From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #355 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, December 4 2000 Volume 09 : Number 355 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Boobs (Three different ones) [The Great Quail ] Polonius was right (Clothes, part IX) [The Great Quail ] Re: The Trickster [Christopher Gross ] Re: The Trickster [Viv Lyon ] Re: The Trickster [Asshole Motherfucker ] Re: Polonius was right (Clothes, part IX) [The Great Quail ] Viv and Quail debate minute points (NR) [Viv Lyon ] Sushi [The Great Quail ] Re: Sushi [dmw ] Re: Viv and Quail debate minute points (NR) [The Great Quail Subject: Boobs (Three different ones) Terrence "Vote Number 532" Marks writes, >It's not a matter of decorum. I wouldn't trust a folk singer in a >business suit either. Back in college, when as an angry young man I felt I had something to prove about the universe, I used to delight in dressing in various ways to confound people's expectations. Having one foot in many different musical styles, I enjoyed tweaking people -- dressing like a hippy at a goth concert, wearing a suit to a punk concert, and dressing like a punk to see the Dead. Oddly enough, the punks thought the suit was a cool statement, I immediately had a bunch of deadheads happily confess their like of the Suicidal Tendencies and Corrosion of Conformity, and only the Goths ever seemed to steer away from the fellow win the tie-die-- which made me enjoy it all the more. Now of course I can't be bothered by this nonsense, and wear jeans and a Hawaiian shirt over a Robyn Hitchcock T-shirt to just about everything. Except maybe the opera. Then I wear camouflage fatigues, a Nixon mask, and ladies underwear. (But like we discussed, it's a comfort thing.) Terrence continues, >Now, how many of you have bought (or failed to buy) an album because of >the cover? I have bought MANY albums on account of the cover. In fact, as a 14-year old fan of the movie "Alien," I bought my first ELP album, "Brain Salad Surgey," on account of the HR Giger cover -- and my mind was totally, happily blown. I also have bought albums based on the name of the group (Alien Sex Fiend, The Smashing Pumpkins) and the name of the album ("Within the Realm of a Dying Sun," "Starless and Bible Black.") Oddly enough, I have almost never been disappointed by this system -- though it has a dark side, in that occasionally I get negative vibes from a group *because* of their name. It took me a long time to warm up to Lou Reed because I hate the name "Lou," and I still have no interest in "The Archers of Loaf." Drew writes, >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. Yes! Yes! Yes! I thought I was the only crazy one who "sees" color in music! A whole album is definitely affected by the dominant color scheme of the cover, even a black and white photograph..... - --Quail, bringing you impulsive neuroticism since 1967 - -- +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+ 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: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 11:42:59 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Polonius was right (Clothes, part IX) I have to agree with Terrence and disagree with Cappy. (How many times I have written that last part around here? It's amazing that Jeme and I can hold an intelligent conversation. Hell, I don't even think Siushi should be served on a Wednesday night.) All societies have codes, a complex system of semiotics that relate messages on a non-verbal level. It's just the nature of society. These semiotics, of course, can change over time, altering with a societies' moral values, changes in class system, and the whims of fashion. Clothing is one of the most powerful and ancient systems of codes we have. As Terrence remarked, a uniform means a lot, as do tuxedoes, ballroom dresses, clown suits, and S&M gear. Do you think Robyn wears lizard-pattern shirts because his Mother gets him them for Christmas? Clothing -- and the state of the clothing, and the context of the clothing -- sends a powerful message. And when you couple sexuality to this, oh boy! The revealing of sexual characteristics (primary, of course; but also secondary; and even tertiary characteristics such as hair length, nails, lips) sends a powerful, undeniable message -- though there are many different messages it can send, depending on who is doing the revealing, the nature of the audience, and the context of the revealing -- but it *always* sends a message. Courtney Hole loves to dress provocatively because she *wants* to embody with the rebellious female rocker girl image, she emphasizes her sex in order to make a statement about power and politics. It is a choice, and one entirely appropriate for the overall feel of her band. Courtney showing some open boob