From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #25 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Monday, January 29 2001 Volume 10 : Number 025 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: roxy music II [Ben ] velvet goldmine ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] could Eno have played "She Sells"? [Eb ] Re: Mr. Sparkle? [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: roxy music II [Jeff Dwarf ] Re: velvet goldmine, plus an excellent find [steve ] Hi Tom (not Clark), or to hell with Mean Joe Greene! [steve ] Re: roxy music II ["brian nupp" ] Re: Natural Capitalism ? [steve ] Re: Mr. Sparkle? ["brian nupp" ] bohemian caverns ["Melissa ." ] Re: Natural Capitalism ? [Viv Lyon ] goodbye maurice or steve [tlr3@email.unc.edu (tom)] Re: goodbye maurice or steve [Viv Lyon ] Re: goodbye maurice or steve [hbrandt ] Re: Country Stations Shun Best-Selling Movie Soundtrack [Capuchin ] Re: Mr. Sparkle? [Glen Uber ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:17:41 -0500 From: Ben Subject: Re: roxy music II > So last year was the year of the Who, Wire, the Bangles and Spinal Tap, and > I guess this is the year of Roxy Music and the Soft Boys. ;) I'll take the > Who and Wire myself, but.... Well, every 3 or 4 years is the year of The Who's final tour so that doesn't count for much. ;) BTW I got a tape of the Soft Boys rehersing for the upcoming tour, and it consisted of a 32-minute jammed out version of "Queen Elvis", it seems Robyn *does* read this list!!! ;) > I wonder if Roxy Mark II will be able to "rock," in any sort of convincing way. Since it is the "Avalon"-era trio, one can assume there won't be too much headbanging going on... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 18:46:07 -0800 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: velvet goldmine >From: Eb > >I wonder if Roxy Mark II will be able to "rock," in any sort of >convincing way. Good question. I guess I shouldn't get too excited, because as far as I'm concerned it was all downhill for them after the first record and I guess Eno will not be involved. It's weird that Robyn is so keen on _Avalon_...I like it okay, but it's so ordinary compared to the way they started out. > >In lieu, I suppose, from the first time around, what a fantastic time to >>be alive! That sentence made no sense, did it? Maybe "of the first time around"? >You know, I gotta admit that I liked "Velvet Goldmine" *far* more than I >expected, after finally seeing it in recent times. I bought it on video and have yet to watch it again. I can't stand Christian Bale but that pouty little bastard Jonathan Rhys Meyer...mmmm. Drew - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen.com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:49:19 -0700 From: Eb Subject: could Eno have played "She Sells"? Drew: >I'm concerned it was all downhill for them after the first record As I said once before about a certain Peter Sellers fan, "Wow, talk about a purist." > and I guess Eno will not be involved. Actually, I'm kinda puzzled at how all the press releases point out that Eno won't be involved, as if Eno's absence is a crucial missing piece. Eno may be a household name (thanks to U2), and he may have added nifty noises and things to the first two Roxy albums, but overall, I think Eddie Jobson gave more to Roxy Music's lasting legacy. And yet, his name doesn't come up at all. Nor does Paul Thompson's, for that matter.... Eb, whose fave RM album is Country Life, as a matter of fact... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:58:11 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: Mr. Sparkle? Tom Clark wrote: > That Palo Alto show was at The Edge, not The Stone. Alex Chilton > opened. Worst RH show I've ever seen. it was the first one i saw, so i'm not sure how i'd rank it. chiton was awful though. and he did do "grooving on an inner plane".... ===== "With [Amnesiac] we are definitely having singles, videos, glossy magazine celebrity photo shoots, children's television appearances, film premiere appearances, dance routines, and many interesting interviews about my tortured existence." -- Thom Yorke Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:08:45 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Dwarf Subject: Re: roxy music II someone sed: >>I wonder if Roxy Mark II will be able to "rock," in any sort of >>convincing way. shouldn't that be more like Roxy mark V? I: with Eno (RM, For Your Pleasure) II: with Eddie Jobson (Stranded, Country Life, Siren) III: with Paul Carrack (Manifesto) IV: studio musicians AND no Paul Thompson!!! (Flesh & Blood; Avalon) V: w/ none of the above (reunion tour MMI) and that's not even counting all the myriad bass players. ===== "With [Amnesiac] we are definitely having singles, videos, glossy magazine celebrity photo shoots, children's television appearances, film premiere appearances, dance routines, and many interesting interviews about my tortured existence." -- Thom Yorke Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:14:01 