From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #238 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, June 13 2001 Volume 10 : Number 238 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: Oh no, not politics again! [Viv Lyon ] Re: Oh no, not politics again! ["s.mary" ] Re: Oh no, not politics again! [Michael R Godwin ] Re: Oh no, not politics again! ["John B. Jones" ] Re: Oh, politics again! [GSS ] Re: Oh no, not politics again! [Christopher Gross ] Re: Oh no, not politics again! [JH3 ] Re: Oh no, not politics again! [Ken Ostrander ] hackin' and coffin ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: Oh no, not politics again! [Capuchin ] 25 or 6 to 4 ["ross taylor" ] cheep [The Great Quail ] Re: Oh no, not politics again! [Capuchin ] Re: A Question ["noe@shalev" ] Re: A Question ["noe@shalev" ] [none] ["Natalie Jane" ] Re: 25 or 6 to 4 and the Political Duck ["Mike wells" ] Re: Oh no, not politics again! [JH3 ] Re: hackin' and coffin [JH3 ] Re: hackin' and coffin [Aaron Mandel ] Re: When Gene Wilder was funny ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: hackin' and coffin ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: Oh no, not politics again! [Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Oh no, not politics again! On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Tigger Lily wrote: > www.politicalcompass.org > According to it Im only slightly left but very libertarian. > Which seems about right. I'm very left, very libertarian. Must be that damned boyfriend of mine making me believe personal liberty is so special. I used to be quite the totalitarian! Vivien ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 12:37:37 -0400 From: "s.mary" Subject: Re: Oh no, not politics again! At 09:25 AM 6/13/2001 -0700, Viv Lyon wrote: >On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Tigger Lily wrote: > > > www.politicalcompass.org > > According to it Im only slightly left but very libertarian. > > Which seems about right. > >I'm very left, very libertarian. Must be that damned boyfriend of mine >making me believe personal liberty is so special. I used to be quite the >totalitarian! > >Vivien Guess I'm "middle of the road" - my dot falls right in the middle of the Left/Libertarian quadrant. s.m ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 18:10:21 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Oh no, not politics again! Well, I was surprised that I came out one square to the right(!) of the left-right axis, and 3 squares down towards the libertarian pole. But some of the questions seemed a bit muddled; I mean: "In a civilised society, one must always have people above to obey and people below to command". Surely that's the wrong way round? Doesn't it mean "people above _to command_ and people below _to obey_"? - - Mike "Worried Liberal Democrat" Godwin On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Tigger Lily wrote: > Remember the Religion Selector. > Now theres a political site to tell you who you -really- are. > Hey--its a fun way to waste time. > Its at: > www.politicalcompass.org > According to it Im only slightly left but very libertarian. > Which seems about right. > > Religion Selectors idea of a Liberal Quaker, > Kay ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:18:31 -0700 From: "John B. Jones" Subject: Re: Oh no, not politics again! > > > www.politicalcompass.org > >Guess I'm "middle of the road" - my dot falls right in the middle of the > >Left/Libertarian quadrant. > >s.m Mine too! I'm just a tad left of being smack dab in the middle of that dreaded Left / Libertarian quadrant. =jbj= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 12:43:36 -0500 (CDT) From: GSS Subject: Re: Oh, politics again! Here are two funny ones that might seem unrelated but should actually have the same answers. Same head, different hat. - -Astrology can explain many more things than most people presently realise. - -Wars and social chaos may well be ended by a catastrophic flood or earthquake. I'm one left and five down or -1.22x-5.24 on the semi-pseudomorphic polititcal compass. gSs ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:49:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Oh no, not politics again! Huh. I've seen similar grids before, but usually promoted by the US Libertarian Party or those with similar views. They like to label the two axes "economic liberty" and "political/social liberty" and proclaim themselves the only party that's consistently pro-freedom. This one is unique in that it's not obviously designed to promote one party or viewpoint. Are they really disinterested, or just subtle? My favorite item was probably "Wars and social chaos may well be ended by a catastrophic flood or earthquake." I guess they meant it in an Biblical apocalyptic sense, in which case I'd strongly disagree; but taken literally, sure, I guess a catastrophic flood or earthquake *could* cause a society to pull together.... On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, s.mary wrote: > Guess