is very different than, say, Renee Fleming flashing her breasts in an opera recital, which would be a major and almost indecipherable breach in culture. When Tori straddles her hard piano bench and rocks back and forth, when Bono decks out in black leather and pops champagne corks into crowds of women, when Elvis gyrates his hips or ice-queen Annie Lennox rips off her shirt to sing in a severe bra..... It is impossible to not read messages into these! Figures like Bowie and Madonna have made careers out of manipulating the semiotics of clothing and sexual identity. Granted, these are obvious examples, but what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Martha Wainright *knows* she shows lots of cleavage; so despite Cappy's indignant protestation that we should remain impossibly neutral to all sexual semiotics, it does indeed pose the question "what message is she sending?" Is she flirty? Deliberately careless? Searching for a child-bearing fellow? Does she expose herself to add a certain "kink" to her otherwise sweet-toned music? To Eb, it undermines his ability to take her as a serious folk artist. To Capuchin, it sparks his innate sense of anger at all social codes, so he desperately tries *not* to allow her cleavage to affect his mental image of her as an artist. To me, well, I think it adds a sexy naughtiness to her music, the equivalent of Rufus and his amorous gay butterfly chatter. Sweet music with a bit of a sexual kink in the delivery. The very low-key nature of her "act" (when compared to Madonna the mother/whore, or Natalie Mercant the ingenue) adds a certain degree of ambiguity here, but I still contend that is it perfectly open to all forms of valid interpretation. But -- Capuchin ties Eb's line of reasoning here to the classic rape defense - -- as Terrence put it so succinctly, that is just a strawman. I believe that Eb's comments are more prudish than lascivious. The fact is, the semiotics of clothing have been with us since the dawn of time, and will be with us for the foreseeable future, and I think it is perfectly valid to analyze the clothing and decolletage of any public figure. It's part of understanding their "message." We may not all be comfortable with finding ourselves socially pigeon-holed by what we wear and how rumpled it is, but I think that *also* speaks volumes about one's acceptance in the semiotic hierarchy. After all, barring the homeless, the ill, and the insane, we are all in control of our basic image. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 09:46:52 -0800 (PST) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: Polonius was right (Clothes, part IX) On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, The Great Quail cast some pearls: > The fact is, the semiotics of clothing have been with us since the > dawn of time, and will be with us for the foreseeable future, and I > think it is perfectly valid to analyze the clothing and decolletage > of any public figure. It's part of understanding their "message." We > may not all be comfortable with finding ourselves socially > pigeon-holed by what we wear and how rumpled it is, but I think that > *also* speaks volumes about one's acceptance in the semiotic > hierarchy. After all, barring the homeless, the ill, and the insane, > we are all in control of our basic image. Quail, you're finding gold in a pile of shit. The original post which started all this merely stated, in slightly more words, "Martha's cleavage-sporting allows me to not take her seriously, especially as she is far too fat to be attractive." If you can get from there to this here erudite post and still think you're addressing the issue, fine. But I think you're reading far too much into it. Semiotics of clothing be damned- this is about sexism, the art of treating people badly because of their sexual characteristics. Vivien "no fat chicks!"- T-shirt on Comic Book Store Guy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 13:01:27 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: The Trickster On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Asshole Motherfucker wrote: > can there be such a thing as non-gratuitous use of boobs on an album > cover? is it possible, in other words, that without the boobs on > the album cover, the contents of the album would be completely meaningless? Lords of Acid, _Voodoo-U_ (1994). A few random notes on rock 'n' roll nudity: - -Capuchin, did you say you saw the Cramps fifteen years ago? Wouldn't you have been like 12 years old then? - -Back in high school I bought Pink Floyd's _A Nice Pair_ (reissues of their first two albums in one double sleeve). The cover featured two shots of nude women's chests, both of which the killjoy record store covered over with Pink Floyd stickers. That was okay; I swear I only bought it because