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: velvet goldmine, plus an excellent find >>From: Eb >>I wonder if Roxy Mark II will be able to "rock," in any sort of >>convincing way. Andrew D. Simchik: >Good question. I guess I shouldn't get too excited, because as far as >I'm concerned it was all downhill for them after the first record and >I guess Eno will not be involved. It's weird that Robyn is so keen on >_Avalon_...I like it okay, but it's so ordinary compared to the way they >started out. I suspect that they can rock just about as hard as they ever did, if they want to. But they'll need something like the Stranded/Country Life rhythm section. As great as Eno's pop albums are (and they are indeed great), he's always been more a musical theorist and studio rat than a performer, and there are probably a hundred things he's more interested in. - ---------- Thanks to an Ectophile's best of 2000 list I've picked up the Neil Finn "Sessions at west 54th" DVD. It must have been recorded around the time of his last U.S. tour. Anyway, the group is in fine form and the production is ace. A must have for any fan. But David Byrne must have never heard of Split Enz or Crowded House, 'cause his introduction is pretty much clueless. - - Steve __________ We're all Jesus, Buddha, and the Wizard of Oz! - Andy Partridge ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:46:45 -0600 From: steve Subject: Hi Tom (not Clark), or to hell with Mean Joe Greene! OK, 1984 should have been #1, and this should have been #2: http://www.adcritic.com/content/holiday-inn-class-reunion.html - - Steve __________ I'd sit down and meditate but my ass is on fire. - Bill Nelson ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:15:30 -0600 From: steve Subject: Country Stations Shun Best-Selling Movie Soundtrack http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/style/television/A32217-2001Jan22.html - - Steve __________ We're all Jesus, Buddha, and the Wizard of Oz! - Andy Partridge ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:27:20 +1030 From: great offwhite dude Subject: Natural Capitalism ? "There are big profits for business in working with the full deck - by factoring in the costs of nature, says DrAmory Lovins on Background Briefing this week. Around the world industry and governments are listening as he explains his theory of 'Natural Capitalism'. He lives in the Rocky Mountains where he has a garden, with a banana plantation, in a climate which reaches minus 40 degrees in winter - and still has an electricity bill of under $100 a year." This rather interesting lecture by Amory Lovins was broadcast on the ABC here this weekend. Ecologically minded fegs might want to read it and visit the links. If half of what this cove says is true we could solve much of our waste and greenhouse problems NOW, not in the next 50 years or so. Is this guy on the level? lecture here in transcript or real audio http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s231834.htm anyone comment ? Rocky Mountain Institute is an entrepreneurial, non-profit organization that fosters the efficient and restorative use of resources to create a more secure, prosperous, and life sustaining world. http://www.rmi.org/ I must admit I'd rather NOT have capitalism,., but since it appears to be here to stay we ought to make the most efficient use of it and anything we can do to clean it up a lot is worth while in my book. . Commander Lang. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:55:22 -0500 From: "brian nupp" Subject: Re: roxy music II >From: Ben < >BTW I got a tape of the Soft Boys rehersing for the upcoming tour, and it >consisted >of a 32-minute jammed out version of "Queen Elvis", it seems Robyn *does* >read this >list!!! ;) Ha! This really made me laugh after reading Eb's post (sorry Eb). Is this true, or just for Eb's case? If it's true I'm glad there are tapes... Brian Nupp _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:59:29 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: Natural Capitalism ? great offwhite dude: >Is this guy on the level? Lovins has been around for years, and he's not a nut. Getting people to adopt his strategies is the problem. - - Steve __________ If they know our secrets, why can't we know theirs? - Dana Scully ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:42:31 -0500 From: "brian nupp" Subject: Re: Mr. Sparkle? >From: Jeff Dwarf it was the first one i saw, so i'm not sure how i'd rank >it. chiton was >awful though. and he did do "grooving on an inner plane".... > Chilton or Hitchcock did "grooving on an inner plane?" Brian Nupp _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:05:18 -0000 From: "Melissa ." Subject: bohemian caverns Bohemian Caverns has two parts I think a bar part, up the stairs, and the restaurant looking part downstairs. The upstairs is fancy and has a dress code (at least no denim). It's small and has very dim "mood lighting". No idea how drinks or food are as we stopped