I'm "middle of the road" - my dot falls right in the middle of the > > Left/Libertarian quadrant. I think that makes you middle of the road by Feg list standards, but not by general American standards! I got labelled faintly left and substantially libertarian (-0.20 and - -6.34, respectively). Personally I think I should be at least two squares farther left, but this might reflect the difference between US and UK ideas of left and right. Anyway, is a two-axis grid really much of an improvement over the old left-right scale? We really need some sort of 3-D fractal blob that represents a vast array of scales: secular v. religious, direct v. representative government, pacifist v. warmonger, individualist v. communitarian, cat person v. dog person, etc. - --Chris the 3-D fractal blob ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:57:48 -0700 From: "Scott McCleary" Subject: Carroll James/Radio for dorks Wow -- I used Carroll for voice work for years and never knew about his Beatles connection. By the time I knew him, he was a nice little old man voice if you ever needed one. Once used him for the voice of a talking house in a traveling tradeshow exhibit. He died two or three years ago. As for "radio for dorks," it's hard to find Washington radio that isn't, sadly. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 12:47:50 -0500 From: JH3 Subject: Re: Oh no, not politics again! > Mine too! I'm just a tad left of being smack dab in the > middle of that dreaded Left / Libertarian quadrant. Yeah, you and that wacky Mahondas Ghandi feller! Fascinating though this is, I'd hasten to point out that the whole thing is highly subjective and based on one person's idea of what constitutes a "typical" position for someone falling into whatever easily-labelled groupings the site's owners believe to be appropriate. Also, the lack of a "Don't Care a Whit" option on any of the six pages worth of questions makes the whole thing highly suspect, IMO. And what was all that stuff about one's attitude towards *children* there for? As if that's indicative of one's political beliefs! John "backward-leaning neo-vulgarian" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:01:17 -0400 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: Re: Oh no, not politics again! >Now theres a political site to tell you who you -really- are. >Hey--its a fun way to waste time. >Its at: >www.politicalcompass.org not really suprised. it places me pretty much in the middle of the communist-anarchist (lower left) box, slightly more left than low, near ghandi. ken "would you prefer 'motherfucker', motherfucker?" the kenster np revelling ani http://tikilounge.org ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:18:07 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: hackin' and coffin >From: Tom Clark >So what's the solution? The fact is that Normal Joe Computer User doesn't >know his ass from his elbow about anything below the filesystem. The >industry has done so much to get a PC in every house, and then to get each >one of those online, where they're completely vulnerable. It sounds like we >just gave a driver's license to 100 Million 7 year olds. It's kind of a snobbish metaphor. More like giving the magic hat to the sorceror's apprentice. It's not that Mickey is dumb, it's just that he's been given something that requires expert knowledge to use safely. The problem with computers is not dumm uzers. The problem with computers is that they are built and sold so carelessly that they are not safe for people whose expertise does not lie in the complex world of network security. Another take on the car analogy: the computer industry is selling military aircraft to people who just need to get across town on a daily basis. If you give people a plane when they just need (and can handle) a sedan, of course they're going to look like idiots when they crash and burn. >From: Carole Reichstein > >"Here is Sugar Ray!" David Letterman announced. This is a great sentence. A great post, really. >How can this Sugar Ray guy snag a >multi-million dollar recording deal (I really have no idea how much this >dork makes, I'm just guessing) why Robyn plugs along in relative >obscurity? Don't get me wrong, I loathe Sugar Ray (you forgot to bring up the lyrics...each line seems to be from a different and even dumber song), but even I would rather fuck Mark McGrath than Robyn, as long as I wouldn't have to talk to him afterward. (I realize that just about every female on this list feels the opposite way, but to paraphrase myself, I'm cursed/blessed with the ability to respect those I wouldn't fuck and fuck those I wouldn't respect. I feel 3% sexual attraction to Robyn and 95% respect. I feel maybe 52% sexual attraction to McGrath and 1% respect. That's the way it is.) Also, as we all know, being marketable and being talented are two totally independent animals. Both of these factors are, I'm sure, obvious. But I bring them up just in case. - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:37:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Oh