From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #155 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, April 25 2001 Volume 10 : Number 155 Today's Subjects: ----------------- come see the violence inherent in the system [Ken Ostrander ] Re: come see the violence inherent in the system [Stephen Mahoney ] Re: I was an anar-CHIST! I was the anti-CHRIST! [Christopher Gross Subject: come see the violence inherent in the system corporate or consumer violence? http://www.birdman.org/products/DoTheDew.htm >Actually I'd argue that violence is only >justifiable if it is necessary and not gratuitous (ie, it will actually do >some good). I don't think these criteria were met in Quebec (or Seattle >in '99). you can justify or excuse whatever you want. whether you can get someone to buy into your logic/denial is another thing. my personal approach is to try and reason and discuss things with people. this has proven ineffective with corporations. just ask michael moore. their mantra is: if ignoring them doesn't work, then litigate litigate litigate! i'd love to see folks boycotting products and hitting these bastards where it hurts them the most, in their wallets; but it seems like violence is the only thing that people notice these days. everything else drives folks in our self obsessed untraviolet teletubby short attention span consumer culture to boredom. the smashing of windows is indeed a violent act; but it's all relative. for what it's worth, i only saw one bank front window and a store window broken in quebec city on sunday morning as we were taking one last drive through the city to assess the damage. the fence perimeter was in pristine condition. >Were you pissed off by the fence around the conference zone? Guess >what -- the violent demonstrators provided all the justification for that >fence that the police could ever want. the fence is a symbolic representation of the refusal of the pluocratic overlords to hear the voice of the people. hegemonic corporate control of our political processes isn't enough to get pissed off at? >The rock-chuckers might think that >their violence was only a response to unfair police tactics -- that >*might* even be true -- but most viewers are going to think "So they >couldn't march as close to the meetings as they wanted. So what? Does >that justify a riot?" If you want to be politically effective, you >should take things like that into account. sure; but the way it's portrayed to the people is a huge part of that. on the way back from canada we bought a couple of newspapers to see what was being written about this stuff and found two very different accounts. the corporate new york times owned boston globe spun everything around the violent protesters with little mention of the issues, the preponderence of peaceful marchers, or the number of people that actually came to the city. the much maligned as conservative boston herald had dynamic coverage with many interview from a myriad of sources speaking to the many complexities of the event. chomsky says that big papers that are geared for the "intelligencia" have to provide the most spin to control public opinion; while the less respected "lowbrow" publications aren't as tightly controlled regarding content. >Quick quiz (open to everyone, not just Ken) -- name me a society past the >hunter-gatherer level that has no concept of property at all. my first guess would be the only real socialist society, the paris commune of 1871. of course, the indiginous folks of america had it going on until we got here. we talking a concept of community property, which evokes a respect for the community and one's place in it. utopian fantasy or just boring? >> it's easy for us to sit at our computers and judge >> the actions of others in the street. > >Maybe I'm misreading you. Are you saying the violent protesters were >right, or just that you refuse to judge them? i'm saying get off the internet and get in the street! you're never going to get any real perspective otherwise. the vast majority of the world's population isn't online. i've always been a non-violent person. i don't know what would make me snap and lash out; but i don't think a fence built (against the will of the community in which it is built) for the sole purpose of keeping out dissent is a wonderful place to start. http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0425-02.htm >One >corporate engineer who helps develop a slightly more cost-effective solar >cell could do more for the environment than Earth First ever will. sounds wonderful; but nope, sorry, not economically viable. at least that's the rational behind the fact that energy alternatives that don't get any mainstream support. i do think that there are already technologies that exist that have been suppressed by...guess who...big corporate money. patents are bought up and put on the shelf. then there's this idea that those crazy solar power hippies can't drive around at night or something. in europe many cities are setup for people that commute on bicycles. gasp! the dark ages. earth first has been very effective in the short term against the urban sprawl and corporate disregard for the environment. you can use the law against the corporate whoremongers; but the law is only effective after