From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #361 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, December 8 2000 Volume 09 : Number 361 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: end of year lists [GSS ] Re: bend over, everyone ["J. Brown" ] butter that skillet - 0% music [Eleanore Adams ] glosty glosty glost of gloster ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: In the Red Planet ["hamlet007" ] Re: but, the larch [GSS ] Re: more boobs ["Randy R." ] I don't think so [BLATZMAN@aol.com] Bueller...Bueller...Bueller [BLATZMAN@aol.com] Re: I don't think so [Bayard ] Re: I don't think so [Eb ] Re: Bueller...Bueller...Bueller [Asshole Motherfucker ] end of year lists ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" ] robyn on next minus 5 album [drop the holupki ] Re: bend over, everyone [GSS ] Re: digests 338-341 revisited (warning: menmonic!) [Michael R Godwin ] amuznet article on soft boys reunion [drop the holupki ] Re:Butter the Pan? ["Irish Airman" ] Re: spin article on soft boys reunion ["brian nupp" ] Re: bend over, everyone [Michael R Godwin ] Ida Geddy Lee Lee [Gene Hopstetter ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:09:51 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: end of year lists > I declare 'the uncoated skillet' thread the dullest of 2000 by a country > fuckin' mile...;-) Yeah, so, it could have been worse. And the year ain't fucking over. We still got plenty of time to top even that one. gss ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:48:39 -0800 (PST) From: "J. Brown" Subject: Re: bend over, everyone On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Eleanore Adams wrote: > Does England not have rights similar to the U.S. 5th and 14th am due > process rights, which include implied rights to privacy? Just curious if > you guys ever spelled this out.... (not that we over here dont have those > rights violated all of the time by the govt, as well as a number of our > population, non-govt, are always exposing/spying themselves/us willingly, > i.e. selling marketing info on us etc...) They don't have any such rights. In fact, I don't believe Britons have any sort of codified rights as we do in the US or in Canada just those rights given to them by legistlation and "tradition". Jason Wilson Brown - University of Washington - Seattle, WA "The whole Bush family, from Texas, should be boiled in poison oil." -Hunter S. Thompson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:45:27 -0800 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: butter that skillet - 0% music OK, I know this is farrrrr from music related.... Iron pans conduct heat really, really well. If you don't wash the cast iron with soap, i.e. just rinse it out with hot water and wipe it, it will becomed "seasoned" and the surface becomes slicker with use. I cook almost exclusively in cast iron because the pans conduct heat so well and can also go into the oven, i.e. sear a steak, then stick it under the broiler. I fried an egg this morning, over easy, perfect! But my pan has been "seasoned" over many years of use. (I love to cook!!!) - -eleanore Jeff Dwarf wrote: > GSS wrote: > > > I mean, have you ever tried frying an egg in an iron skillet? > > > > People have been doing that for centuries. Man, I use nothing but > > uncoated skillets. That is why we have butter and save bacon grease, > > or at least one of the reasons. > > but if you use butter or bacon grease or Pam or whatever, you ARE > coating the skillet; you are merely using a skillet that is not > pre-coasted with teflon or whatever. > > ===== > "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: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 18:00:10 -0800 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: glosty glosty glost of gloster >From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com > >I feel the need to come clean here. Apparently I have some >dreadful dysfunction that makes the visual Dune dust almost >impossible for me to ingest. Mmkay! >I read the first Dune, Dune, Dune of Dune book, but couldn't >get through the rest. Understandable. Dune Messiah is palatable but transitional; Children of Dune is cool but not a patch on the first book; God Emperor is almost completely unreadable; and I haven't managed to get more than three pages into Heretics, as much as I'd like to. The first book is by far the best. >One other >possibility is that it doth blow and other persons are >simply confused: but I'm sure that that notion is >mightily far-fetched. It is. There are many other reasons for you not to like it. Some of them are probably the same reasons I was bored to tears by Lord of the Rings. In other news, can I please request that if people feel the need to quote entire news articles about yet another attempt to invade online privacy, other people do not then quote the ENTIRE article just to make a general comment? It makes me hurt inside me when that happens. Thanks. Drew ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 18:14:44 -0800 From: "hamlet007" Subject: Re: In the Red Planet BLATZ wrote: > It makes more sense to make internet films eligible for Emmys. After all, > the medium is much more like TV. Small screen, crappy sound... I know a lot of people with better sound and video on their computer than in their T.V>going to hurt Jerry Bruckheimer, > Michael Bay, or Ben Affleck? Absolutely not.