no, not politics again! Economic Left/Right: -4.49 Authoritarian/Libertarian: -6.60 On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Christopher Gross wrote: > Huh. I've seen similar grids before, but usually promoted by the US > Libertarian Party or those with similar views. They like to label the > two axes "economic liberty" and "political/social liberty" and > proclaim themselves the only party that's consistently pro-freedom. Yeah, they used to hand out little cards with questions on the front and the scoring system/grid on the back. Everyone came out libertarian, somewhat, if I recall... it was total propaganda. > This one is unique in that it's not obviously designed to promote one > party or viewpoint. Are they really disinterested, or just subtle? I thought about this for a bit and I think they are making an attempt to be disinterested, but kind of missing the mark. JH3 is certainly correct in their failing to have a disinterested option, but it would really require a third axis to run from "civic" to "egoist". In fact, I think that's a brilliant third axis, if I do say so myself. > My favorite item was probably "Wars and social chaos may well be ended > by a catastrophic flood or earthquake." I guess they meant it in an > Biblical apocalyptic sense, in which case I'd strongly disagree; but > taken literally, sure, I guess a catastrophic flood or earthquake > *could* cause a society to pull together.... Heh, I had the EXACT same thought. And then I thought, "But certainly those would be temporary changes to the human condition. A single catastrophic flood or earthquake wouldn't end wars and social chaos as a whole, just for the moment." > I think that makes you middle of the road by Feg list standards, but > not by general American standards! No, I'd say we're fairly authoritarian and "economically liberal" (which means that money can do whatever it wants and people are fucked). > I got labelled faintly left and substantially libertarian (-0.20 and > -6.34, respectively). Personally I think I should be at least two > squares farther left, but this might reflect the difference between US > and UK ideas of left and right. Oh, that's an excuse, Chris. We had this conversation three months ago. You THINK you're more "left" than you really are. Hell, you supported Gore. > Anyway, is a two-axis grid really much of an improvement over the old > left-right scale? It's quite an improvement, but, you're right (quite "right", hee hee), it's not enough to give a good impression of a person. > We really need some sort of 3-D fractal blob that represents a vast > array of scales: secular v. religious, direct v. representative > government, pacifist v. warmonger, individualist v. communitarian, cat > person v. dog person, etc. Well, it wouldn't necessarily be fractal... and it certainly would be (by your definitions above) more than 3-D. One thing that this sort of chart implies, also to its detriment, is that a person's views are comprehensive, considered, and consistent. The quiz asks a few representative questions and makes assumptions based on those answers. But I happen to know from experience that most people don't apply their beliefs in one realm to their beliefs in others and are wildly inconsistent when nailed down on a point. Folks are full of unresolved contradiction. Not me, though. I may change over time, but I always apply my beliefs broadly (or can at least rationalize apparent contradictions). J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:39:07 -0400 From: "ross taylor" Subject: 25 or 6 to 4 Kay-- *You* should know that the ultimate time song is-- it might be one o'clock or it might be three time don't mean that much to me ain't felt this good since I don't know when I might not feel this good again so let's get in the groove and let the good times roll we're gonna stay here til we sooth our souls if it takes all night - --Sam Cook Woody Allen-- Yeah, Manhattan may have been the end, but was Zelig after that? Liked it, tho it seemed to have pretty little of Woody himself. Also loved "What's Up Tiger Lilly" cause I like MST3K type humor and cause it had some great shots of the Lovin' Spoonful acting all goofy. Robyn content-- I've now gotten so hooked on "Mr. Kennedy" it's gone into my category of songs I don't want to listen to too much for fear I'll wear it out. Scary, since it hasn't even come out yet. Old stuff-- Anyone here heard advance copies of the Buffalo Springfield Box set? Info at Amazon & Hyperrust makes it seem like most of the "new" stuff is acoustic. This is assuming it's really going to come out this time (Rust never sleeps and it makes him cranky sometimes). Books-- Browsing the re-glamorized Feg Reading List, I was reminded of Karen Elizabeth Gordon. Fun, using passages from her books in my compostition courses, but they always divided the class into those who loved her & those who hated her, & then I had to be extra careful to be fair to the ones who hated her. Too bad they don't write computer manuals like that. Ross