the damage is already done. >................how does everyone feel about gentrification? it sucks ass. is everyone else's rent skyrocketing? homelessness is rising and government sponsored affordable housing has all but disappeared. coincidence? how can these people be so blind? diversity is what sustains life. globalization is hemogenization. gross domestic product doesn't provide for freedom, happiness, community, and love. these are the things that make life worth living...not fucking products! ken "silence feasts oppression" the kenster np electric mile g. love & special sauce (who signed the new cd after their groovy gig last night) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 14:49:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Mahoney Subject: Re: I was an anar-CHIST! I was the anti-CHRIST! love that pistols reference! anyway, I think capuchin, that fearless neighbor of mine, clearly defined what the difference is between terrorism and sabatoge( anyway I go along with it) the manin factor is how the politicians media and corporations other political organizations will spin it 'cause ya cant believe everything ya read on them newspapers or those talking heads on that tee vee box can ya? by the way- anyone seeing byrne when he comes to roseland? On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Capuchin wrote: > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Christopher Gross wrote: > > It's more like this (I'm speaking for myself here, not Pat): a person > > who joins the "black bloc" and smashes the window of a Gap, thinking > > that this is a good political tactic, probably has a predisposition to > > violence. Persons with such a predisposition are not going to get it > > out of their systems and spend the rest of their lives peacefully; > > they're more likely to commit violence again, whether or not they have > > a political excuse for it. NOTE: I don't claim *all* anarchists (or > > other violent radical demonstrators) are predisposed to violence, > > though I do suspect a good many of them are. And I don't think > > everyone who has had violent tendencies will always be that way; some > > of them probably do grow out of it. > > Again, Viv's sidelong analogy to "gateway drugs" holds. This is exactly > the reasoning used. And it doesn't hold water here, either. > > J. > -- > _______________________________________________ > > Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin > the average person eats about three pounds of food a day, 1095 pounds per year. by the time you blow out the candles on your 70th birthday cake, you will have eaten 33 tons of food, or a pile about the size of six elephants. Your total waste exiting from a certain orifice will amount to the size of a car! - -"the encyclopedia of everything nasty" Stephen Mahoney Multnomah County Library at Rockwood branch clerk stephenm@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us 503-988-5396 fax 503-988-5178 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:18:31 -0400 From: lj lindhurst Subject: Re: so................ >> > ................how does everyone feel about gentrification? I'm gentrifying now! It's great! - -- * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * LJ Lindhurst White Rabbit Graphic Design http://www.w-rabbit.com NYC ljl@w-rabbit.com * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Well I'd love to stay and chat, but crack don't smoke itself." --Smokey, from "the PJ's" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 15:23:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Stephen Mahoney Subject: Re: come see the violence inherent in the system yeah I also dont support smashing windows boycotting or litigating sounds much much better (dont want to take a nightstick on the head!) The story of erin brockovich and the whistle blower on big tobacco ( is it jeffrey wygand?) are two examples of what one man( or woman) can do to undermine the abuse and neglect that a big powerful system can inflict on thousands, millions of people. we need more of them folk. On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Ken Ostrander wrote: > corporate or consumer violence? > > http://www.birdman.org/products/DoTheDew.htm > > >Actually I'd argue that violence is only > >justifiable if it is necessary and not gratuitous (ie, it will actually do > >some good). I don't think these criteria were met in Quebec (or Seattle > >in '99). > > you can justify or excuse whatever you want. whether you can get someone to > buy into your logic/denial is another thing. my personal approach is to try > and reason and discuss things with people. this has proven ineffective with > corporations. just ask michael moore. their mantra is: if ignoring them > doesn't work, then litigate litigate litigate! > > i'd love to see folks boycotting products and hitting these bastards where it > hurts them the most, in their wallets; but it seems like violence is the only > thing that people notice these days. everything else drives folks in our self > obsessed untraviolet teletubby short attention span consumer culture to > boredom. the smashing of windows is indeed a violent act; but it's all > relative. for what it's worth, i only saw one bank front window and a store > window broken in