>> > > Uh, DUH!, I don't. But if Family Man doesn't score big, Tea Leone has a lot > to lose. This is a big role for her as a leading woman. But Ben isn't in > the clear either. Big Budget leading man material? I dunno > > And then, in response to my question of what was fair for the Exhibitor: > > < distributor's requirement four years ago to say that I had to take five > "Special" films each year and Pearl Harbor is one of them and I have to > pay HEAPS to get it out of my cinema (and maybe never get to show a flick > from one of the six or seven studios that produce ALL of the films I show > in a given year again).>> > > Cop Out!!!! I didn't ask you what was legal. I asked you what you thought > was appropriate. I didn't say "should people be able to get shitfaced and > drive 80 miles an hour on a city street near a school. Under your > guidelines, the answer would be "Actually, I can't, because I agreed with > the law's requirements four years ago when I signed the paperwork for a > drivers license." What do you think theater owners are do? Forget the law. > You know everything anyway, so what do you think they deserve? I am asking > for your opinion. > > > And just think, if it's successful, you get to ride the gravy train > > for weeks. If it's successful, it will make you a ton of money cause > > you know your profit sharing increases with the life of the film. > > Why do you think the theater owners share profits on the film for its > entire life? Understand that the life of the film for YOU (the studio) is > about 1000 times longer than the life for me (the theater owner) and > perhaps longer.>>>> > > GOOOOOODDDDDD. Are you paying attention? Where do you see that I said > Exhibitors share profits for the entire life of a film. My first sentence > here says you ride the gravy train for weeks! Excuse me, I thought you were > smart enough to understand that we were talking about theatrical > distribution. And films have a life within theaters. Sixth Sense had a very > long life as opposed to Red Planet. And the Exhibitor's piece of the pie > increases with the theatrical life of the film. The Exhibitor gets a higher > percentage of total take in week 6 than he does in week one. I know you know > that, so I don't know why you misunderstood my statement. Exhibitors make > more money when a film has legs. By the way, the life of the film for me, > the studio, SHOULD be 1000 times longer than the life for you(Exhibitor). > After all, I was the one who put up the money and took the gamble... > > < studios? Because otherwise, you're getting nowhere.>> > > No, I am not a member. And thanks for the encouragement. I encourage people > to make films. I encourage them to make them as cost efficient as possible. > And if the Blair Witch people listened to your negativity, they might have > thought they were getting nowhere either. This film I am editing is good > enough to generate some dollars. Will it break even? I don't know. But > it's better than 80% of the independents I've seen and we've had encouraging > screenings. And you know what? Regardless of what happens, I've cut my > first feature film. > > That's getting somewhere > Blatzy > > PS- None of your mathematical calculations of a films break even point took > into consideration 1)the revenues paid to the theater and 2) gross > participation points of the Actors/Directors/Producers... Which means the > studio would have to generate even MORE money on the film to hit their break > even point. What then? Print up a few more bars of gold video? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 20:37:30 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: but, the larch On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Jeff Dwarf wrote: > but if you use butter or bacon grease or Pam or whatever, you ARE > coating the skillet; you are merely using a skillet that is not > pre-coasted with teflon or whatever. I was just referring to pre-coated teflon or whatever the hell they use as opposed to an iron, non pre-coated skillet. Just a matter of choice, plus I was suffering from, girlfriend leaves for family christmas for a month, depression/boredom. The holidays can suck, but goddamn it could be worse. gss, who never uses Pam because it causes alzheimers and testicular cancer or so I would like to believe because then I could claim the title and might get a nice award in a pretty frame, and both could be eliminated, plus it smells terrible. fuck this sucks, I wish I was in Mexico. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:10:17 -0800 From: "Randy R." Subject: Re: more boobs From: Brian Huddell > 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. Perhaps Glenn Danzig, who appeared in one of those mesh, see through shirts that reminded me of a show-off frat boy (though he does have a lot to show off). Of course, he discarded it half-way through the show allowing us "devil worshipers" to see his rippling muscles more clearly. 3 years ago, a chubby Alex Lifeson in black leather pants. What the hell was that? Rob Zombie, who wore ridiculously layered clothing, and sun goggles. Like a Mad Max extra. Actually, that was kind of cool. Bobby Stinson, of the Replacements, appearing drunken and slurring in a pink tutu. Ehhh, forget it. It's all cool. Sorry, not much to contribute today, bruised ribs and all. Vince (Nick Cave is the most stylish of them all) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:47:21 EST From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: I don't think so In a message dated 12/7/2000 6:27:15 PM US Mountain Standard Time, owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org writes: << However, I do think Dave's little gag of sending us a faked message from Eb stating that Jeme was "out of his depth," while technically flawless, was just too obvious for me. >> I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I would never falsify a statement from someone else. I usually don't mind being called names, but this is too much. I would never ever pretend to be someone else. It would never even cross my mind. You can call me anything, but you need to know what you're talking about before you publically accuse me of misdoing. If you think I really did that, how can I take you seriously? Am I supposed to believe you were actually paying attention? You obviously weren't, but now you have informed everyone on the list that I did something that I actually didn't do. That's great. You're a real hero. The list is safer. I must have falsified a statement from Eb cause you've been watching and paying attention enough to be able to know that Jeme didn't antagonize me one bit. No sir. It was all me. There can be no other explanation. Dave (tired of being called Blatzy. That name was condesendingly given to me long before I altered any other users name. But you seem to have forgotten that detail...) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:57:55 EST From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: Bueller...Bueller...Bueller In a message dated 12/7/2000 6:27:15 PM US Mountain Standard Time, owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org writes: << n this case, constantly hammering away at the barely-relevant point that it's theoretically possible for an individual film to ultimately lose money even though this has long-since been conceded, and ignoring the actual point of the argument, namely that the industry as a whole shouldn't have to be allowed to extend all their copyrights indefinitely to remain profitable >> I never once mentioned copyrights. If I never once even typed the word "copyright", how can that have been the point we were arguing? It was never central to my argument. My central point was that successful films are necessary to pay for the faliures. Because faliures cost the studio money. Faliures will never turn a profit. Along the way we talked about how theaters make money. That was also a central topic. Also discussed was whether or not theaters get a fair share of the money. I don't know what thread you were following, but I never discussed copyright with Jeme. He mentioned it in some of his posts, but I never responded to it. Why? BECAUSE I WASN'T DISCUSSING COPYRIGHT. Alas, you flatter me too much. Maybe I'm not as brilliant as you make me out to be. Can I ask what you were doing while you were reading my posts? Dave ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 23:07:44 -0500 (EST) From: Bayard Subject: Re: I don't think so Unless stated otherwise, it is always safe to assume JH3 is joking. (Fegmaniax rule #127) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 20:38:50 -0700 From: Eb Subject: Re: I don't think so >I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I would never falsify a >statement from someone else. I usually don't mind being called names, but >this is too much. I would never ever pretend to be someone else. It would >never even cross my mind. You can call me anything, but you need to know what >you're