studios than analog, with > syncronizing the digital devices and copying tapes and formatting. > Just more of a pain in the ass for me. Again, I think that's just a matter of what you're used to using. > Don't blaim that on me or any other photographer who reuses and disposes > of their chemicals properly using dilution and extracting the silver > from the fixer. Hell, I don't even use an indicator stop. I have a septic > system and nothing toxic goes down my drain, except my shit, which is > probably more hazardous than all the chemicals I use. Dilution? You mean you dilute your chemicals? Decreasing the parts per million doesn't do much... for some of those chemicals (the endocrine disruptors, etc.) parts per billion can cause problems. Anyway, it's an incremental thing. There are hundreds of millions of people doing chemical photography worldwide... that's a big problem, no matter how little you put out yourself as one man and his darkroom. > B&W photography has far less enviromental impact than color. But if we > are going to to talk about hazardous waste we should include > batteries, for cars and digital cameras I currently rotate about twelve NiMH batteries through the charger for all of my portable devices. They're not perfect, but they're not disposable, either. The variety I use get about 700 full charges in their lifetime. I've been using them for about two years and have probably charged each one five times. At that rate, I've got 278 years left before I have to start replacing them. Again, I'm really hoping for something better. There are some very interesting sulfur based solutions on the horizon, I hear. > flourescent lamps, dental x-ray chemicals, man I could go on for > awhile, but I think you understand what I am trying to say. Yeah, the problem runs deep. People throw nasty shit out every day. > The minuscule amount of chemicals that I have to dispose have little > to no detrimental effect on the enviroment. That's a bogus argument. The miniscule amount of CO2 pumped out by one car doesn't have a detrimental effect on the environment. The miniscule amount of water I waste while brushing my teeth doesn't have a detrimental effect on the environment. The miniscule amount of plastic I throw out doesn't have a detrimental effect on the environment. It's cumulative and you know it. It's all those people doing it every day. > And I have tried and continue to use some of the alternative > photographic processes. Well, bully for you. > My cameras are about 25 years old, have been serviced once, and both will > probably last another 25 years years if I take care of them. I suspect mine will last at least twenty years (barring catastrophe), but it'll still just be a snapshot camera. I've got an old Canon as well that I haven't used since college, really, that's in fine shape, but I'm not going to use it anymore. Maybe in the future there will be conversion jobs you can have done. If we're going to dig ourselves out of our trash, that's the way we'll have to go. > > It seems relatively trivial to put a mercury switch or something > > Mercury, in a disposable camera? Ain't that the whatever calling the > whatever, whatever. ;-> As I was saying, it shouldn't be disposable. It should be modular for servicability, upgradability, and standardization. And there are other methods of determining orientation besides mercury switches... Anyway, the point was that even the digital technology we do use isn't being used properly. Digital television is a great example. They're still quibbling over what resolution should be the standard... HELLO?!? It's a digital medium... let the PICTURE tell us what resolution it's in and let the TV display it at the best it can. That way some shows could be low-res (shot with cheaper cameras or editted by average citizens on their home systems) and some could be higher resolution (when necessary, like large crowds marching on Washington or shuttle launches or whatever)... the greatest thing about digital media is that it's malleable. You can process it later and make it fit what you can handle. This is why the personal computer is probably man's greatest invention to date. Every time society fucks up and an industry goes in the wrong direction, the computer will be there to fix it. The DVD fiasco is turning people to their computers for playback and decoding (when the industry tried to stop decoding and playback). The internet is, so far, doing a very good job of standing up to censorship by governments (though censorship by corporations is really starting to be a deadly threat... see AT&T's broadband service agreement and Qwest's DSL Acceptable Use Policy). I swear. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:13:24 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V9 #347 >> I have been >> hiking on numerous occasions with folks and their $700 Sony Matica or >> whatever the hell they are called and sometimes they get frustrated with >> me having to setup my tripod, if I have one and I usually do, and take >> some good shots, until we get home and compare pictures. They rush home, >> dump the data to a PC and start sending gifs to friends. I rush home, >> develop the negatives and then start making enlargements. The difference >> is dramatic. > >That's a fantastic story. I too used to be really into photography; had the >AE-1, my own darkroom and everything. These days I just don't care that >much about the artsy side of recording my travels and experiences, and if I >may get back to the original intent of this thread, I don't think many >people who are shopping for a camera think they're the second coming of >Ansel Adams. I'm saving up towards the possibility of making my own small darkroom. Only B&W to start with, but that's enough for my tastes. As to digital cameras, I prefer the idea of a good camera (and although