From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #353 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, December 3 2000 Volume 09 : Number 353 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: It's a small Red Planet after all, it's a small small Red Planet [Ele] RE: more boobs [Capuchin ] Fear of a Fermented Red Planet [Jeff Dwarf ] storefront [Jim Davies ] RE: more boobs [Terrence Marks ] Re: Lennon tributes ["Russ Reynolds" ] Re: Lennon tributes [steve ] Re: Lennon tributes [steve ] Re: more boobs [Eleanore Adams ] Re: Storefront Hithcock [Ben ] Don't dis the Mont [BLATZMAN@aol.com] RE: more boobs [Aaron Mandel ] We are Red [BLATZMAN@aol.com] Re: Storefront Hithcock [Eclipse ] RE: more boobs [dmw ] Re: Storefront Hithcock ["Simone Jarzabek" ] i'm a model, you know what i mean? ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Robyn on C5 ["Gary Sedgwick" ] Re: more boobies [grutness@surf4nix.com] Re: more boobies [Terrence Marks ] re: more boobs ["Karen Reichstein" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 00:22:23 -0800 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Re: It's a small Red Planet after all, it's a small small Red Planet Hey, when I moved to CA from detroit, I moved to Fremont! The weather down there is great, but the whole city is a big strip mall with apartments. It was nice, though. Everyday was blue skys. i was amazed that that was possible.... eleanore Jeff Dwarf wrote: > BLATZMAN@aol.com wrote: > > owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org writes: > > << nothing like a Disney movie, or whatever, but still...), and I can > > guarantee you that Blockbuster (at least here in Fremont) will have > > anywhere from 50-100 copies in stock. Be >> > > > > Hey, I grew up in Fremont! Glad to see some aspiring film makers in > > the old > > stomping grounds!!!!!! I shot a bunch of stuff at Lake Elizabeth. > > Ahhh, > > yes, Fremont. How I love thee... > > you publicly declare your love for fremont, yet you want to be taken > seriously? i mean, fremont, the city whose official mottos: at least > we're not milpitas. > > ad hominemally...... > > ===== > "The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything, > except what is worth knowing. Journalists, conscious of > this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their > demands." > -- Oscar Wilde > Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. > http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 00:56:04 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: more boobs On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Terrence Marks wrote: > Image is image. There's different images for males and females on > account of they look different. Generally speaking, there's a > correlation between not being taken seriously and breast exposure. > (or, um, vice-versa). Now, I don't know from the dress she wore. I'm trying to figure this out. Is this supposed to be a defense of that behavior? I mean, are you saying that it's OK to not take women seriously who expose parts of their body because that's generally done? You're not saying that there really is a correlation between not being "serious" and breast exposure. You ARE saying that "generally speaking" there's a prejudice against women who are exposing some of their breasts. And you're implying that you're OK with that. You're saying that a woman should recognize that some people aren't going to take her seriously if she shows some cleavage and that she should therefore alter her behaviour (manner of dress, or what have you) to conform to those irrational expectations. Am I getting this correct? "But Your Honor, she was asking for it... look at the way she was dressed!" This line of reasoning is not very well received in courts, and it should not be received well in civil discourse either... whether she was asking to be raped or to not be taken seriously. You should conform your expectations to reason rather than asking others to conform their behavior to your irrational expectations. But maybe that's not what you meant to say. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 00:50:40 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Fear of a Fermented Red Planet Eleanore Adams wrote: > Hey, when I moved to CA from detroit, I moved to Fremont! The weather > down there is great, but the whole city is a big strip mall with > apartments. It was nice, though. Everyday was blue skys. i was amazed > that that was possible.... i've lived here for most of 25 years, since i was 3. it IS actually for the most part a good place to raise kids and the weather is pretty mild except for 17 days during the summer, but there is definitely no here here. it's so spread out (it's the fourth largest city in california in terms of acreage), and for a (mostly) middle class suburb, there is WAY too much racial