talking about before you publically accuse me of misdoing. > >If you think I really did that, how can I take you seriously? Am I supposed >to believe you were actually paying attention? You obviously weren't, but >now you have informed everyone on the list that I did something that I >actually didn't do. > >That's great. You're a real hero. The list is safer. I must have falsified >a statement from Eb cause you've been watching and paying attention enough to >be able to know that Jeme didn't antagonize me one bit. No sir. It was all >me. Oddly enough, Blatzy seems out of *his* depth when arguing with JH3. ;) Eb ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 23:11:21 -0800 From: Asshole Motherfucker Subject: Re: Bueller...Bueller...Bueller while i do not know what john was doing, *i* was masturbating. (for what it's worth.) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 09:14:23 +0000 From: "Stewart C. Russell" Subject: Re: bend over, everyone GSS wrote: > > Britain's intelligence services are seeking > powers to seize all records of telephone > calls, emails and internet connections So what? All international transmissions have been tracked by the US/UK/Oz base at Menwith Hill for years. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 06:18:52 -0500 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: end of year lists I think we have a recount. Blatzy's ability to miss the point is beginning to close on uncoated skillet. jmbc. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 05:56:35 -0800 From: "Randy R." Subject: Ged all over the world Look out Eb, Geddy is going to be in LA. http://www.laweekly.com/ink/01/03/cover-mack.shtml Vince, Your Favorite Headache ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 09:02:11 -0500 From: drop the holupki Subject: robyn on next minus 5 album Scott McCaughey Calls On R.E.M.'s Pete Buck Again For New Minus 5 (12/4/00, 12 p.m. ET) - R.E.M.'s Pete Buck, the Presidents Of The United States' Jason Finn, and other Seattle rock all-stars have teamed up with R.E.M. sideman and indie-rock cult hero Scott McCaughey for the latest album by the his group, the Minus 5. The new effort will be packaged along with the newest effort from McCaughey's other band, the Young Fresh Fellows, on the appropriately titled Young Fresh Fellows Vs. Minus 5 Double CD. It is due from Mammoth Records on February 27. Other Minus 5 members include the Posies' Ken Stringfellow and Jon Auer, and the Screaming Trees' Barrett Martin. Fellow cult legend Robyn Hitchcock also plays on three songs. This is the third album by the Minus 5, and the eighth full-length by pre-grunge Seattle favorites the Young Fresh Fellows. Look for both bands to tour next year, presumably during downtime for R.E.M. - -- Neal Weiss, Los Angeles ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:07:25 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: bend over, everyone On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Stewart C. Russell wrote: > So what? All international transmissions have been tracked by the > US/UK/Oz base at Menwith Hill for years. International transmission of what? All types from all sources and stored for seven years? Tracked is one thing, recorded and stored for seven years is something completely different. The article is in regard to all transmissions and receptions, into, out of and within UK, ie.. international and domestic, internet, phone, fax, everything. If that does not bother you, learn to make sheep noises and you will do well. All hail the state. gss np-mozambique, bd ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:17:28 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: digests 338-341 revisited (warning: menmonic!) I've been off ill _again_. But my time hasn't been completely wasted as I have come up with the following: John Fred Made A Mint Jelly Just As Susie's Old Nurse Described Pretty neat, eh? - - Mike Godwin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 09:25:11 -0500 From: drop the holupki Subject: spin article on soft boys reunion Robyn Hitchcock Talks Soft Boys The fine folks at Matador Records announced this week the label will be reissuing a remastered version of The Soft Boys' 1980 classic, Underwater Moonlight, on March 13, marking the second time the record has been re-released. All three Soft Boys LPs have been out of print since 1992, after an initial reissue on Rykodisc. But to coincide with the resurfacing of Underwater Moonlight, the original Soft Boys line-upQ Robyn Hitchcock, guitarist Kimberley Rew, bassist Matthew Seligman, and drummer Morris WindsorQhave announced plans to head out on a reunion tour, marking the first time the band in its entirety will perform together in 20 years. Our dear friend Robyn Hitchcock took a minute to speak with us this week