I was broke and it was cheaper than buying the two albums separately. - -I once saw, in Maximumrocknroll magazine, a photo series showing Jello Biafra getting nude onstage. The interesting thing was that he wasn't taking his clothes off -- they were being *ripped* off his body. (As I recall, it wasn't clear from the photos how much of the ripping he did himself and how much was done by the audience.) - -Nashville Pussy's standard stage act includes one female member exposing a breast (and licking her own nipple) and another performing mock fellatio on a beer bottle. Both acts are entirely necessary to the integrity of Nashville Pussy's music. - -Gwar usually exposes *fake* boobs, butts and genitals onstage. I have to admit, this makes it hard for me to take them as seriously as I would otherwise. - --Christopher "Phlegmboy" Gross ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:13:13 -0800 (PST) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: The Trickster On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Christopher Gross wrote: > -Gwar usually exposes *fake* boobs, butts and genitals onstage. I have to > admit, this makes it hard for me to take them as seriously as I would > otherwise. Totally! Like, it would be a different story if it was their _own_ genitalia they were exposing, but geez! I expect artists of the caliber of Gwar to be exposing the real thing! I just can't take them seriously as shock-rockers if they aren't giving us the real deal. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 10:06:24 -0800 From: Asshole Motherfucker Subject: Re: The Trickster >Lords of Acid, _Voodoo-U_ (1994). granted, i've never heard it. never heard *of* it, until just now. but are you really saying that if this cover were replaced by...whatever. .a picture of a bran muffin, or something; that lyrics such as these. . I've come to tell you about forbidden pleasures of the flesh The most thrilling satisfaction for all mankind Better than everything you've ever imagined in your wildest dreams The secret of ... the crab louse Here's a message for the girls about vaginas And the consequences of dealing with a partner Mind your labia they're never out of danger If you're going to go to bed with a stranger Creatures might be hidden in his pubic area It's the crab louse it's out to getcha It's gonna grab you by the pubic hair Shake your pussy when the bastard's there It's there to stay Sucks all day It's there to bite My parasite ..would be completely "indecipherable" (to borrow from the coolest sentence i've seen all month)? or let's even take it to film. you can't live three seconds without hearing somebody complaining about "gratuitous nudity" this, and "gratuitous nudity" that. is there any nude scene in any movie in which the nudity in non-gratuitous? okay, The Crying Game. *perhaps* Blue Velvet. probably are some others. but damned few. certainly not The Piano, for example. actually, i guess there's a pretty easy litmus test: if they cut the offending shots for broadcast teevee, would it render the movie "indecipherable"? anyway... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:15:47 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Polonius was right (Clothes, part IX) >Quail, you're finding gold in a pile of shit. I wish I could do that more often. >The original post which >started all this merely stated, in slightly more words, "Martha's >cleavage-sporting allows me to not take her seriously, especially as she >is far too fat to be attractive." I disagree, about both the relevance of my post and Eb's comments. While I can't defend nor detract from his statements regarding Martha's plumpness, his comments regarding her cleavage were meant to question whether or not her image supported her intent to come across as a serious musician. So I think my post was very relevant, especially because many posts after that questioned different rock stars and their exhibitionist tendencies. I was replying not just to the original post, but the the whole thread it generated. And by the way, I actually agree with your last post, Vivien. I thought it made a hell of a lot of sense. Though your prejudice against exposed nipples only seems to confirm the point I'll try to make below -- that biological differences, enhanced by social taboos, are an ingrained part of Western culture, which should re-calibrate the charge of "sexism" to a more political level. >If you can get from there to this here erudite post and still think you're >addressing the issue, fine. But I think you're reading far too much into >it. Semiotics of clothing be damned- this is about sexism, the art of >treating people badly because of their sexual characteristics. No, it is not entirely about sexism. Eb was not in any real way treating Martha badly because of the fact she