Taylor Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:44:08 -0700 From: The Great Quail Subject: cheep Wow, I have about fifty million Fegmails. Anyway, other than loudly, soundly, and roundly proclaiming that I am NOT Jeff Lynne (eeeek!), I just wanted to add my "me too!" to a partial thread from a week or two ago-- I saw "Moulin Rouge," and I loved it! It was one of the most freaky things I have seen in a while. Wow. If "Romeo and Juliet" was Luhrman's "The Doors," this is his "Natural Born Killers." It's just crazy! In a good way. I wish more people would make movies like this - -- with hyper dwarves, crazed dancing, and Ozzy Ozbourne starring as an Absinthe fairy. Um, having said that, I think most people I know will hate the movie. I am a glutton for excess.... - --Quail - -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Great Quail, Keeper of the Libyrinth: http://www.TheModernWord.com If I have said anything to the contrary I was mistaken. If I say anything to the contrary again I shall be mistaken again. Unless I am mistaken now. Into the dossier with it in any case, in support of whatever thesis you fancy. --Samuel Beckett, "The Unnamable" ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:52:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Oh no, not politics again! On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, JH3 wrote: > And what was all that stuff about one's attitude towards *children* > there for? As if that's indicative of one's political beliefs! Woah! I completely disagree. Attitudes toward children are strongly indicative of authoritarian/libertarian leanings. There are those that view children as somehow second-class citizens in a society and their view toward "the least of us" is their view toward the whole of us. I'm still stunned that there are folks who don't believe the Bill of Rights apply to children... just because they can't vote or drink and drive. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 21:57:00 +0200 From: "noe@shalev" Subject: Re: A Question > > Ute Lemper? > > Nina Hagen? > > Lene Lovich? > > Klaus Nomi? > > The line sounds pure Mae West. Didn't she release an album very late in > life? The line is defintly a mae west qoute. no doubt about it. yet not the song. it wasn't Nico or I'd remembert (let alone having the song recorded) Nor could it be M Dietrich, and hell, no Ertha kitt. out of all answers the most likely one to hit it was Stephen with: Dagmar Krause. I havn't find the song yet, but other songs by her seem to ring tahat bell. thanx all :-) NOE ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 22:00:47 +0200 From: "noe@shalev" Subject: Re: A Question > out of all answers the most likely one to hit it was Stephen with: Dagmar > Krause. > I havn't find the song yet, but other songs by her seem to ring tahat bell. > > thanx all :-) > NOE > And the credit goes to Da9ve as well :-) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 12:09:47 -0700 From: "Natalie Jane" Subject: [none] >Remember the Religion Selector. >Now theres a political site to tell you who you -really- are. >Hey--its a fun way to waste time. >Its at: >www.politicalcompass.org Hey, this is neat. It places your political position on a graph. Apparently I'm extremely left-wing and extremely "libertarian." I think they distinguish this usage of "libertarian" from the Libertarian political party - they equate it with anarchism, so I'm really a left-wing anarchist, which I knew already, but it's interesting to have it confirmed. I wonder where Eddie would appear on their graph? n. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:17:56 -0500 From: "Mike wells" Subject: Re: 25 or 6 to 4 and the Political Duck From: "ross taylor" > Kay-- > *You* should know that the ultimate time song > is-- ... > we're gonna stay here til we sooth our souls > if it takes all night > > --Sam Cook Was thinking last night how I emabarassed I should be for having missed the best, really most obvious one: "Tangled Up In Blue" by Uncle Bob Though "Jack Straw" by the Dead comes close as well. Cheers, Michael whose "lower right quadrant" rating makes him look like Himmler on this list ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 13:01:12 -0700 From: "Kenneth Johnson" Subject: POLLY TIX >>Remember the Religion Selector. >>Now theres a political site to tell you who you -really- are. >>Hey--its a fun way to waste time. >>Its at: >>www.politicalcompass.org Polly Ticks is Fun! Me: headed for that lower left corner at -5.92 Left -7.23 Libertarian with the rest of the anarcho-commies. ; 0 I'd always preferred Gandhi to Stalin anyway. I, too, found a few questions nebulous and I agree that some would have been better served by an "I don't care one flying flop at a rolling moose turd" option. The site gives a snapshot for UK government. What would the graph of the current American political landscape look like? Where would bonny King George sit? My guess would be heading far upper right... An interesting and entertaining (if not predictable) find. thanks