about Underwater Moonlight, young boys, and the Soft Boys' reunion tour/planned live album. Hitchcock says he decided to re-release Underwater Moonlight a second time after realizing that the Ryko release of the record was out of print and out of stock. "Of all the Soft Boys records, it's the one that's in demand," says Hitchcock. "It's become a pretty well-respected record, so I was selling copies through my website for a while and then we thought we'd better get it out again." Hitchcock says he approached Matador Records, both in the states and the U.K., after a friend suggested the label. "I'd been aware of them, but I sort of thought, well if I was never on Matador and I'm not on Matador now, then I probably never will be," says Hitchcock. But obviously he was wrong. On March 13, Matador will release Underwater Moonlight, which will include bonus tracks (like the previously unreleased "He's A Reptile") and a bonus disc of never-before released rehearsal recordings from sessions that took place in 1979-80. Hitchcock says he has no plans to reissue the Soft Boys' other two discs, explaining that "This is specifically about Underwater Moonlight and celebrating that record." The Soft Boys will kick off its North American reunion tour March 16 during the South By Southwest music festival in Austin, TX. The original trio has worked together in various configurations over the yearsQRew toured with Robyn on his last American tour, and Morris played with the Egyptians. But this outing will mark the first instance of the band's full, original line-up in nearly 20 years. "It all coincided really neatly. All the crossroads came to the same junction," Robyn colorfully explains. "It's like digging up a body, and then rushing right into the operating phase to see if it's alive or not. It's definitely a feeling of exhuming something because you feel the weight of time. I think the music's great and that we've reconnected very well. The presence brings us back. Basically we're going to get up there and play all these old songs, and I think it's going be really good." Robyn says the Soft Boys have been rehearsing together since July, even playing a party once where people wereI dancing. "And people never used to dance at Soft Boys shows." Well, times change. And so do faces. But Robyn has a solution for that. "We're definitely alive, but we sound better than we look. That's why I like to tour with younger menQthen I sort of look better. We'll probably take a bus load of young men with us and they can stand behind us while we play." Sounds good to me. Hitchcock also revealed that the Soft Boys planned to record its Detroit gig for the making of a live album. "We're just going to get up there and record it, and if it sounds good, we'll put it out," he says. "There's just something about the Detroit atmosphere that's magic, even though the MC5 and Iggy are all gone from that area. Plus, the Soft Boys is probably now more of a rock 'n' roll band than it ever was." When asked about the possibility of the Soft Boys recording a studio LP of new material, Hitchcock said he wouldn't rule it out, but that the band is taking things slow. "It's like pulling a diver up from the deep, you don't want to get the bends. Can't really do it too fast. Let's see how this goes," he says. "Plus we're still trying to get the old material right." He did say, however, that the band would be playing some more recent material on the upcoming tour, "certainly things that we've never played before, but I would hesitate to describe what it is," and that some of this mystery music would certainly appear on the Detroit live album. In related news, Hitchcock has just wrapped up a North American tour with Grant Lee Phillips (check Spin.com this Friday for an exclusive acoustic/comedic performance by the duo). Hitchcock's latest solo disc, Jewels for Sophia, was released last year, and the b-sides collection, A Star for Bram, is available now via his website, www.robynhitchcock.com. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:15:36 -0500 From: drop the holupki Subject: amuznet article on soft boys reunion The Soft Boys Reunite For Month-Long Tour All through the past two decades the late, great Soft Boys has long been cited as one of the most influential bands around. From R.E.M. to Sonic Youth, The Soft Boys influenced legions of post punk and alternative bands long after the band had broken up. Formed in 1976, the English outfit--headed by Robyn Hitchcock and rounded out by guitarist Kimberley Rew, bassist Matthew Seligman, and drummer Morris Windsor-- has announced that it will break a twenty-year silence, put on the old jerseys and head out on a month-long tour. The tour will commence on March 17 at the South By Southwest Music Conference, and will conclude sometime in