quebec city on sunday morning as we were taking one last drive > through the city to assess the damage. the fence perimeter was in pristine > condition. > > > >Were you pissed off by the fence around the conference zone? Guess > >what -- the violent demonstrators provided all the justification for that > >fence that the police could ever want. > > the fence is a symbolic representation of the refusal of the pluocratic > overlords to hear the voice of the people. hegemonic corporate control of our > political processes isn't enough to get pissed off at? > > >The rock-chuckers might think that > >their violence was only a response to unfair police tactics -- that > >*might* even be true -- but most viewers are going to think "So they > >couldn't march as close to the meetings as they wanted. So what? Does > >that justify a riot?" If you want to be politically effective, you > >should take things like that into account. > > sure; but the way it's portrayed to the people is a huge part of that. on the > way back from canada we bought a couple of newspapers to see what was being > written about this stuff and found two very different accounts. the corporate > new york times owned boston globe spun everything around the violent protesters > with little mention of the issues, the preponderence of peaceful marchers, or > the number of people that actually came to the city. the much maligned as > conservative boston herald had dynamic coverage with many interview from a > myriad of sources speaking to the many complexities of the event. chomsky says > that big papers that are geared for the "intelligencia" have to provide the > most spin to control public opinion; while the less respected "lowbrow" > publications aren't as tightly controlled regarding content. > > > >Quick quiz (open to everyone, not just Ken) -- name me a society past the > >hunter-gatherer level that has no concept of property at all. > > my first guess would be the only real socialist society, the paris commune of > 1871. of course, the indiginous folks of america had it going on until we got > here. we talking a concept of community property, which evokes a respect for > the community and one's place in it. utopian fantasy or just boring? > > >> it's easy for us to sit at our computers and judge > >> the actions of others in the street. > > > >Maybe I'm misreading you. Are you saying the violent protesters were > >right, or just that you refuse to judge them? > > i'm saying get off the internet and get in the street! you're never going to > get any real perspective otherwise. the vast majority of the world's > population isn't online. i've always been a non-violent person. i don't know > what would make me snap and lash out; but i don't think a fence built (against > the will of the community in which it is built) for the sole purpose of keeping > out dissent is a wonderful place to start. > > http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0425-02.htm > > >One > >corporate engineer who helps develop a slightly more cost-effective solar > >cell could do more for the environment than Earth First ever will. > > sounds wonderful; but nope, sorry, not economically viable. at least that's > the rational behind the fact that energy alternatives that don't get any > mainstream support. i do think that there are already technologies that exist > that have been suppressed by...guess who...big corporate money. patents are > bought up and put on the shelf. then there's this idea that those crazy solar > power hippies can't drive around at night or something. in europe many cities > are setup for people that commute on bicycles. gasp! the dark ages. > > earth first has been very effective in the short term against the urban sprawl > and corporate disregard for the environment. you can use the law against the > corporate whoremongers; but the law is only effective after the damage is > already done. > > >................how does everyone feel about gentrification? > > it sucks ass. is everyone else's rent skyrocketing? homelessness is rising > and government sponsored affordable housing has all but disappeared. > coincidence? > > how can these people be so blind? diversity is what sustains life. > globalization is hemogenization. gross domestic product doesn't provide for > freedom, happiness, community, and love. these are the things that make life > worth living...not fucking products! > > > ken "silence feasts oppression" the kenster > > np electric mile g. love & special sauce > (who signed the new cd after their groovy gig last night) > the average person eats about three pounds of food a day, 1095 pounds per year. by the time you blow out the candles on your 70th birthday cake, you will have eaten 33 tons of food, or a pile about the size of six elephants. Your total waste exiting from a certain orifice will amount to the size of a car! - -"the encyclopedia of everything nasty" Stephen Mahoney Multnomah County Library at Rockwood branch clerk stephenm@nethost.multnomah.lib.or.us 503-988-5396 fax 503-988-5178 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:30:43 -0700 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Violence? That's it, for the first time in a while I am posting with the Gloves Off. If Jeme and Vivian still want