is a woman -- in fact, he supported her career by seeing her. Eb has a history of supporting female artists. But, he has personal sexual tastes, too. And he does come off as being a bit prudish sometimes, or at least easily disturbed by a woman's open sexuality. So he thinks that (1) she should reduce her breast-showing tendencies to be treated as a serious artist, and (2) she is too plump to really show off her body well given tight clothing. Regarding the latter, I for one get sick and tired of "sexism!" being cried out when any man offers his comments regarding his personal taste. OK, so maybe it shows that Eb has issues with heavy women, fine. But is that sexist?!? It's not like he said, "Martha Wainright should not be seen in public until she looks like Kate Moss, and I'm not going to buy her CDs until then." And regarding the former, well, men and women are different, and if it's a sexist statement to remark she should show less breast to be taken seriously, then I guess you might as well indict our entire Western culture for placing a female's breasts under taboo. And if that's what you want to do, fine - -- but personally, I think a charge of sexism should be applied more strategically than just emphasizing that we have different ways of looking at secondary sexual characteristics. You draw the line at nipples, Eb at "lower cleavage." (And having seen Martha sing at close range, I can say I know what he means -- but I was happily mesmerized by her ample bosom.) But somehow he's more sexist than you are? Or do you mean he's more tactless, shallow, or critical? Lord knows, I hear just as many women say comments like, "She just can't pull that off" or "Some people shouldn't wear bikinis" and such. But I guess I'm supposed to find that catty, and not sexist? If Eb claimed that Martha could not write good songs because she was a woman, or worse, if he felt that she should not be compensated as equally as a male, well, that's real sexism. I mean, we all know men and women are different -- acknowledging that is just biology. But acting to treat one sex politically or socially different with no basis in merit, that's a bit different. Your complaints with Eb stem from a side of his personality that comes across as being vulgar and shallow to you. But I see that as no more "sexist" in nature than Drew's commentaries about his lust for Rufus, or any list member expressing open sexual feelings or preferences. I think you have every right to call Eb shallow, offensive, crude, whatever -- but to call him sexist in this case seems to me unwarranted, and only adds to a climate of PC-generated fear of censure. >"no fat chicks!"- T-shirt on Comic Book Store Guy "No fat chicks" is quite vile, I agree. But isn't it weight-discriminatory above all? And really, I hardly think Eb is the type to adopt such a slogan. Some people on this list get VERY sensitive the second someone indicates they are not attracted to people who are above a certain weight. That doesn't make them sexist. - --Quail, suspecting he's in hot water now. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:17:33 -0500 From: "Thomas, Ferris" Subject: RE: Polonius was right (Clothes, part IX) Thus prattered mein Quail: "...I don't even think Siushi should be served on a Wednesday night." And why the Hell not, sir? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:45:39 -0500 From: "Yudt.Matthew" Subject: FYI: New virus warning In the spirit of sharing info. I thought this may be of importance to everyone. Being in the government has some advantages, and early warnings may be one of them: Here is the latest information on the new virus: Don't open message's with subject and text as follows: Subject line of = A great Shockwave flash movie With a Body of = Check out this new flash movie that I downloaded just now ... It's Great Bye With an Attachment named = creative.exe See the URL here for full description information: http://vil.nai.com/vil/virusSummary.asp?virus_k=98909 Matt "I like boobies too, but could only post this" Yudt ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 11:02:25 -0800 (PST) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Viv and Quail debate minute points (NR) On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, The Great Quail wrote: > I disagree, about both the relevance of my post and Eb's comments. > While I can't defend nor detract from his statements regarding > Martha's plumpness, his comments regarding her cleavage were meant to > question whether or not her image supported her intent to come across > as a serious musician. So I think my post was very relevant, > especially because many posts after that questioned different rock > stars and their exhibitionist tendencies. I was replying not just to > the original post, but the the whole thread it