April. Meanwhile, Matador Records has announced that it will reissue the Soft b Boys' seminal classic Underwater Moonlight, an album that pundits consider to be the band's best work. The re-release has a lot of added features: it will not only be the only commercially available album of the Soft Boys, it will include eight bonus tracks, including the long sought-after "He's A Reptile," a rare track left off the original album, plus a separate disc containing rehearsal sessions from 1979 and 1980. Although Hitchcock, who has recorded over fifteen brilliant solo albums, has worked consistently with Rew on occasion, and Windsor and Seligman regularly as they rounded out his solo backing band The Egyptians, it will be the first time the four men have played under The Soft Boys' moniker since the band's demise in 1981. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:30:29 -0500 From: "Irish Airman" Subject: Re:Butter the Pan? Cast iron conducts heat beautifully. Teflon, and its more expensive versions can scratch or start to stick. Put bacon in uncoated pan on stovetop. Make light toast in toaster Take 3/4s cooked bacon out of pan. Break egg into pan and cook till lightly sunny-side. Take toast. Butter toast. Put cheese of choice on one piece as well. Put cheesed toast into pan, pile egg and bacon on top, then top slice of bread. Mush together with spatuala. Cook, turning as needed, till toast is brown and cheese is melted. Bon Appetite. K, who has no cholestoral and such low BP the Dr says she must be dead. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 12:18:13 -0500 From: "brian nupp" Subject: Re: spin article on soft boys reunion >Hitchcock also revealed that the Soft Boys planned to record its Detroit >gig for the making of a live album. "We're just going to get up there and >record it, and if it sounds good, we'll put it out," he says. "There's just >something about the Detroit atmosphere that's magic, even though the MC5 >and Iggy are all gone from that area. Plus, the Soft Boys is probably now >more of a rock 'n' roll band than it ever was." This just keeps getting better and better! And I hope just "hoping" they'd play in the Detroit area! Brian Nupp _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 18:25:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: bend over, everyone > On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Eleanore Adams wrote: > > Does England not have rights similar to the U.S. On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, J. Brown wrote: > They don't have any such rights. In fact, I don't believe Britons have > any sort of codified rights as we do in the US or in Canada just those > rights given to them by legistlation and "tradition". Is correct. England and Ireland operate on "common law", i.e. judge-made precedent. But this can be overridden (a) by laws made by the respective parliaments ("Statute Law") and (b) by directives of the European Commission ("Bastard bureacratic loonies law"). There are no entrenched clauses or constitutional rights per se which cannot be overturned by a simple parliamentary majority vote. BUT the English government has recently incorporated the European Declaration of Human Rights into UK law, which may change the position somewhat. And there was a report in last Sunday's paper saying that the common law may not be compatible with European Union membership, and we may have to change to something more like the Code Napoleon. I tell you, Friedrich von Hayek would go up the wall about that if he was still alive. As for Scotland, you'd better ask Stewart. My impression is that Scottish law is more French-influenced than English, but I couldn't cite chapter and verse. - - Mike Godwin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:39:53 -0600 From: Gene Hopstetter Subject: Ida Geddy Lee Lee From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: keegan all over the world >the Grant Lee Hitchcock tour film? I misread this as "the Geddy Lee Hitchcock tour film." Ewww. I just imagined Robyn doing a solo acoustic "Rivendell" and Rush traipsing through "Hear My Brane." Excuse me, I'm gonna go outside and yell at the traffic for a little while. - ------------------------------ From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: Lorna Doone, Queen Bufu Dune Messiah of Dune, Buggy of Dune Buggy Dune Dune Dune, please pass me the head of The Great "Who The Hell is Allen B. Ruch?" Quail >How many times can they say, "Is he the one that is the one who >could be the one who is he, the one who is he, the one?" For some reason I think it's time to read Gertrude Stein's _Ida_ again... I guess the real problem with all of the Dune films is that there really wasn't any there there. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #361 *******************************