Kenneth np University, Throwing Muses _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:00:14 -0500 From: JH3 Subject: Re: Oh no, not politics again! Capuchino writes: > I may change over time, but I always apply my beliefs > broadly (or can at least rationalize apparent contradictions). Hey, I've got you beat there, man! Not only can I contradict apparent rationalizations, I don't even believe my own applications! >> And what was all that stuff about one's attitude towards *children* >> there for? As if that's indicative of one's political beliefs! >Woah! I completely disagree. >Attitudes toward children are strongly indicative of >authoritarian/libertarian leanings. There are those that view >children as somehow second-class citizens in a society and their >view toward "the least of us" is their view toward the whole of us. I guess what I meant was that your attitude towards children seems less likely to be influenced by feelings about personal rights, equality, etc., than by (a) whether or not you have any yourself, (b) whether or not you personally find them pleasant to be around in general, and (c) whether or not you believe that the population boom of the latter half of the 20th century is the single most devastating trend/factor in proving that the human race is ultimately doomed, though most of you are probably tired of hearing me go on about that at this point. But I can see how I might be wrong and you might be right in some cases, maybe even in most cases for all I know. I may have been guilty of a bit of projecting there -- certainly my own attitude toward the li'l tykes is rather, uh, non-mainstream... Also, I think if you're going to put a third axis in there, you could do worse than "realist vs. utopian." Little Lord JH3-eroy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 15:04:18 -0500 From: JH3 Subject: Re: hackin' and coffin Drewrites: > The problem with computers is not dumm uzers. The problem with > computers is that they are built and sold so carelessly that they > are not safe for people whose expertise does not lie in the complex > world of network security. I think the gist of what that Gibson guy was trying to say was that the computers he's concerned with (corporate servers) aren't safe FROM the non-experts, because those people are incapable of determining when their machines are being used for "malicious" purposes by remote control... > Another take on the car analogy: the computer industry is selling > military aircraft to people who just need to get across town on > a daily basis. If you give people a plane when they just need (and > can handle) a sedan, of course they're going to look like idiots > when they crash and burn. I'm not sure I'm with you there either, dude. The so-called "industry" (a term that also encompasses anyone capable of conceiving and building something that could be considered a "technological advance") is also creating the demand for more bandwidth by promising that once you have that bandwidth, you can get rid of your phone, TV, stereo, and, of course, your vibrator. And you can -- but obviously they're not telling you that everything will be pay-per-view once that happens... *Including the vibrator.* The guy from grc.com is both right and wrong at the same time, like most folks who have opinions about this sort of thing, including myself. On the one hand he's absolutely right in not wanting the Microsoft folks to make it easy for Windows machines to spoof IP addresses when pinging. (He's also right about BlackICE Defender being worthless, IMO.) On the other, he's somehow surprised that *he* got targeted for a denial-of-service attack, even though he's a well-known "security expert" who apparently posts things about hackers on usenet with his real e-mail address! (Or at least his real domain name.) He wants you to think that this can happen to *anybody*, when it's obvious that these people aren't targeting just anybody. And somehow he's even MORE surprised that the attacks came from a 13-year-old. Does he really think an ADULT is going to come up with the idea for "zombie chat-room attack bots"? And on top of that, he's concerned about the kid losing his "under-aged offender" status in five years. HELLO? The kid's *thirteen*! In five MONTHS he'll have discovered the opposite sex, and that'll be the end of the whole thing, for him at least. Think I'm wrong? Well hey, YOU try getting a girl interested in a bit 'o' fun with a line like "let's go up to the computer room and I'll show you my army of attack Trojans," and report back with your findings. John "never works when I try it" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 16:34:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: hackin' and coffin On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > Don't get me wrong, I loathe Sugar Ray (you forgot to bring up the > lyrics...each line seems to be from a different and even dumber song), > but even I would rather fuck Mark McGrath than Robyn, as long as I > wouldn't have to talk to him afterward. McGrath has