generated. Fair enough. I got caught up in the thread I was interested in, and disregarded the tangent that has superseded it. > And by the way, I actually agree with your last post, Vivien. I > thought it made a hell of a lot of sense. Though your prejudice > against exposed nipples only seems to confirm the point I'll try to > make below -- that biological differences, enhanced by social taboos, > are an ingrained part of Western culture, which should re-calibrate > the charge of "sexism" to a more political level. I mentioned that I was (mostly) kidding about that. I don't really think rules need to be formulated for which kinds of skin-exposure should be regarded as more or less "objectifiable." > Regarding the latter, I for one get sick and tired of "sexism!" being > cried out when any man offers his comments regarding his personal > taste. And I'm sure you're sympathetic to my sick-and-tiredness with hearing that a woman who shows some cleavage can and perhaps should be taken less seriously than other people. OK, so maybe it shows that Eb has issues with heavy women, > fine. But is that sexist?!? That's why I didn't imply that someone's issues with weight were necessarily sexist. I was merely summarizing (perhaps inaccurately) a previous post. > And regarding the former, well, men and women are different, and if > it's a sexist statement to remark she should show less breast to be > taken seriously, then I guess you might as well indict our entire > Western culture for placing a female's breasts under taboo. I might. I just might. > You draw the line at nipples, Eb at "lower cleavage." Again, a joke. I draw no line at nipples. Unless I'm measuring point-to-point, and even then the line is merely hypothetical. (Will anyone get this? Probably not.) > But somehow he's more sexist than you are? Or do you mean he's more > tactless, shallow, or critical? Lord knows, I hear just as many women > say comments like, "She just can't pull that off" or "Some people > shouldn't wear bikinis" and such. But I guess I'm supposed to find > that catty, and not sexist? No, that's sexist too. I try to curb my impulses in that direction (though lord knows, this societal conditioning is hard to shake!). > If Eb claimed that Martha could not write good songs because she was > a woman, or worse, if he felt that she should not be compensated as > equally as a male, well, that's real sexism. Quail, it is equally sexist to tell a woman that she should cover up her body if she wants people to take her seriously. It is a sexist notion that womens' bodies are made only for sex, and if they display them, they are asking to be treated as sexual objects. I stand by that assertion. > > Your complaints with Eb stem from a side of his personality that > comes across as being vulgar and shallow to you. But I see that as no > more "sexist" in nature than Drew's commentaries about his lust for > Rufus, Drew isn't implying that Rufus needs to change his behavior, whereas Eb is implying that Martha should reconsider hers. Expressing desire is different from expressing censure. I think you have every right to call Eb shallow, > offensive, crude, whatever -- but to call him sexist in this case > seems to me unwarranted, and only adds to a climate of PC-generated > fear of censure. Actually, the climate of fear that is being perpetuated is a fear of calling a spade a spade, that one should never utter that dread word "sexism." What good is a word unless one can use it where one feels it's warranted? Racism, sexism... these are the new taboo words of our society. For the record, I am not calling anyone "sexist." All I am arguing is that a certain comment, and the attitude it implies, was sexist. Love the sinner, hate the sin, and all that. Vivien Or in this case, barely tolerate the sinner.... ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 15:04:06 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Sushi >Thus prattered mein Quail: >"...I don't even think Siushi should be served on a Wednesday night." > >And why the Hell not, sir? No reason! That was just an inside joke at Cappy's expense. He has a thing for sushi on Wednesday nights.... And like all good Americans, I know that sushi should only be eaten on Thursday afternoons. Wednesday nights are for Missouri brain sandwiches. - --Q ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 15:53:09 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: Sushi On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, The Great Quail wrote: > >Thus prattered mein Quail: > >"...I don't even think Siushi should be served on a Wednesday night." > > > >And why the Hell not, sir? > > No reason! That was just an inside joke at Cappy's expense. He has a > thing for sushi on Wednesday nights.... actually, i think tuesdays, thursdays, and