mine is an oldie, the Canon A-1 is still a goodie) and, if you wish to send gifs to people, a scanner (plus Photoshop if you wish to tinker). I'm no Ansel Adams either (hell, other than the late AA himself, no-one is), but I feel happier with the old film camera. (on a related subject... coincidentally there is an article in the latest Nat Geog on the very place where I've just spent a week. turn your pointers toward http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0012/feature4/index.html if you're bored enough to be interested) >Gosh, maybe it's because I'm the blushing ingenue of the list, but I'm >surprised at how easily a few of you could toss out the names of premier >vibrator websites. I certainly wouldn't have known where to look. :) neither would I have. But I do now... ;) 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, 30 Nov 2000 01:01:34 -0500 From: drop the holupki Subject: Re: open up the places i got hurt when we last left our heroes, Andrew D. Simchik exclaimed: >1) A Reply to All not only replies to the list but also the sender, so that >I have to delete the sender's address _every single time_ when replying to >a list I don't receive in digest form. Since my default action is to send >to the entire list, and only rarely do I reply to an individual poster >offlist, you're penalizing me in the heads case in order to help me in the >tails case. That's bad usability, unless everyone else replies privately >to list messages most of the time. I kinda doubt it. the usability problem is not with the mailing list software, it's with the mail reader. there are three kinds of replies: reply-to-author, reply-to-all and reply-to-list. that last one is the one that almost all mailers lack and need. the only mailer i know of which has it is mutt...and, even then, you have to teach it which lists you are subscribed to. (i would think, assuming a properly set-up list (i.e., not egroups, onelist, listbot or yahoo clubs), listmail could be automatically detected when the from: and sender: headers do not match or something along those lines, but even that is not foolproof.) >2) If you are sending a sensitive message to someone personally, that's >the time to take special attention to make sure you do it right. no, you should make sure you address each message correctly *every* time, regardless of whether you are sending it to a mailing list or an individual. >This follows on from the heads/tails problem. Granted, the mistake in the >tails case is more damaging, but it _is_ a tails case. heads? tails? 50/50 split. someone's gotta suffer. >This is why >it's better to Undo than to ask "Are you SURE you want to delete this >file?" every time. It's very damaging in the case where you delete >an important file by accident, but users get so used to clicking through >that message that it won't help in the case where it needs to (crying >wolf). Similarly, a user accustomed to hitting that Reply All button >might do it by habit and post that gossip to the list by mistake anyway. then it's their own damn fault and i can't help that. usability is important, but so is knowing enough about what you are doing. woj ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:04:50 -0500 From: drop the holupki Subject: Re: eb all over the world when we last left our heroes, brian nupp exclaimed: >I finally got and read the Goldmine issue featuring Robyn Hitchcock. you know, doug (and somebody else) transcribed that entire thing and i still haven't put it up on the fegsite. damn i'm lazy. woj ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:11:36 +0000 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: boothbyn hitchcoe "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" wrote: > > Fuck!!!!!!!! I wrote 'its' with an apostrophe in my last post. Fuck!!!!!! grovel to The Flower in penitence: http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:14:34 +0000 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: lennon's on sale again drop the holupki wrote: > > "it's me! dee snyder! see ya!" I saw him on TV last week discussing power ballads. That scared me. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:29:48 +0000 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: Mull Historical Society "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" wrote: > > Stewart wrote > > get ye the Mull Historical Society single. > > What label is it on? I was born in Oban just a short ferry hop away, doncha > know... Tugboat records. silly little article about them from the Grauniad: http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/friday_review/story/0,3605,388231,00.html ...and wouldn't you believe that that "Barcode Bypass" is about big business closing down a corner shop. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:27:41 -0500 From: drop the holupki Subject: the cluny setlist robyn solo the cluny newcastle-on-tyne 22 november 2000 1. MEXICAN GOD 2. CHINESE BONES 3. VICTORIAN SQUID 4. MY WIFE AND MY DEAD WIFE 5. WHEN I WAS DEAD 6. SILVER DAGGER 7. 1974 8. BEAUTIFUL GIRL 9. I AM NOT ME 10. AUTUMN IS YOUR LAST CHANCE 11. QUEEN OF EYES 12. I OFTEN DREAM OF TRAINS 13. YOU AND OBLIVION 14. ELEMENT OF LIGHT 15. FREEZE (encores) 16. GENE HACKMAN 17. RIDE 18. HOWLIN'/ WOLFPACK /CHEESE/HEAVEN IMPROVISATION 19. RAYMOND CHANDLER EVENING 20. MADONNA OF THE WASPS woj ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:45:19 -0500 From: "brian nupp" Subject: Re: A fork next to your spoon Plus question >BLATZMAN@aol.com: > >I'm going to buy my wife a vibrator today, but > >I want my purchase to be politically correct. >Steve: >I hope you don't live in Alabama. Right. Isn't porn and also all sex toys illegal in most parts of Alabama? Ahh, the good ole south! Nuppster _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #348 *******************************