tension, even if it's non-violent. and even though i never went, and never would have, i miss having the drag strip. i mean, do we really need more business parks. and any city where people try to NIMBY nuns, well ... that's real fucked up. > Jeff Dwarf wrote: > > > BLATZMAN@aol.com wrote: > > > owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org writes: > > > << nothing like a Disney movie, or whatever, but still...), and I > can > > > guarantee you that Blockbuster (at least here in Fremont) will > have > > > anywhere from 50-100 copies in stock. Be >> > > > > > > Hey, I grew up in Fremont! Glad to see some aspiring film makers > in > > > the old > > > stomping grounds!!!!!! I shot a bunch of stuff at Lake > Elizabeth. > > > Ahhh, > > > yes, Fremont. How I love thee... > > > > you publicly declare your love for fremont, yet you want to be > taken > > seriously? i mean, fremont, the city whose official mottos: at > least > > we're not milpitas. > > > > ad hominemally...... > > > > ===== > > "The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything, > > except what is worth knowing. Journalists, conscious of > > this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their > > demands." > > -- Oscar Wilde > > Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. > > http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ===== "The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything, except what is worth knowing. Journalists, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands." -- Oscar Wilde Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:20:46 GMT From: Jim Davies Subject: storefront Someone was asking about Storefront? I ordered a copy of the Storefront DVD from CD-now last week, and it arrived the next day. Given the time difference, I was startled. Were they waiting for my order? Hmm. I tried to order Gothenburg, but (i) I couldn't find amazon.se (ii) CD-now say it's a city, and they won't ship it outside the United States. I would go myself, but it might be the last straw for my indulgent other. But anyone else thinking of it, go at all costs. I saw Robyn in Gothenburg some years ago, and it was excellent. Picture it. UK dates, full of ragged bleary-eyed fans elegant when they left for the gig but pulped by transport until their dry English wit and charm has been reduced to that of the health service. Then Europe, or the continent, as we might call it. Dates full of fans straight from MTV world, but intellectual. European students, properly funded, with looks. Imagine cloning the Cardigans ten or eleven times over, then send all of the Ninas down the front, and have the guys standing at the back, drinking mineral water, juices, and the occasional beer. Er, then add us. Laurence wasn't there, but if he had been, I think he'd have been equally misplaced. But we were happy. Just like everybody else. Culture, that's what it was. xoyoxxx jim ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:43:37 -0500 (EST) From: Terrence Marks Subject: RE: more boobs On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Capuchin wrote: > On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Terrence Marks wrote: > > Image is image. There's different images for males and females on > > account of they look different. Generally speaking, there's a > > correlation between not being taken seriously and breast exposure. > > (or, um, vice-versa). Now, I don't know from the dress she wore. > > I'm trying to figure this out. Is this supposed to be a defense of that > behavior? I mean, are you saying that it's OK to not take women seriously > who expose parts of their body because that's generally done? I'm saying that you're responsible for the way you present yourself and that how you present yourself is part of how people understand you. This appears to be an inseparable part of human interaction. It's why uniforms exist. I don't see what's "bad" about this. I really don't. > You're not saying that there really is a correlation between not being > "serious" and breast exposure. I'm saying that in our culture, people perceive it, yes. > You ARE saying that "generally speaking" there's a prejudice against women > who are exposing some of their breasts. And you're implying that you're > OK with that. We're dealing with signals here. The fact that one of those signals happens to be "partially exposed breasts" is only incidental. There's also a "prejudice" against people with bad haircuts or wrinkled suits. It's all signals. > You're saying that a woman should recognize that some people aren't going > to take her seriously if she shows some cleavage and that she should > therefore alter her behaviour (manner of dress, or what have you) to > conform to those irrational expectations. > > Am I getting this correct? Pretty much, only I don't see what's irrational about it. > "But Your Honor, she was asking for it... look at the way she was > dressed!" This line of reasoning is not very well received in courts, and > it should not be received well in civil discourse either... whether she > was asking to be raped or to not be taken seriously. Nice strawman. 