by to meet people and my friend was wearing denim overalls. ethiopian sounds good Melissa _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:34:49 -0800 (PST) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: Natural Capitalism ? On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, great offwhite dude wrote: > This rather interesting lecture by Amory Lovins was broadcast on the ABC > here this weekend. Ecologically minded fegs might want to read it and > visit the links. If half of what this cove says is true we could solve > much of our waste and greenhouse problems NOW, not in the next 50 years > or so. Is this guy on the level? > lecture here in transcript or real audio Well, to judge by the book Natural Capitalism (which I admit I have not finished), he's real and on the level. Several businesses have been instituting policies that grew out of Natural Capitalism, which are called the Natural Step (www.naturalstep.org)... which I unfortunately think sounds like an ecologically-sound kitty litter. At any rate, this philosophy has been around for awhile, the problem is getting the captains of industry to listen up. Michael Wolfe (who will undoubtedly have his own two cents to throw down on this topic) invited Jeme and I to hear Paul Hawken (who co-wrote Natural Capitalism with Amory Lovins) speak at PSU last spring, I think. It was good, but a bit glibly optimistic. However, William McDonough, who spoke later on in the year, was phenomenal. Go to: http://www.mcdonough.com/ This man not only beholds but implements the way of the future, and it is sane, beautiful, and responsible. Jeme and I have both shown the video of his speech to several other people, and all were impressed and astounded. He is, as they say, the bomb. Vivien ps- I cannot get Man of Constant Sorrow out of my head. I am in pain. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:42:40 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: tlr3@email.unc.edu (tom) Subject: goodbye maurice or steve hey folks, i followed a link from the museum to laurence arnold's radio show. he seems to play robyn rather often, and played "goodbye maurice or steve" off the upcoming underwater moonlight "and how it got there" disc. you can listen to the show at: http://www.spydaradio.co.uk/radio/spydaradio/laurence010123.html. (need realplayer, i think.) he starts introing the soft boys at 1:25:00 or so. sound quality is a little iffy, but it was good to hear. he seems to play robyn rather a lot. the other stuff he plays looks good, too. if this post is redundant, please forgive. . . tom ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:11:35 -0800 (PST) From: Viv Lyon Subject: Re: goodbye maurice or steve On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, tom wrote: > i followed a link from the museum to laurence arnold's radio show. he > seems to play robyn rather often, and played "goodbye maurice or > steve" off the upcoming underwater moonlight "and how it got there" > disc. you can listen to the show at: > http://www.spydaradio.co.uk/radio/spydaradio/laurence010123.html. > (need realplayer, i think.) he starts introing the soft boys at > 1:25:00 or so. sound quality is a little iffy, but it was good to > hear. Laurence is the legendary ur-Robyn fan, "Laurence and Sally" fame. He's also on pretty friendly terms with RH, although he doesn't comform to the rule that generally seems to hold true with friends of rock stars, which is that they get swelled heads and turn into conceited creeps. To the contrary, Laurence is very very nice, once you get past his cool British exterior. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:31:17 -0700 From: hbrandt Subject: Re: goodbye maurice or steve tom wrote: > "goodbye maurice or steve" off the upcoming > underwater moonlight "and how it got there" disc. you can listen to the show at: > http://www.spydaradio.co.uk/radio/spydaradio/laurence010123.html. (need realplayer, > i think.) he starts introing the soft boys at 1:25:00 or so. sound quality is a > little iffy, but it was good to hear. Thanks for the link, Tom! Nice to get a first taste. I wonder if the "iffy" sound will be that iffy on the disc itself. As for the song...I hope the rest of disc two is better. As for the DJ, he needs to quit saying "...bu' anyway..." so much. /hal, who can't stand DJ "crutch phrases" aka "the verbal pause" ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:36:18 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Country Stations Shun Best-Selling Movie Soundtrack On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, steve wrote: > http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/style/television/A32217-2001Jan22.html This article doesn't even touch on the REAL reason they won't play it. It's great and it's not new. Radio has strong ties to the recording industry and the recording industry has to keep us buying new records all the time in order to keep going. The recording industry is agianst used record sales (but the first sale