become sort of a fixture on VH1, and he seems to be smarter than his music. Not brilliant, not secretly underground, but sort of a pop geek (if memory serves, he ran the 'new wave' category as a contestant on Rock'N'Roll Jeopardy) and competent to be a VJ (can read without stumbling, etc.) aaron ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 16:45:40 -0400 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Re: When Gene Wilder was funny >Has anyone seen The Producers on stage yet? Its hard for me to imagine >anything better than the movie...but people seem to be very pleased by this >production indeed. > >Kay I'm going in a couple of weeks, I'll post a review. The movie is one of my all time favorites. Max _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:06:12 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Re: hackin' and coffin At 04:34 PM 6/13/2001 -0400, Aaron Mandel wrote: >On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > > > Don't get me wrong, I loathe Sugar Ray (you forgot to bring up the > > lyrics...each line seems to be from a different and even dumber song), > > but even I would rather fuck Mark McGrath than Robyn, as long as I > > wouldn't have to talk to him afterward. > >McGrath has become sort of a fixture on VH1, and he seems to be smarter >than his music. Not brilliant, not secretly underground, but sort of a pop >geek (if memory serves, he ran the 'new wave' category as a contestant on >Rock'N'Roll Jeopardy) and competent to be a VJ (can read without >stumbling, etc.) It's nice to hear that he may not be as moronic as he appears. Of course, this doesn't excuse the non-sequitur lyrics of "Fly." I'm quoting from memory: "All around the world, statues crumble for me Who knows how long I've loved you? Everyone I know has been so good to me 25 years old, my mother, God rest her soul I Just wanna fly Putcha arms around me, baby Putcha arms around me, baby" And so on. I do not know what the fuck this means. It actually looks less stupid written out than it sounds when sung, which is an achievement of sorts, I guess. Perhaps he studied the Dadaists at Cambridge? - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:20:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Oh no, not politics again! On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Capuchin wrote: > Oh, that's an excuse, Chris. We had this conversation three months > ago. You THINK you're more "left" than you really are. ? ... Though I remember plenty of political debates, I don't recall talking about where my beliefs fall on the right-left spectrum. (And I'm not touching the Gore comment.) Anyway, I was suprised even within the context of this questionnaire. I can recall a lot of questions I answered with the moderate options to right and left, and a couple I answered with the strong option to the left, but *none* that I answered with the strong option to the right. So I expected my score to come out farther to the left. Either I had lots more moderate-right answers than I recall, or I missed the significance of some questions. (Maybe the questionnaire assumes that anyone who strongly disagrees with astrology is also to the right on economic questions?) I suspect I lost some lefty points on the item saying "Class background is more important than nationality in shaping a person's consciousness." This question measures your fealty to archaic Marxist dogma but has nothing to do with actual economic policy, so I'm going to discount it and award myself one lefty square to make up for it. > > We really need some sort of 3-D fractal blob that represents a vast > > array of scales: secular v. religious, direct v. representative > > government, pacifist v. warmonger, individualist v. communitarian, cat > > person v. dog person, etc. > > Well, it wouldn't necessarily be fractal... and it certainly would be (by > your definitions above) more than 3-D. Oh, but a 3-D chart would be perfect! The way I picture it, you start with three questions -- say authoritarian vs. libertarian, civic vs. egotist, and religious vs. secular -- on the traditional 3-D XYZ axes. Then you add more questions -- economic left vs. right, pacifist vs. militarist, mooselike vs. squidlike -- each on a new axis tilted by a degree or two from X, Y or Z. When you connect your scores on each of hundreds of axes, you'll wind up with a 3-dimensional blob, perhaps shaped like a sea urchin, more likely shaped like an Idaho potato. At last we'd have a graphical representation that takes a wide variety of issues into account! The blobs of fascists and communists might have similar bulges on one side and very different ones on another. People who generally degree might have similar blobs, but if you looked them over one may have a sharp spike where the other has a deep pit. It'd be neat. And it may not be fractal, but you have to admit "3-D fractal blob" sounds a lot cooler than just "3-D blob." - --CHRIS "Simon Hughes" THE CHRISTER ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #238 ********************************