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: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 07:58:03 -0800 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: Re: Lennon tributes > hm. since you obviously didn't notice the Julian Cope one when I mentioned > it, I'll also re-mention "Liverpool to America" by the Knobz. I'd be very > surprised if you manage to find a copy, Thanks. Actually I'm counting on Napster for most of these--don't have the time to hunt down the CD's. Sorry I missed your Cope reference earlier--I'm just kind of skimming the digests keying on the subject lines. > similarly, ISTR that Andy Partridge has stated that (despite the video > clip) XTC's "The ballad of Peter Pumpkinhead" is as much about Lennon as > JFK. Yeah, I remember reading that too. Before I saw the video I assumed it was about Jesus. I'm still not sure it isn't. I think that it makes more sense when applied to Lennon than to JFK, but I don't think it was specifically aimed at Lennon. Could have been inspired by "Destry Rides Again" for all we know. I might include it anyway, though. "Melt The Guns" was likely the tune Andy was moved to write after Lennon's death. - -rUss ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:42:29 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: Lennon tributes >>similarly, ISTR that Andy Partridge has stated that (despite the video >>clip) XTC's "The ballad of Peter Pumpkinhead" is as much about Lennon as >>JFK. Russ Reynolds: >Yeah, I remember reading that too. Before I saw the video I assumed it was >about Jesus. I'm still not sure it isn't. I think that it makes more sense >when applied to Lennon than to JFK, but I don't think it was specifically >aimed at Lennon. Could have been inspired by "Destry Rides Again" for all >we know. I might include it anyway, though. Given his religious views, I doubt that Andy would write anything about Jesus. The original inspiration was a gradually decaying Jack-O-Lantern that Andy did for his kids. - - 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: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:42:42 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: Lennon tributes >>similarly, ISTR that Andy Partridge has stated that (despite the video >>clip) XTC's "The ballad of Peter Pumpkinhead" is as much about Lennon as >>JFK. Russ Reynolds: >Yeah, I remember reading that too. Before I saw the video I assumed it was >about Jesus. I'm still not sure it isn't. I think that it makes more sense >when applied to Lennon than to JFK, but I don't think it was specifically >aimed at Lennon. Could have been inspired by "Destry Rides Again" for all >we know. I might include it anyway, though. Given his religious views, I doubt that Andy would write anything about Jesus. The original inspiration was a gradually decaying Jack-O-Lantern that Andy did for his kids. - - 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: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 10:00:49 -0800 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Re: more boobs Now this is facinating....Is anyone familiar with Desmond Morris, (wrote The Naked Ape) the anthopologist. Last night on Discovery Channel they were rerunning his series on Human Sexuality, and he believes that the female human brest, which is the only brest in an ape specioes that stays swollen all of the time, is a signal to the male of sexual readyness, since humane females, unlike other apes, do not go in and out of heat. He also says that there is a corolation between the look of the breast and the buttocks - that men are really after the roundness of the butt because when an ape female is in heat her butt swells. Since female humane are always ready to do it, they signal from the front and the back, round and bulbus coming and going. I highly recommend Morris' book. he would probably say that Martha was giving off signals that she is single and available and is ready for kids. eleanore Terrence Marks wrote: > On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Capuchin wrote: > > > On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Terrence Marks wrote: > > > Image is image. There's different images for males and females on > > > account of they look different. Generally speaking, there's a > > > correlation between not being taken seriously and breast exposure. > > > (or, um, vice-versa). Now, I don't know from the dress she wore. > > > > I'm trying to figure this out. Is this supposed to be a defense of that > > behavior? I mean, are you saying that it's OK to not take women seriously > > who expose parts of their body because that's generally done? > > I'm saying that you're responsible for the way you present yourself and > that how you present yourself is part of how people understand you. This > appears to be an inseparable part of human interaction. It's why > uniforms exist. I don't see what's "bad" about this. I really don't. > > > You're not saying that there really is a correlation between not being > > "serious" and breast exposure. > > I'm saying that in our culture, people perceive it, yes. > > > You ARE saying that "generally speaking" there's a prejudice against women > > who are exposing some of their breasts. And you're implying that you're > > OK with that. > > We're dealing with signals here. The fact that one of those signals > happens to be "partially exposed breasts" is only incidental. There's > also a "prejudice" against people with bad haircuts or wrinkled > suits. It's all signals. > > > You're saying that a woman should recognize that some people aren't going > > to take her seriously if she shows some cleavage and that she should > > therefore alter her behaviour (manner of dress, or what have you) to > > conform to those irrational expectations. > > > > Am I getting this correct? > > Pretty much, only I don't see what's irrational about it. > > > "But Your Honor, she was asking for it... look at the way she was > > dressed!" This line of reasoning is not very well received in courts, and > > it should not be received well in civil discourse either... whether she > > was asking to be raped or to not be taken seriously. > > Nice strawman. > > 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: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 13:10:49 -0500 From: Ben Subject: Re: Storefront Hithcock > My wife is searching high and low for a a copy of Storefront Hitchcock for > x-mas. Can you help? I was surprised to see a copy of SH at Tower Records a few weeks ago, so I got it there. But I am sure it is available from all the major online places like CDnow, amazon, etc. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 14:16:25 EST From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: Don't dis the Mont In a message dated 12/3/2000 1:29:37 AM US Mountain Standard Time, owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org writes: << you publicly declare your love for fremont, yet you want to be taken seriously? i mean, fremont, the city whose official mottos: at least we're not milpitas. >> Yes, I love my hometown. I miss my hometown. I am happy that I grew up in Fremont when there were orchards and farms everywhere. Milpitas was a budding city. It still retains much of it's beauty, but it is certainly showing signs of age. I would be unhappy to live there now, as I hear that the growing pains have practically undone it. But I know a much better Fremont than you, apparently. The corner of Mission and Driscol(I believe) was all farm. Warm Springs was a winery, and it was beautiful. After living in LA for 10 years, you begin to see how pretty the city actually is. Maybe you need to get out more and live a little before you can apprciate what you have. Blatzy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 14:20:47 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: RE: more boobs On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Terrence Marks wrote: > I'm saying that you're responsible for the way you present yourself > and that how you present yourself is part of how people understand > you. This appears to be an inseparable part of human interaction. > It's why uniforms exist. I don't see what's "bad" about this. I > really don't. it leads to people behaving in certain ways because that's how it's done because that's how it's done because that's how it's done because that's how it's done because... now of course, some social codes are relatively harmless. childhood-reliving indiepop kids probably find it easier to locate each other on the subway due to their Hello Kitty paraphernalia, even though this might result in an innocent Sanrio-loving waif being unwantedly asked what he thinks about Belle & Sebastian. but cultural ideas about what women should and shouldn't do are so tied up with sexist crap that i'd have awfully big reservations about huffing "she should know better than to dress that way" and dismissing a musician. >> You're not saying that there really is a correlation between not being >> "serious" and breast exposure. > > I'm saying that in our culture, people perceive it, yes. but people perceive all sorts of crap that isn't true. the question is, do you think there's any ACTUAL connection between being "serious" and how much of your breasts are exposed? do you think the open air on mammary skin draws blood away from the brain? if not, why treat anyone as though there is? by all means, recognize that