clause of copyright forbids them from taking action). Some day, the copyright on early music will expire (hopefully) and then the money falls out of the music biz. When you look at country music on the radio, you're really talking about an aesthetic almost identical to pop or classic rock with the occassional slide guitar and a slightly more nasal vocal. There's nothing country about it. And when you put up real country music... when you compare Man of Constant Sorrow or In the Jailhouse Now to Tim McGraw, Shania Twain or Garth Brooks, you find that the latter have no substance, quality or depth. And when you compare The Soggy Bottom Boys doing In the Jailhouse Now to, say, Johnny Cash or Roger Miller, you find a similar disparity in sincerity and talent. But, dammit, if it wasn't recorded in the past fourteen months, we don't need to bother with it. For goodness' sake, there are all kinds of reasons why radio shuns quality. But the most important is the path of the money. Who owns your radio station? And who owns that? And who owns that? And who else do they own? And who do they, in turn, own? And you end up with something like Columbia or Polygram or whatever. Ugh. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:40:45 -0800 (PST) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Natural Capitalism ? On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, great offwhite dude wrote: > Is this guy on the level? Yes and no. He's totally on the level and he's right. But you know what? He doesn't go far enough. We could solve all those problems and more with a comprehensive philosophical change in the way we do business that has only positive impact on bottom lines. Why don't we do it? Inertia. On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Viv Lyon wrote: > Several businesses have been instituting policies that grew out of > Natural Capitalism, which are called the Natural Step > (www.naturalstep.org)... which I unfortunately think sounds like an > ecologically-sound kitty litter. That's not quite true. (Well, it's true that it sounds like kitty litter, but that's not what I meant.) The Natural Step existed before Natural Capitalism. I recommend reading what's on the Natural Step's website and doing some basic research. They're a fascinating organization with an interesting history. They actually built a situation in which they petroleum companies in Sweden petitioned the government to increase fuel efficiency standards. > At any rate, this philosophy has been around for awhile, the problem > is getting the captains of industry to listen up. One fascinating read is the bit where the Natural Step was invited to speak to the engineers and scientists at Monsanto and they couldn't get them to agree to the third law of thermodynamics. > Michael Wolfe (who will undoubtedly have his own two cents to throw > down on this topic) invited Jeme and I to hear Paul Hawken (who > co-wrote Natural Capitalism with Amory Lovins) speak at PSU last > spring, I think. It was good, but a bit glibly optimistic. Not just glibly optimistic, but downright simplistic. I also caught this undertone that only the bottom line matters and if we can profit and be ecologically sound, we're doing just fine. It doesn't quite go far enough... which I'll explain in just a moment. > However, William McDonough, who spoke later on in the year, was > phenomenal. Go to: http://www.mcdonough.com/ William McDonough is one of the most amazing men alive today. I say that without reservation. He's brilliant, capable, and accomplished. For one, he has designed and is building a building for Oberlin College that produces more electricity than it uses and has a garden atrium that is PLEASANT to behold and smells nice that is also a sewage treatment plant for 5,000 families. By the way, he'd spoken earlier, not later, than Hawken. > This man not only beholds but implements the way of the future, and it > is sane, beautiful, and responsible. Jeme and I have both shown the > video of his speech to several other people, and all were impressed > and astounded. He is, as they say, the bomb. I showed this video to KEN "Can I watch that infravision porno again, instead?" THE KENSTER when I was in Boston last year and I think he was equally impressed (if still a bit hung over). I share it with anyone at any opportunity. I plan on watching it with my friend Ian in the next two weeks. Anyway, I said I thought McDonough was more complete and the others didn't go far enough. And you might think "what gives? How much do you WANT? We're talking about saving the environment here while remaining profitable... isn't that enough?" Well, clearly it isn't to me. William McDonough put forward something that I think everyone should remember. Businesses exist to make money... and if they can do that, it doesn't matter how. This is why businesses break the law sometimes and why they rape and pillage. It's all in the name of profits. Now, I think the reason this happens is mostly accidental. I think the people that are