saturdays are supposed to be the best days for sushi. this is based on shipping schedules. many of the best sushi restaurants are closed on mondays, because the fish would be less fresh if it were to be served. i got all this info from a sushi faq somewhere on the web. - -- 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: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 15:51:38 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Viv and Quail debate minute points (NR) Vivs, >Quail, it is equally sexist to tell a woman that she should cover up her >body if she wants people to take her seriously. It is a sexist notion that >womens' bodies are made only for sex, and if they display them, they are >asking to be treated as sexual objects. I stand by that assertion. You are making a connection between two things that are not necessarily connected. It is *not* sexist to tell a woman she should cover up her body to be taken seriously. Nor telling that to a man. It is merely advising them to play within the rules of society if they wish to be taken seriously by society. Let's face it, would Janet Reno exert any authority is she attended cabinet meetings with one breast hanging out, Amazon-style? Or would Ralph Nader exert any authority with see-through ass-pants? Can you actually take a nude folk singer with any real seriousness -- at least at first? Of course not. Now, granted, Martha was just being busty, and Eb was being overly-sensitive; but not, I contend, being sexist! I am sure he would have said the same thing if a make singer had on a reeeeally tight pair of pants. Then, to repeat: >It is a sexist notion that >womens' bodies are made only for sex, and if they display them, they are >asking to be treated as sexual objects. I stand by that assertion. This statement is problematic. First of all, I can agree with the first part -- it is a sexist notion to think a woman's body is made only for sex. But, when a woman -- or a man -- openly displays sexual characteristics, they are ASKING to have their sexuality factored into any appraisal an onlooker will have of them. In fact, most people rely on this, because they want to "look good." (please note in no way am I implying that this means it is the ONLY way they should be viewed, nor does it excuse people from carrying out unwanted violations of the person's private space.) This is a factor of almost every culture on earth. Additionally, I don't think your above statement is intrinsically related upon your first statement. In fact, no where in Eb's post did he say that Martha was asking to be treated *only* as a sex object, nor did he treat her solely as a sex object -- in fact, Eb seems like he would rather not be exposed to a woman's sexuality in such a manner, and feels that if she would have shown less breast, she would have greater validity as a professional musician. (I am not sure about this myself -- I think Martha's earthy sexiness is quite titillating. And her voice!!!! Swoon, swoon.) >Drew isn't implying that Rufus needs to change his behavior, whereas Eb is >implying that Martha should reconsider hers. Expressing desire is >different from expressing censure. Very true; I agree. (Though Drew did want to feed Rufus, if I recall. To ectomorphic for our Mr. S, I assume?) >Actually, the climate of fear that is being perpetuated is a fear of >calling a spade a spade, that one should never utter that dread word >"sexism." What good is a word unless one can use it where one feels it's >warranted? Racism, sexism... these are the new taboo words of our society. Though I would hardly call them "taboo" words, let's go with that a second. I feel they have been devalued partly because certain elements have hijacked them, broadened their definitions almost to the point of meaninglessness, and then created an atmosphere of fear and repression. When a black speaker indicates that he *cannot* be racist because he is black, when a post-feminist speaker calls all men rapists, and when the Left turns to book-banning, career assassination, and a generally unpleasant attitude of shrillness, I have to step out and hope that sensibility and intellectual rigor will one day rear their heads..... >For the record, I am not calling anyone "sexist." You have been heavily implying it, then. >All I am arguing is that >a certain comment, and the attitude it implies, was sexist. Love the >sinner, hate the sin, and all that. Mmmm.... sounds a bit like sophistry to me! Your closing comment of "Bare toleration" is closer to the truth! - --Quail, who manages somehow to like both Eb and Viv, Eb and Hal, Quail and Cappy, Eddie and Chris Gross, Blatzmann and everyone else, and even LJ and Bayard -- yes, the true rivalry of the Feg List. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #355 *******************************