to know me after this, more power to them. Because Capuchin's patronizing and insulting tone has me genuinely angered, and my Irish is up and running, and I will say exactly what I mean, even though I may regret it later. I wish I could be more diplomatic and cool, like Eddie, Chris Gross, and so on, but I cannot, and I feel Jeme's words demand a harsher response. So if I am aiming some direct insults at his thinking, so be it. I hope we can both cool off and still come out friends. >Burning a bunch of SUVs is not terrorism if they are burnt to keep them >from getting out on the road. It sure feels like terrorism if I am the owner of an SUV, and I have to live in fear of some asshole who will torch my car overnight. That's not just sabotage, Jeme, that's intimidation; the same tactic some Christian fundamentalists use against abortion clinics. Terrorism does not just involve physically harming people, it also involves making them afraid. And you know what? I am afraid of someone who wants to trash my property. >Come ride Critial Mass in Portland, Oregon (called the most bicycle >friendly large city in America) and tell me we don't live in a police >state. The very fact that I feel I have to defend the fucking COPS, just to point out that because they don't want you clogging the roads with your bikes so you can all have your moment in the sun, smugly shaking each other's hands and saying, "Oh, wow, are we radicals, we're sticking it to the MAN with our expensive bikes...." This is hardly a Police State. I am not saying that we can ease our vigilance of the state and its arms of power, but I am not going to compare us to a police state because you get in trouble for riding your fucking bike. Just keep making sure you get to exercise and expand your rights, fine. Cops can be evil, and the State doesn't like protest -- no shit. But these ludicrous comparisons actually demean people who are suffering under totalitarian regimes. And you can blame the US all you want for all the evils of the word, and blame the US for every regime oppressing every person in the whole world; but you are still demeaning the people struggling under a real police state with your WHINING about bikes in Portland. Your very GOAL is to clog up the streets and to annoy people. When you get your your head cracked open and you are thrown in a pit and no one tells your family where you are, then start whining to me. This is what I mean by the bourgeois, convenient radicalism espoused around here. >You're capable of understanding this, man, and I know it. No, actually, I am not. And stop patronizing everyone who disagrees with you, my disagreement is not a function of my intelligence. >We get cheap luxuries because the rest of the world lives in fear of our >armies and our corporations control their local resources. Some of this may be true, surely, but it's not all life, you know? There's a larger picture, and a lot of that has to do with the ugly, smelly fact that some humans are bent, corrupt and greedy, and they come in all flavors or race, religion, and nationality. I am so SICK of hearing this constant tirade that US corporations are responsible for all the evil in the world -- and then when someone like me says it just ain't so, we are lectured like a schoolboy, forcing us to remind you over and over again that we can still believe that the US *has* done wicked things, and that corporations can be irresponsible and some things need to change; but we are not willing to roll over and lay the whole tamale of blame at the feet of Mammon. No where else in my life have I ever felt more like a right-wing conservative than on the List. Maybe I should crack the Ayn Rand again. >The rest of the world tries all the time to fix this. >They attempt to >nationalize their resources (because they know that private ownership is >just going to lead to selling out to American companies who can make >outrageous offers in the short term) Again, your arguments hold some truth, but your constant alarmism, hyperbole, and hypocrisy tend to undermine your points, and you tend to forget instances of nationalization that caused havoc and chaos and pain. Or may I assume that Mao's great cultural revolutions were in response to Coca-Cola? Not to mention the fact that nation-states can sell out quite nicely, too. But that's all *our* fault, isn't it? >or they refuse our treaties. And >then we bomb the shit out of them or twist the arms of other nations to >cut off all external supplies and starve them out. Again, I know the US has done a lot of wrong -- hell, when I was in college I used to be real in with the Latin American crowd, and I have been to my share of peaceful protests. But that does not mean that the Iraqi government has no responsibility for anything, and so on and so on. Evil is not a monopoly of the US or of the corporations. >Yet you supported Al Gore who vehemently supports the killing in Colombia, >Iraq, and Bosnia? Actually, I feel we should lift the sanctions on Iraq. I also feel we should stay the fuck out of Colombia. Bosnia -- I have conflicted feelings there. And I am also tired of your linguistic games. Support of troops in Bosnia is not "vehemently supporting the killing." You tend to boil complexities down to one single inflammatory