other people will make that judgment, but don't subordinate your own intelligence to theirs. a ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 14:24:11 EST From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: We are Red In a message dated 12/3/2000 1:29:37 AM US Mountain Standard Time, owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org writes: << Home video: 46.6% TV: 28.8% Theatrical box office: 24.6% >> Can I reason then that if a film doesn't make 25% of it's total cost in theatrical release, that it will lose money? So, if Red Planet only grosses $25 M domestically, that is roughly 25% of it's total income generating ability. Which means it should pull in $100m total. Take into consideration the Time Factor, since not all of this money is in hand today, and the value decreases even further. Add Negative cost, prints and advertising, further transfer to DVD & video, further advertising, post theatrical distribution... What your saying is Red Planet didn't make enough in it's theatrical run to break even over the life of the film. Your numbers only bolster my argument that it is very easy for a film not to break even. Thanks Blatzy ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:49:29 -0800 (PST) From: Eclipse Subject: Re: Storefront Hithcock > > My wife is searching high and low for a a copy of Storefront Hitchcock for > > x-mas. Can you help? > > I was surprised to see a copy of SH at Tower Records a few weeks ago, so I got it > there. But I am sure it is available from all the major online places like CDnow, > amazon, etc. i dunno, i tried to order it from amazon back in october, and it was on back order until about a week ago, when i got a note from amazon saying they wouldn't be able to get it and they were giving up and cancelling my order. i'm gonna try cdnow since someone else said they got it the next day from there. or maybe my local tower will have it. shoppingly, Eclipse np: Grant Lee Buffalo, Mighty Joe Moon ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 14:51:09 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: RE: more boobs On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Terrence Marks wrote: > Image is image. There's different images for males and females on account > of they look different. Generally speaking, there's a correlation between > not being taken seriously and breast exposure. (or, um, > vice-versa). Now, I don't know from the dress she wore. a good friend of mine told me recently that in one of her old bands she had a rule that the worse the band was, the less she would wear. she's been married to another good friend of mine for seven years, and it was a real struggle to not visualize (she also said the band was very bad). i used to be in a band that prided itself on dressing like we'd just come straight from work -- no posing for us! we sucked, and we broke up to utter indifference of the planet in general, and steadily declining attendance. then i joined a band (with three of the same people, as it happened) that made a point of dressing as flamboyantly and outrageously as we could afford. we sucked, but we got better -- practice will do that - -- and we've enjoyed steadily increasing attendance. i think it makes a big difference when you start thinking of structuring a performance as a "show," not just playing a bunch of songs in a row. and if that means flashing some tit now and then, well, this skin-tight plastic pant-wearing rocker is not apt to censure. if you got it, flaunt it! > > > Actually, I just remembered an Archers of Loaf show I went to a few years > > > back. Their lead singer was balding and I spent the whole show thinking > > > "These guys are too old to rock" and they didn't prove me wrong. [Brian] > > > > Well this is just hurtful. Somehow I made it to 37 entertaining fantasies > > of rock stardom, but now *poof*. Damned receding hairline! a. wig b. stetson c. shaven head [Terrence again] > Well, the fact that they sounded too old to rock didn't help. a. Marshall amplification, bay-bee! - -- d. np amy rigby _the sugar tree_ - - 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: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:17:56 -0800 From: "Simone Jarzabek" Subject: Re: Storefront Hithcock My local Tower still had some VHS on the shelf last time I checked. Write me if you can't find it and I can try to pick one up for anyone in need. Cheers from Seattle, Simone sljarzabek@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 12:18:26 -0800 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: i'm a model, you know what i mean? >From: grutness@surf4nix.com > >to quote a sadly now deceased friend, when looking at a picture of Kate Moss: >"what's the point of that one? You can't grapple with a garden rake! >All bones!" My theory is that the ideal model's body is as close as one can get