responsible for making the business decisions really believe that they're doing the only thing they can in order to make profits. They think their course of action is limited and they have no choice but to do evil. McDonough tells us that this is not the case. It's just HARDER to do things the right way. But if you can work harder and still make money, then no loss, right? You're still making the company do what a company is supposed to do, but you're also making the world a better place. You can force yourself to answer any question you like; "Am I cutting everyone in the process a fair deal?" "Are people being treated with respect?" "Does this respect future generations?" etc. As long as you always answer this one always in the affirmative: Can I make it and sell it at a profit? If profit is the only thing that MUST matter, then anything else is just gravy... so go for the gravy. It's harder, but there are great rewards. McDonough has a beautiful anecdote about a fabric he designed for Steelcase. They wanted him to make something that looked pretty. He told them he wanted something that was also ecologically sound. They basically told him that if he comes up with something profitable and meeting the basic criteria for functionality and legal to sell where they wanted to do business, they didn't care of it was made of rat feces (I'm paraphrasing, clearly). So he designed a fabric from the ground up. He questioned every existing manufacturing process that was harmful (from the farming to the polishing and trimming). And he re-engineered the mill itself to produce the fabric... all keeping within the profitability model. The fabric is totally safe. There are no biproducts to its production except the actual trimmings from the cloth... and those can be used as felt for flower beds, even after dying. And the people working in the factory don't have to wear masks. And the factory no longer consumes ANY water (because their wastewater was, in fact, cleaner than the water that came in, so they just turned back the pipe and used their own water). McDonough gives us a model to follow. It is a model of constant innovation to stay ahead of the curve. It is a model that rejects the entire CONCEPT of waste. Everything that you make has a purpose and nothing gets thrown out. In following the idea of eliminating the concept of waste, McDonough has done some high-level definition to simplify understanding the problem. First, everything has to be part of a cycle. If you're using something of a biological nature, it makes sense to put it into part of a biological cycle. Consider the fabric. It's made of wool and other natural fibers, so when you cut a bit off, you make sure that it gets put back into a biological cycle (i.e. a flowerbed). When the chair is old and worn and the frame has collapsed and repairing it is no longer useful, then you strip off the fabric and feed it back into the factory or till it down to mulch again. McDonough recognizes, of course, that we cannot rely on biological cycles entirely. As he said, "If we all started wearing cotton clothes and birkenstocks, we'd run out of water and cork IMMEDIATELY." Therefore we need to rely on our ability to synthesize new materials from other natural resources. Since this is a technological process, we need to make sure that everything produced by this process feeds another technological process in a technological cycle. It's not good enough to turn computer cases into packing beads if the packing beads just get thrown into a landfill. Your computer cases must turn into something that maybe turns into something that eventually again can become a computer case. Otherwise, it's not a cycle, it's a one-way trip. And the worst thing we could possibly do is create things that will never again be able to enter a cycle... objects of permanence and total waste. This fabric that is made, today, from "recycled" soda bottles and cotton blended is one of these monsterous hybrids. You use the soda bottle as a soda bottle and then you technologically reorganize it to become a kind of fiber and then those fibers are mixed with cotton fibers (which came from dirt which came from plants which came from dirt which came from plants...) to produce a cloth. This cloth cannot turn into anything else ever again. It cannot enter a technological cycle because the cotton is not technological in nature and it cannot enter a biological cycle because PET from the soda bottles is not biological. You've made a nice warm cap... until it becomes damaged beyond repair or unfashionable beyond usefulness or merely replaced by obsolescense... then you have a piece of garbage. Forever. Another concept from McDonough's teaching is "products of service". The idea is that you don't want to own a television. No, not because the shows are crap, but because it's full of toxic metals and contains an explosive glass tube and is extremely difficult to dispose of properly when you don't want it anymore. You don't need that headache. You just want to watch