statement and then call that an argument. But the point is, I supported Al Gore, who is more likely to listen to these arguments against killing than, say President George W. Bush. Of course, you voted for Nader, who had ZERO chance of winning. But I bet you feel real good about yourself. >Oh, wait, I forgot. You don't care about global violence, just local >violence... especially if it gets in the way of your supply of convenience >items. That's a cheap shot and you know it. And I don't see you living in a shanty-town, working at a minimum-wage job, and disowning all your electronics and CDs and books and shit. That's part of what burns me - -- the hypocrisy. I can be guilty of it too, I know; but at least I admit it. I am actually an active member of Amensty International, and I was the ONLY Gulf-War protester on the faculty of my High School, which did not make me very popular in Harrisburg. And so on, there's more, but I don't want to allow you to press me into the position where I need to display some kind of list of leftist credentials, I think it's vulgar. The point being, I do care about global violence, I just care about immediate human rights in the US more, nor do I agree with you that these are "selfish" desires. In fact, I wonder if maybe you are the more selfish one -- it's all-so easy to rail against what you can't change and then walk away feeling superior. If you are so concerned with all these problems, why are you constantly writing umpteen-page posts on a music List? Why are you working in an industry that is not related to these concerns? I don't mean to suggest you cannot have legitimate concerns, but the tone and tenor of your constant, strident denunciations seems to me to hide a burned-out cynic who is too afraid to depart his own "bloated, destructive" life, and barely conceals his unhappiness and acid misanthropy by railing against bogeymen. >You support Taco Bell and their rampant violence against farmers and the >very fabric of life in their use of genetically modified corn? Yes, as a matter of fact I am all for genetic research, and I think it's a misguided notion that it's doing "violence against the very fabric of life." As far as rampant violence against farmers, I am not sure what you mean, and if you can send me some information off-list, I would be interested. >You >support the MPAA and RIAA in their violent intimdation of all creative >people. I guess I do, because I am not about to go out and burn all my CDs and DVDs. So I suppose I am an evil, wicked person, and I can live with that. I may not like all elements of the "system," but I am not about to (1) be a hypocrite, or (2) check into a monastery and pretend I am not one of the historically privileged. I am, to be honest, too much an Epicurian for that. >You say that violence begets violence and then point your finger at >PROTESTORS. No, I also pointed my finger at the other side, I point my finger at violence itself. But it's the protesters that were in question on the list. >Did it ever occur to you that the violence of a protest is >merely the begotten violence of our parasitic culture? Uh, yeah, I went to college too. But you see, I also have this belief in something called personal accountability. As Chris said, there are more effective ways of protest than violence, which in most cases is like a hit of smack -- feels great at the time, but fuck what it does to everyone around you. >The protestors >aren't the initiatiors of violence. They are not taking arms against a >passive-aggressive system, but a system that uses violence and only >understands violence as a means of keeping power. Yes, well, good, we've learned that violence is at the foundations of power. Great. So I suppose that makes it right. And recall, I am actually *for* violence at times, I think it's the only way to topple some systems. But I do not think this system is so corrupt that it needs to be burned down. And you know what? Most people don't think so either. Of course, you see them as the great unwashed benighted masses. And this is why I draw a loose comparison to Lenin. Hey, fuck the lumpenproletariat and the shawlies, right? >Again with the bullshit. This has nothing to do with religion or the >spiritual world and you're just playing games with affections (or showing >your preconceived notions). No, it's not bullshit. I would rather see someone turn to Christainity -- I mean, become an honest to God Christian, or Buddhist, or something, some philosophy that removes one from the material world -- any day, than see them promote violence against a system that the masses wish to maintain. Because your precious violence and sabotage and intimidation has an effect on other, unwilling people. And that is something that I will never condone. >> but if you start claiming you have the "courage" to admit that the >> time is ripe for a violent revolution, you just start sounding like >> another dangerous fanatic to me. > >Dangerous to your bloated, destructive way of life? Yes. I'd love to be. My bloated, destructive way of life doesn't seem to bother any Fegs whenever they come up to visit. And there you go again, with an implied threat. Can't you see that's what is angering me, that's what made me take off the gloves, and that's what I cannot stand. I am done, as I said with Vivien, you can have the last word on this. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001 18:52:05 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: I was an anar-CHIST! I was the anti-CHRIST! Two relatively brief replies to Cap and Ken.... This will probably be my last post on the whole matter. I spent way too much time on this thread yesterday, and I feel bad about the way the list got jammed up with politics. On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Capuchin wrote: > > It's more like this (I'm speaking for myself here, not Pat): a person > > who joins the "black bloc" and smashes the window of a Gap, thinking > > that this is a good political tactic, probably has a predisposition to > > violence. Persons with such a predisposition are not going to get it > > out of their systems and spend the rest of their lives peacefully; > > they're more likely to commit violence again, whether or not they have > > a political excuse for it. NOTE: I don't claim *all* anarchists (or > > other violent radical demonstrators) are predisposed to violence, > > though I do suspect a good many of them are. And I don't think > > everyone who has had violent tendencies will always be that way; some > > of them probably do grow out of it. > > Again, Viv's sidelong analogy to "gateway drugs" holds. This is exactly > the reasoning used. And it doesn't hold water here, either. I don't think so. The way I understand it, the idea of a "gateway drug" is that it's a drug that leads you to take other drugs and become a junkie. If it wasn't for the "gateway drug," supposedly, you'd never have tried any other drugs either. It's the drug's fault. The equivalent of this in violent protest would be if smashing The Gap's window led you to commit other violent acts, which you never would have done if it wasn't for that first "gateway" act of violence. My argument was almost exactly the REVERSE of this. I think these people, or many of them, have a tendency toward violence as a part of their personalities. This makes them more likely to choose violent ways to protest now, and it will similarly make them more likely to act violent throughout their lives. One bit of violence doesn't cause any of the others, and there is no "gateway" act. Do you see the difference? You can still say I'm full of shit, just don't go misrepresentin' my arguments.... On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Ken Ostrander wrote: > i'd love to see folks boycotting products and hitting these bastards where it > hurts them the most, in their wallets; but it seems like violence is the only > thing that people notice these days. everything else drives folks in our self > obsessed untraviolet teletubby short attention span consumer culture to > boredom. Well, even IF that's true, you still run up against the same dilemma: if the only way you can get attention is do something that will alienate people, is it really worthwhile? IMHO, if you can only reach one million people, you still have much more influence than you would if you reached ten million people but biased 90% of them against yourself. That's just looking at it from a practical point of view, ethics aside. > the fence is a symbolic representation of the refusal of the pluocratic > overlords to hear the voice of the people. hegemonic corporate control of our > political processes isn't enough to get pissed off at? This is another thing that bugs me. Demonstrators are people making their own opinions heard, but they are NOT the "voice of the people." Unions and advocacy groups might represent their respective members, but that's about it. Hell, George Bush might be a minority president, but at least he can say fifty million Americans voted for him. Who elected the average demonstrator? ... I'm all in favor of you advocating your views (many of which I share), but don't go claiming you're "the voice of the people." You aren't. No one is. > >Quick quiz (open to everyone, not just Ken) -- name me a society past the > >hunter-gatherer level that has no concept of property at all. > > my first guess would be the only real socialist society, the paris commune of > 1871. of course, the indiginous folks of america had it going on until we got > here. we talking a concept of community property, which evokes a respect for > the community and one's place in it. utopian fantasy or just boring? Sorry, I think you're wrong. The Communards (not the band) seized some stuff but didn't abolish property; a *faction* of them *wanted* to, that's all. And community property (whether practiced by Native Americans or your utopians) is still a form of property, as the name implies. Different societies have had wildly differing notions of property -- Is it individual, familial or tribal? Can land be property? Can people be property? etc. -- but I can't think of any that just don't have property per se. Hunter-gatherers might be an exception, though I suspect the average hunter-gatherer would still feel some moral principle had been violated if you came along and took away his or her hunting spear or root-digging stick. Okay, now I'm done. Back to work! Maybe. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #155 ********************************