to a motile clothes hanger. It's much harder to design clothing that looks good when stretched over the curves that, Cosmo ideals aside, most humans have to one degree or another. Best to load the dice by making sure the body is pretty uniform from the shoulders down. >From: Terrence Marks > >Now, how many of you have bought (or failed to buy) an album because of >the cover? Yesterday I was buying a Faith and the Muse album and was really torn. The one with the best cover, Margaret already has. So I had to choose between the one with the cheesy new-age-lookin' cover and the awful, unreadable song titles, or the Victorian-goth-lookin' one. Went with the latter. Haven't heard it yet so I don't know whether to regret it. Not only do I often let borderline decisions rest on the cover, but I'm also powerfully affected by the colors chosen when I'm listening to the music. Music "sounds" like a particular color for me, and it's usually the dominant color on the album cover. If there is no dominant color or if it's one I dislike, the music makes me slightly uneasy. The Charlatans UK's _Up to our Hips_ is an example that springs to mind, though I like green and black just fine, so maybe it's something else. Drew - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen.com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 23:31:23 -0000 From: "Gary Sedgwick" Subject: RH on Jerry Atrick show Bit late notice, but I just noticed that according to the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/TV/ch5_carlton.html), Robyn is about to appear on C5 on the Jerry Atrick show... Gary ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:07:31 -0000 From: "Gary Sedgwick" Subject: Robyn on C5 Just watched Robyn on the Jerry Atrick show... he played the Yip Song and was in his black with white polkadots shirt... but why? Why the Jerry Atrick show? Hmm... must be hard times. He looked pretty uneasy throughout (including nearly fluffing a line in the Yip Song). BTW, haven't been keeping up to date with the digests so I may have missed some posts, but did anyone else make it along to the recent Camden Underworld gig? Gary ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 16:14:35 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com Subject: Re: more boobies >> Maybe (again, no sarcasm), maybe I'm full of shit. I'm far enough removed >> from the zeitgeist that it's entirely possible I've missed some kind of >> movement toward a certain decorum from folk singers, or performers in >> general (have I said "no sarcasm", because I know this sounds sarcastic). > >It's not a matter of decorum. I wouldn't trust a folk singer in a >business suit either. heh... chalk up one feg who wouldn't vote for Bob Roberts :) I take it that you guys upset by displays of singers' sexual characteristics wouldn't go to a Hole concert? How about the Plasmatics? > Anyway, it's a quiet night in fegland, anyone want to relate their tale of a > show that was spoiled by the performer's dress (or lack thereof)? Iggy Pop > and Red Hot Chili Peppers don't count. forgive me, but isn't this the email list that goes on at length about Robyn's shirts? >> Now, how many of you have bought (or failed to buy) an album because of >> the cover? oh, many, I'm sure of it. The only reason I ever got a copy of Greenlade's "Time and Tide" was the Patrick Woodroffe cover, but being a fan of Mellotrons I wasn't disappointed enough in the music to ditch it. Coombining two threads, the most gratuitous use of boobs on an album cover is probably Supertramp's "Indelibly stamped". 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: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 22:29:37 -0500 (EST) From: Terrence Marks Subject: Re: more boobies On Mon, 4 Dec 2000 grutness@surf4nix.com wrote: > I take it that you guys upset by displays of singers' sexual > characteristics wouldn't go to a Hole concert? How about the Plasmatics? 1) No, probably not. 2) I'm not _upset_ by it. 3) If I did go, I wouldn't take Wendy or Courtney too seriously. > Coombining two threads, the most gratuitous use of boobs on an album cover > is probably Supertramp's "Indelibly stamped". Bringing it back on topic, "Raw Cuts". 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: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 20:54:08 -0800 From: "Karen Reichstein" Subject: re: more boobs >Anyway, it's a quiet night in fegland, anyone want to relate their >tale of >a show that was spoiled by the performer's dress (or >lack thereof)? Iggy >Pop and Red Hot Chili Peppers don't count. Back in 1993 or 1994, I saw Robyn in Portland (Pine Street Theatre? not sure which venue) and he appeared on stage wearing an acid-washed denim jacket and denim pants.Carole and I both recoiled in horror. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #353 *******************************