it. So the idea would be that you go to the store and you buy a television. And when you're done, you take the television back and it is dismantled and remanufactured and sold again... good as new. This concept extends to sneakers (Nike's going to be remanufacturing ALL of their shoes within the next few years, which obviously includes only using materials which support remanufacturing and are infinitely recyclable) and even carpet. It turns out that a huge amount of landfill trash is carpet. And it doesn't do much over time... especially the synthetic wall-to-wall stuff that gets ripped out of old construction or when it wears or becomes tiresome and it really can't be used anymore. McDonough has worked with the two largest carpet manufacturers in the United States and both of them will take back any carpet you buy and rebuilt it into new carpet... no waste. And then there's the idea that what you spend is more important than what you sell. Profit margins in nearly all industries (manufacturing or contruction, that is) are less than 50%. That means that you spend more money than you profit (you're still profiting, but say, you earn a total revenue of US$200, but you spend $150 in order to do that and so your profit is US$50 or a margin of 25%). So it can be neat to think of a company that earns US$2 billion is going to produce products that conform to this policy, it's even better when a company that SPENDS US$16 billion is ONLY GOING TO BUY products that meet those standards. This is the case with Ford Motor Company. They've adopted the Natural step and are working (slowly, of course, slowly) to bring themselves into the modern age. Why aren't they putting this in their ads? Because it's not a sales point, it's real. They're not doing it to impress the eco-conscious, they're doing it to be ahead of the curve and not have to shut down when the world gets so bad that regulations need to be made to prevent the last four companies from eating up our two unmined mountains. It's not green-washing, it's a fundamental change. Lastly, I think, is the motivation for working so much harder. Profit is the motive in business, as we're always told. But businesses don't exist. A corporation is a legal fiction and it is only a collection of people going to work and trying to get their job done. If everyone changed their personal motivation from "How can I make the most money and get home early?" to "How can I make the most money and feel great about myself?", we'd have a much better world. It's funny. Michael Wolfe and I were talking one day about McDonough and we realized that the idea of eliminating the concept of waste applies to more than just manufacturing and consuming. In my job, I write software for a telecommunications company. This is not a software company and my work is not direcly profitable. The product of my work is infinitely reproducible so, you might say, NOT spreading it around is kind of waseful. So we've built a system wherein I can write software to suit the company and do my job and also release that software to the world and contribute to developing other software that we use from the community. This is a kind of waste elimination. So the challenge is to think about the part of your work that isn't perfect and to build a new system that has all the same inputs and outputs as the old system, but it is more perfect.. makes people happier, doesn't insult or degrade, and makes the world cleaner and happier. I'm going to sleep. > ps- I cannot get Man of Constant Sorrow out of my head. I am in pain. You know it. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:47:03 -0800 (PST) From: Glen Uber Subject: Re: Mr. Sparkle? On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, brian nupp wrote: >>From: Jeff Dwarf it was the first one i saw, so i'm not sure how i'd rank >>it. chiton was >>awful though. and he did do "grooving on an inner plane".... >> > >Chilton or Hitchcock did "grooving on an inner plane?" Hitchcock did. It was an audience participation bit with all of us yelling out "Wangbo!" when cued. IIRC that was the second RH show I attended. The first one was at Slim's in San Francisco (w/ Matthew Sweet opening) right after Raymond died (Feb. 1991?). I have to agree that Chilton was terrible at the Edge show. He seemed to be severely "chemically enhanced" that night and played guitar like he had only picked it up for the first time a few days before. He was a bit better a couple nights later at the GAMH, though not much. He didn't do much to endear himself to me at either show and it was several years before I was able to really listen to any of his stuff without prejudice. Cheers! - -g- Linux for stability Macintosh for productivity Palm for portability Windows for Solitaire )+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+( ) Glen Uber ) uberg (at) sonic dot net ) Santa Rosa, California )+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+()+( ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #25 *******************************